King yao's book online

[CDSNUTSINYAMOUTH]

anyone get a copy of king yao's book online?
my friend sent it to me..haven't really looked at it..wonder how much of a difference it is from the print edition.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
anyone get a copy of king yao's book online?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but I am working on my own book - it's called "Weighing the Odds that King Yao Won't See This Thread and Tear you a New..." and that's all I've got so far; I'm still working on the title.

seriously, this book is so good, well worth the $25. I hope this isn't true or widespread.

[slavic]

Is the OP talking about hte whole book, or just the sample chapters Yao posted on his website?

[TheNoocH]

or maybe he's talking about hold'em brain that king yao posted on (i believe) rgp for feedback?

[Twitch1977]

It's gross that someone would even consider posting about stealing a book in a forum ran by a company that makes it's money off publishing.

All this thread is going to do is make people that otherwise may have purchased this book go out and try and steal it.

If it were up to me you'd be banned.

Love always,
Twitch

[greatwhite]

Maybe you shouldn't cheat King Yao out of book money. Seriously, how could anyone do that to a guy with a name like King Yao? Shame on you! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[benkahuna]

What's even worse it that King Yao is a regular contributor here and that he posts good content.

[amulet]

if you really obtained an authorized copy of the book that is theft. it is copy-wriiten material, and his work product. do you want people stealing your work product, or not paying you for whatever it is you do? books, movies, music, etc., all have creators. many creators have families. they work just like the rest of us. people think they are just downloading something some big company produces, in fact they are talking money from the creator (who usually is not a wealthy person). no matter what it is morally wrong, and illegal.

[benkahuna]

Good luck with your heavy-handed anti-piracy speech on the net, sir. All the stats show that you're likely to be very successful.

I'm not an advocate for breaking intellectual property law, but I am an advocate for accepting the nature of reality.

When you create a copyrighted work, you have to realize it is subject to duplication, especially now. The best you can do is take efforts to minimize unlawful duplication. Given a work with any popularity amongst scanner-using internet goers, it will find itself on the net.

One common definition of morality is what is accepted by the majority in a society. The majority of the society of internet goers have illegally traded copyrighted works so it's hard to make the case that such exchanges are immoral. They are clearly illegal.

The strongest part of your argument in terms of being effective is the focus of King Yao being a little guy. Some supporting data in that regard would be helpful and could actually help him. I think your heavy-handed, nearly apopleptic preaching probably will not.

[pastabatman]

[ QUOTE ]
One common definition of morality is what is accepted by the majority in a society. The majority of the society of internet goers have illegally traded copyrighted works so it's hard to make the case that such exchanges are immoral. They are clearly illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is absurd. Even if you accept that 'the majority steals on the internet' (I don't), that does not make it moral. The internet is not a society unto itself, so moral abstractions based upon that assumption are inherently flawed.

[ QUOTE ]
I think your heavy-handed, nearly apopleptic preaching probably will not.

[/ QUOTE ]
And neither will your pompous pontificating.

Pasta

[Schwartzy61]

[ QUOTE ]
anyone get a copy of king yao's book online?
my friend sent it to me..haven't really looked at it..wonder how much of a difference it is from the print edition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I got my copy online...

from Amazon.com

[amulet]

bek, i could address a lot of this. however, theft is wrong, and even you know that. you could simply agree, as opposed to your absurd "if most in society do it, it becomes right".

why not just agree that the stealing should stop. the application of that is a different matter, but would be helped by people not trying to justify such behavior.

[benkahuna]

All internet goers fits comfortably within the definition of a society. Look it up if unclear. I was as clear as possible with the operational definitions I was employing. You just chose to use your own rigid definitions. Check the stats on opinions about violations of copyrights on the net. While maybe only a sizeable portion have committed such acts, the majority condone it. Nothing I said implies that I believe that the internet extrapolates to society as a whole. I infer that was your own inference from my statement.

You're being irrational here. Given my definitions, my argument is perfectly reasonable. You just don't like my conclusion and/or presentation so you're taking unfair shortcuts to argue against it.

I was mainly trying to point out that some ranting post with misspellings is probably not the best approach to achieving what seems to be amulet's goal, to limit piracy of written works on the net.

I think to properly address the problem requires a realistic approach and understanding of the group of society contributing to the problem.

And if you're going to in any way affect the problem, it's best to focus on the motivation of those contributing to it rather than preaching to their antisocial asses. Antisocial personality types are known to not respond to authoritarian preaching and morality considerations.

I have not taken a position on copyright law violation here either, just in case someone mistakenly believes I have. And even if you think that you care how I feel about the issue, you probably don't.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

This is absurd. Even if you accept that 'the majority steals on the internet' (I don't), that does not make it moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're thinking of ethics.

[amulet]

benk,
your 2nd response is also pitiful. your discussing antisocial behavior, and while you may think that you are not be taking a position, you are supporting unethical, immoral, and illegal, behavior. additionally, i have no idea what you think the purpose of your post was, it appears that is was to support theft (because many people in our society break intellectual property laws).

fyi - as to my spelling; i fractured my skull when i was a teenager, and the only long tern effect was the inability to put letters (and words to some degree) in the proper order. since this site does not have spell check, you will have to put up with it. however, if you wish to comment on my spelling, please follow every post i make, i suspect it will give you pleasure.

[benkahuna]

You've gotta be kidding me. If you can't see how non-partisan my posts on this matter have been, I can't help you and it also becomes utterly pointless to discuss this matter with you. We obviously draw very different conclusions from written text.

You've committed a number of logical fallacies. You conclude that if a number of people do something, that I condone it. You also conclude that since I mention the motivation of a group, I condone their behavior. Both of these conclusions do not logically follow the available evidence.

I couldn't know about your skull (or impacts on language production centers of your brain), but since I now do (and assuming I can trust you), I have more context into which to put your post. Perhaps it wasn't the apopleptic rant that it came across as being. Regardless, your intent is not what is going to influence others. You have to consider their point of view.

I'm going to say something here because people are clearly confused. I believe that we live in an existence of action and response, not in inherent right and wrong. DO NOT confuse that with a lack of morality or loose ethics. I believe in a lot of things being right or wrong, but I am unwilling to act like there' some absolute good or bad.

And a little note about morality. I don't think something is right just because society does (that's what I define as morality--society's values). I define my ethics as what I consider right and wrong. I think many of our military actions for strategic, parapolitical reasons were completely wrong, despite widespread public support which would make it moral.

Defining something as moral doesn't mean that I support it or think it's wrong. I can think for myself. I actually don't appreciate the way the majority of people operate within the world. They're short-sighted, irresponsible, inconsiderate, selfish, unconscientious, and promote unhealthfulness, unsustainability, and senseless destruction.

We obviously think much differently and if you can get outside of your own thinking or the way you see the majority of people as thinking, perhaps you'll understand what you may or may not reasonably conclude from what I have said.

[amulet]

i still believe that your posts clearly condone said behavior. i think your reading them as you want others to, which is not how they appear to me. however, that may also be true for my reading of my own posts.

[benkahuna]

You're hopeless, especially since you think I "clearly" support piracy.

[amulet]

i think you are unable to really see what you wrote. i do not think you support it, but i think the way you wrote your first two posts indictated that you did.

i believe you are unable to see anything you do in an objective light.

[MyTurn2Raise]

Isn't there a politics forum?

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't there a politics forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is also a "Science, Math, and Philosophy" forum. While some of the above discussion addresses issues of primitive religion, none could be considered as rigorous and logical discussions of science, politics or philosophy.

[King Yao]

Thanks to all for the support. I'm not going to rant and rave because I don't think it would do any good. I just hope that most people will do the right thing. By the responses I have read on this forum, I believe that will happen.

As far as the drafts that I put up on my old webpage (which I took down almost a year ago) - I can not and do not stand behind any of them. They have gone through heavy changes. That includes many math corrections, sentence structures, and general idea presentation. That's why they are drafts, and not published as such. I also had a lot of criticsm that the drafts were tough to understand in some areas - a copy editor has corrected those erros.

I think it's clear that if you are interested in my book, buying an actual book has positive expectancy versus trying to weed out what is right or wrong, corrected or uncorrected, in the drafts.

Again, thanks for all the support from many posters here. I appreciate it!

[benkahuna]

I ordered your book today. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Should arrive in 4-9 days. I could have tried to find a pirated version, but I'm not a bastard like the original poster that wants your family to starve and die!

Just being melodramatic the second part. I really did order it.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the drafts that I put up on my old webpage (which I took down almost a year ago) - I can not and do not stand behind any of them. They have gone through heavy changes. That includes many math corrections, sentence structures, and general idea presentation. That's why they are drafts, and not published as such. I also had a lot of criticsm that the drafts were tough to understand in some areas - a copy editor has corrected those erros.


[/ QUOTE ]

King,

I read a good portion of the drafts last year when you posted them and in the form they were then in I could not have anticipated just how good your book would be. I think people are crazy not to go out and buy for $25 or less a book that will probably help them make thousands over the years. I would not want to rely on your outdated drafts that were previously posted.

[Easy E]

Fixing your post:
[ QUOTE ]
One common excuse for the redefinition of morality is what is accepted by the majority in a society. The majority of the society of internet goers have illegally traded copyrighted works so it's hard to make the case that such exchanges are immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think making the case is hard at all.

[CDSNUTSINYAMOUTH]

i checked back on my post and didn't realize i made quite a stir. I don't know if i actually have the real edition..I haven't even read it. It's "hold 'em brain" as someone pointed out....I assume that's the draft?

And for the stealing off the internet...for the people who claim it's wrong..do you download music, movies, even watching cable tv shows off the net? What 'bout using "bugmenot.com" to get into on online newspapers?

Don't be hypocritical. Someone sent it to me. Now that I have the copy, real or not, and if I enjoy it I will probably look into more of king yao's future works and keep up with what he says.

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]


And for the stealing off the internet...for the people who claim it's wrong..do you

[/ QUOTE ]

Yawn...that's deflection if not 'justification'.

[ QUOTE ]


Now that I have the copy, real or not, and if I enjoy it I will probably look into more of king yao's future works and keep up with what he says.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or...essentially 'steal' it off the internet if given the opportunity?

---Leavenfish

[CDSNUTSINYAMOUTH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


And for the stealing off the internet...for the people who claim it's wrong..do you

[/ QUOTE ]

Yawn...that's deflection if not 'justification'.

[ QUOTE ]


Now that I have the copy, real or not, and if I enjoy it I will probably look into more of king yao's future works and keep up with what he says.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or...essentially 'steal' it off the internet if given the opportunity?

---Leavenfish

[/ QUOTE ]

is everyone here up on their high horse? When did you guys become the moral authority? I'm not fuucking justifying my actions. I am questioning you guys for questioning me. If you guys download music, movies, etc., why the hell are you guys getting in my grill. And also:
1) I don't think it's the actual print edition...it's the draft so get out of my assshole
2) Get off your high horse..every two plus two f*ck needs to step down a couple of notches. If you guys are all goddamn saints, then stop playing poker and go be a priest you self-righteous f*cks.
3) If you guys already are priests, then stop molesting school boys and sucking King yao's diick.

Thank you.

[Aceshigh7]

I think it's ridiculous how everyone is ragging on you. Hold'em Brain was freely distributed. From reading your original post it was pretty clear (to me at least) that's what you had. Then all these people come on here and try to make this thread into an antipiracy diatribe. Pretty silly really. Alot of these people need to grow up and get a life.

[VoraciousReader]

[ QUOTE ]
is everyone here up on their high horse? When did you guys become the moral authority? I'm not fuucking justifying my actions. I am questioning you guys for questioning me. If you guys download music, movies, etc., why the hell are you guys getting in my grill. And also:
1) I don't think it's the actual print edition...it's the draft so get out of my assshole
2) Get off your high horse..every two plus two f*ck needs to step down a couple of notches. If you guys are all goddamn saints, then stop playing poker and go be a priest you self-righteous f*cks.
3) If you guys already are priests, then stop molesting school boys and sucking King yao's diick.

Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, I felt your original post was, if anything, just a bit misguided. I didn't read it as you had specifically tried to acquire copyrighted material illegally, but someone had forwarded you some excerpts of the material.

And this is coming from someone who feels fairly passionately about intellectual property. No, I do not download music I haven't purchased, illegally share software, download movies, etc. However, I was extending to you the benefit of the doubt.

However, the tone of this post, and the fact that you did not have the simple courtesy to respond to King Yao (who contributed to this thread) have changed my mind. If you really thought there was nothing wrong with what you were doing, you would be able to face the author of the work in question with a clear conscience. Or at least say to him "I have Holdem Brain...is that supposed to be freely available"?

Your cowardice betrays you. You lack the basic integrity to address the person whose work you have stolen. And, as others have pointed out, you talked about this on a website paid for by a publishinghouse. You used their bandwidth to defend actions threatening their livelihood. You should be banned.

[amulet]

i never download anything that i should have paid for, no, movies, no books, no music, etc., -- no stealing. i am far from a saint, but not a thief.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
You used their bandwidth to defend actions threatening their livelihood. You should be banned.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they should do a backcheck of everyone that advocated a non 2+2 book or 2+2 book idea and hinted at piracy and BAN THEM ALL TOO. They obviously contribute nothing to discussion.

Let's kick the sinners out of church too.

[Aceshigh7]

[ QUOTE ]
You lack the basic integrity to address the person whose work you have stolen.

[/ QUOTE ]

What work has he "stolen"? The file he has was FREELY distributed by the author. You're an idiot and it's obvious you haven't even really read through this thread. Read his original post again and tell me where he advocated downloading illegal material? He just assumed that "Holdem Brain" and "Weighing the Odds in Holdem Poker" were one and the same. Get off your high horse and buy yourself a clue.

[Leavenfish]

Every time 'Nuts' has opened his mouth, he has shown himself for what he is: a foul mouthed kid who turned his initial 'iffy' post into one where he would justify intellectual property theft and liken people to child molestors, etc. Sadly, the internet is too full of such people. Nuff said.

---Leavenfish

[CDSNUTSINYAMOUTH]

[ QUOTE ]
Every time 'Nuts' has opened his mouth, he has shown himself for what he is: a foul mouthed kid who turned his initial 'iffy' post into one where he would justify intellectual property theft and liken people to child molestors, etc. Sadly, the internet is too full of such people. Nuff said.

---Leavenfish

[/ QUOTE ]

Well all right everything on the side I have the Hold 'Em brain version which was the draft of King Yao's real book. If I saw the real book online, I would download it.
What are you going to do now? You going to subpoena you f*ck.

I won't be foul, but for some reason you moral authorities have to get into my grill. So why don't you take my arm and ram it up your [censored] and enjoy it.
Thank you.

[benkahuna]

As an aside, buying used books rather than new books also hurts the bottom line for authors and publishers. My neuroanatomy instructor (a renaissance man) said that because of used classical CD sales that it was almost the case that they might not be able to profitably make more classical CDs!

[Dale]

[ QUOTE ]
As an aside, buying used books rather than new books also hurts the bottom line for authors and publishers. My neuroanatomy instructor (a renaissance man) said that because of used classical CD sales that it was almost the case that they might not be able to profitably make more classical CDs!

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a red herring argument. Used books and CDs don't violate the one copy/one owner principle the way digital copies do.

[greatwhite]

I'm really coming around to this idea. I wish I could preview the insides ok books online. Then I would never have to browse through a book at the book store again. Of course if I liked the book, I would buy it. Unlike some people I'm not going to print a book out. I can't really read a book unless it's in book form. Too bad most people don't see it this way.

[benkahuna]

It would have been a red herring if I had presented it as an argument in favor of piracy, which I did not, hence my description of it as an aside.

I was just trying to make the point that if you really care about the well being of authors, you shouldn't buy their books used. It seemed a thought worth sharing just in case some people gave a damn about authors.

[ QUOTE ]
It would have been a red herring if I had presented it as an argument in favor of piracy, which I did not, hence my description of it as an aside.

I was just trying to make the point that if you really care about the well being of authors, you shouldn't buy their books used. It seemed a thought worth sharing just in case some people gave a damn about authors.

[/ QUOTE ]
What about the concept of free trade? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[benkahuna]

You mean like if King Yao sends me his book I wash his car and walk his dog?