If you feel strongly about it, there is also SBA's anti-piracy line.

Personally, I agree with merlyn on this one. Perl is free (thank you, St. Larry), yes, but those that market (and live off of) products, services, books, and other commercial after-market ventures can only survive if they receive fair rumuneration for their efforts. While I appreciate the fact that some software is expensive, I do not believe that software piracy should be ignored.

I understand MeowChow's point of view, however, I disagree with it. If you wish to enjoy the benefits of free software, then you should be able to support those that live by adding value to those products. O'Reilly has clearly added value to Perl; it is wise to help ensure they continue to do by making sure they get paid appropriately.

Finally, there is a very practical reason for alerting the University in question. Since the SBA levies fines up to $150,000 per work infringed, a clever lawyer could easily make infringement of the Bookshelf CD rather painful. (Given the major contributors of the SBA, it's reasonable to suspect they can afford (or borrow) good lawyers.) Also, the University in question may not appreciate the negative publicity.

--f

And the thing that no-one has mentioned is that someone can come to this website and receive the same advice he would find in one of these books, but for free.

Tricky isn't it? Forums and discussion groups have always been a hassle for people IRL (In Real Life). You get people posting the harsh truth about things, and you have experts here giving away advice for free that would literally cost hundreds of dollars if you walked into their office.

It's a different world on the web. People just impose their favourite philosophy on the issue, and declare that it's right. We've already had people accuse each other of working to bring police states into existance, others are apparently working to bring the country (America, of course) into chaos and anarchy. All this over some pirated words!

I may have been reading to much anarchist literature, but the idea of owning an idea, or even the expression of an idea strikes me as being absurd. It really seems to be "1,000 pennies for your thoughts". It gets to the point where you can't have a conversation about computers in the tea room because everyone's afraid of having their IP (Intellectual Property - their ideas) nicked. I don't have a better answer, so I'm not going to claim that my viewpoint is right, just different.

____________________
Jeremy
Fall in love with love itself.

(This must be this month's "hot topic" in the Perl world - this is the third place where I've seen the discussion)

IMO you did exactly the right thing by pointing it out to the school. You should probably inform O'Reilly as well.

This is, of course, a problem that publishers will have to deal with more and more as the trend for electronic versions of books grows. Manning are currently trying to shut down a person in Israel who will happily email a PDF copy of my book to anyone who asks for it.

Once you put anything into an electronic form the concept of theft becomes a bit vague. It's impossible, for example, to steal all the ebook copies of Data Munging with Perl. Some people seem to use that argument to imply that it's therefore not theft. I, and I hope most other book authors, would argue that by making electronic copies available then some people will be less likely to buy copies, thereby effectively stealing income from the publisher and the author.

A fundemental part of the free software world as envisaged by Richard Stallman was that the software should be free, but that people should be able to make a living from selling training, consultancy and books. If you take that away, then the free software movement starts to look a good deal less attractive.

"Perl makes the fun jobs fun
and the boring jobs bearable" - me

>In terms of intellectual property, it's my feeling that it's more important for a good idea to be used rather
>than who came up with it. Think of this: what happens if two drug companies both come up with
>an AIDS vaccine. What's more important: that the company that came up with it first gets to
>charge $19.95 or that it gets used at all? An extreme example, but a clear one.

Actually something similar happened, not regarding a vaccine, but regarding the identification
of the retrovirus that causes HIV. A US pharmacutical company patented some their findings
most of which had been copied from a french(?) research group, mainly to gain recognition for the
US group by claiming all that it was their research. "And the Band Played On" somewhat explored this
issue. "And the Band Played On" is a really good movie that HBO made some years back.
Anyway, your post reminded me of that.

After reading the thread several times, and debating with myself as to if I should post here, or not... I thought I'd try to give my opinion..

I am unfortunately, a fence sitter.. I agree with MeowChow, who said that informers and a culture where trust is undermined is not a good thing.. OTOH, I also recognize merlyn's point of view.. He expended effort to publish those books, and its only fair that he should be rewarded financially by their sale..

Some points that others may have missed:
Its quite possible that this particular student was not aware that his "private" intranet site was being indexed by the Googlebot. Its silly... but it does happen. I myself used to have my personal copy of the bookshelf running on a server, bound to my IP here. This guy may have not, so he's stupid.. it doesn't deserve a heavy handed action..

Its not going to be a popular opinion here, but now would be the time to mention that I remember all too well the time that I was a student. I lived in a country where the exchange rate effectively ruled out any sort of book from the US (heavens, some people who were working could not afford it). Our only recourse was the library. We photocopied sheets and excerpts from books. By the same token, is this wrong ? I don't know.. All I know is that I did do it, and when I got enough money to buy a reference, I did so..others may have not..

One final thing is that this sort of behaviour is not limited to just books, but to lots of other stuff (mp3s, movies, software cracks)... can we really afford to, or should we even have to blow the whistle on each and everyone we find ?

With all that being said, as jepri suggests, I would also probably send off an email to the person hosting the site, and point out the violation of copyright... beyond that, I don't think I'll really take any sort of action...

my <$0.02

My answer to the original question would be:
1) email the person directly
2) if no action, email O'Reilly
3) Go on about my business

I do empathize with MeowChow's reply. If I had the same experiences as he had, I might feel the same way. I have worked with bullies and informers, and I have no desire to become the full-time IP police. I need to take care of my own house first. But when I can, I will help my friends and neighbors, and I think this is an appropriate way to do that.

By using the "cracked" copy of the software, he is indeed stealing from the author, but on the other hand, the actual physical copy of the data cost the developer nothing.

If he cannot realisticly afford the software, then he is not a potential customer you could argue. If you agree with this then you could argue that his illegal use of the software in no way is harming the developer. This is a rather contrived example and not neccassarily the view I subscribe to.

All well and good, and in fact, the author of the software may choose to make "educational" or "evaluation" copies available. And many do.

But in this country, as in most capitalist countries, that's the right of the author to say yea or nay to. It's not your right as a consumer to make that choice for them, regardless of the altruistic motives. Really, it's not. And I don't see what's so hard to see about that.

I create it. I choose the options. Luckily for us, Larry chose "open source" for Perl. But that's his right, as is the right for Microsoft to chose "closed source" for Excel. Give people the choice, and give them incentive, and more things will go open source. But mandate it, and you will kill the creative market.

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker

Hi Randal,
I agree, stealing is stealing. If you don't want to pay for it, don't use it.

I just think it brings up some interesting issues.

In all honesty, when I started getting serious about programming, I was a kid. I used cracked copies of software and when things started actually working out, (ie I turned a buck), I "legitimized" all my software. At the time I couldn't afford it and it was exactly how I justified it. Hell, my development machine, a Pantera Pentium 66 (Step 0) set me back $5,000 and that pretty much ate up my $5.50 an hour (How times change!).

-Lee

"To be civilized is to deny one's nature."

Right.

So make up your mind. Do you want to make more money off of it or not?

I'll assume you do. Then you *should* let people have copies for free. No publisher has *ever* lost sales by giving away books. Take a look at the Baen Free Library (www.baen.com/library). Eric Flint states that he's sold 4 or 5 times as many copies as he's 'lost' through having the books available online.

When I was a high school kid, I heard about this new gaming system called 'GURPS'. It sounded interesting -- but I was dead broke. There was no way I could afford the $20 for a copy.

So I borrowed it and made a copy. Shock. Horror. I was stealing from the company who produced it!

In the past 10 years, I've purchased 4 copies of that book (one in hardcover), 8 other books in that system, and 3 books in another system by the same publisher. I've also got a subscription to their online magazine (one of the few that I know of which actually makes a *profit*).

None of this would have happened had I not copied that first book -- because I've almost always been the one to introduce the game to my friends, including my wife. The single exception was a gaming group *that I sought out* because they played GURPS. Wouldn't have done that if I hadn't already liked GURPS.

Now, don't get me wrong -- certainly you still have the right to object. I just object to the idea that it's costing you or any other author money. It's not.

It's giving you money by increasing sales.

Shalon Wood

There is, to me, a difference between using cracked software, like the kid in your example, because you can't afford it, and providing the same software to other people.
The actual copy the kid downloaded doesn't cost the author much, true. But if the kid goes on and offers this copy on his server to other people - for free - , then the stealing of software may increase to an amount where it could actually financially hurt the author.

The student at that university may indeed not be aware that he's opening his BookshelfCD to the public. So maybe an e-mail to the student first would have been nicer. But then, as has been pointed out, if it is indeed software piracy (done consciously I mean) the university might face charges, too, so OTOH they are probably happy enough to know about it.

Honestly, I'm not sure what I would've done...


-cs

-----------------------------
Go gcuire Dia an t-ádh ort!

There's definitely a difference. I don't know what I would have done. I think probably email the student.

-Lee

"To be civilized is to deny one's nature."

I think the author/publisher should recognise this, and treat the kid and the pro as different customer bases. Professionals can spend thousands, but the bright kid playing with it should be able to legally get it at an affordable price, so the publisher will seed their future professional user base and encourage a bright kid to learn their tools. Yea, that's how it should be, but it's up to the publisher, not the user, to make this policy. I wish publishers would do that more.

Should be that way but it's not. The real problem with IP theft is the majority of people stealing it are people who could afford it.



-Lee

"To be civilized is to deny one's nature."

Morals and law often don´t mix.

I morally support the kid that downloads software X because he/she can´t afford it (and uses it only for personal knowledge gaining), but "stealing" software is a crime.

Here´s a definition problem as well: What is stealing?
If someone steals my VCR, my VCR is not longer in my possesion but if someone steals my software he/she gets a copy but I still have it.
Is all copying stealing unless the software etc is realease under, say, the GPL?
(Yes i´m oversimplifying, but you get the point).

Supporting the community
I run GNU/Linux (SuSE 7.2 even) and Perl is installed as default, it also comes with great Perl documentation. It even includes a whole damn book (Thank you).
Even though I probably didn´t need any more docs (got the default stuff and joined Perlmonks) I bought Programming Perl (O´Reilly). Why? To support the community.
I think this is one important lesson to be learned: Even if most software/docs is free when it comes to GNU/Linux people need money. So instead of stealing docs or software, buy it, because the long run I think the GNU/Linux (and Perl and ...) will flurish even more.

Definitely should support the community. I think it's unrealistic to expect to take without giving anything and still get something of value. I own just about every Perl 0RA book there is and the CDs. Some of the best money I've ever spent. Outside of utter poverty, I don't understand why so many monks appear to not to have some version of the Perl Cookbook. Money very well spent.

I think another big factor with theft of Music (Especially), Movies, Software and etc is that many people view it as getting ripped off.

Music labels could probably sell CD's at $7 US retail and still make ton's of money. A kid can make one for 60 cents. I know there's marketing and failed bands but they still make tons upon tons of money.

On the other hand, they try their hardest to create an intense compulsive urge to buy their products (or your not cool.) in youth who have a limited amount of cash to drop on consumables. Sounds like they're sleeping in the beds they made.

I think the megaconglomerates charging slightly more fair prices would do a lot to alleviate some of the problems.

-Lee

"To be civilized is to deny one's nature."

• Perl is free. What do you mean by "the perl cd"?
• I emmigrated at an early age from a country (Russia) with a deep and ubiquitous network of "informers". It's my personal belief that informing, snitching, or otherwise sticking your nose into places where it has no business in order to satisfy one's self-righteousness, to stir things up, or for one's own benefit, is among the most base and cowardly of human acts. Just my opinion.
• Let the owners of intellectual property do their own damn enforcement and police-work.

   MeowChow                                   
               s aamecha.s a..a\u$&owag.print

Perl is free, but the Perl Bookshelf CD is not.

I would appreciate it very much if you protect my right to make a living by reporting every occurance you see of this CD on the net. I worked far too many long hours on these books for you to encourage their piracy. You offend me with your comments. Yes, you just "hit a nerve" with me too.

I empower you to act as my agent in hunting these down. There, you've been deputized. Please help.

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker

This raises another interesting question: I was able to find a site that had The Perl CD Bookshelf available online through Google, and Google has at least partially cached the books. I was able to find the full text of more than one chapter.

So, even if the site goes down, Google will still have the cached version available. You would think that they would have gotten in trouble for this by now.

On a related note, I was able to browse MathWorld after the site was (forcibly) taken down by CRC Press, but before the Google cache disappeared.

After reading through this discussion, I realized that my office had been linking to a copy of Programming Perl in our Web Training Center. I have removed the link, and would like to apologize to merlyn for using it.

Arashi

I'm sure Edison turned himself a lot of colors before he invented the lightbulb. - H.S.

UPDATE: markwild has a valid point, I believed that merlyn would be interested in getting the link so he could work to get it taken offline. If he doesn't have it yet, he can message me for it.

It's my personal belief that informing, snitching, or otherwise sticking your nose into places where it has no business in order to satisfy one's self-righteousness, to stir things up, or for one's own benefit, is among the most base and cowardly of human acts. Just my opinion.

Define "places where it has no business", and we can talk. Is Google such a place? Is this such a place? Is sidewalk in front of your house when you're not there and somebody's breaking into your apartment such a place?

Along those lines...

Let the owners of intellectual property do their own damn enforcement and police-work.

and let the owners of stereos and CDs and TVs stolen out of ground floor apartments while the upstairs neighbors watch do it too?

I don't dismiss the way this mis-hits your nerves, but I think you're drawing too broad a conclusion. The practice of giving information to the police on suspected law-breaking is not the problem, here or in the old U.S.S.R.: rather, unjust laws there, and arguably here (a can of worms I'll try to stay away from) should be your target.

I am certainly not a lawyer, but I seem to recall that it is commonly held to be a responsability of all citizens to report crimes that they see: under current law (though you are on record as disagreeing with it), posting somebody else's work on the internet without permission is very distinctly illegal.




---

If God had meant us to fly, he would *never* have give us the railroads.
    --Michael Flanders

Define "places where it has no business"

I suspect you already know what I mean by this. If it doesn't affect you, it's not your business.

The practice of giving information to the police on suspected law-breaking is not the problem, here or in the old U.S.S.R.: rather, unjust laws there, and arguably here (a can of worms I'll try to stay away from) should be your target.

This is a very lucid observation. As I've already replied to buckaduck, it really comes down to one's own value system. I feel that one should not inform on people to "authorities" unless another party has been seriously hurt or victimized by a crime. I don't really consider this to be such a case, mostly because I disagree with the law in question.

   MeowChow                                   
               s aamecha.s a..a\u$&owag.print

informing, snitching, or otherwise sticking your nose into places where it has no business in order to satisfy one's self-righteousness, to stir things up, or for one's own benefit, is among the most base and cowardly of human acts.

I must say that I fundamentally disagree. Such an attitude only leads to a total lack of accountability among all affected parties. It leads to mentalities of, "I'll let you get away with your stuff if you let me get away with mine," which in turn makes everyone else distrustful. The end result is that no one trusts anyone, and without trust, no progress can be made. (Would I buy a car if I knew everyone else would look the other way as it was stolen from me?) It is this mentality that causes total industrial, civic, aggricultural, and political stagnation.

You said you were from the former Soviet Union, correct?... I can't think of a more fitting word for the Soviet experience than "stagnant".

When you go out of your way to ensure implicit agreements are upheld, the offending person won't trust you, but everyone else in the world will. This trust is the foundation of society. I for one would rather have a someone do the right thing for self-righteous reasons than the wrong thing for self-serving reasons. At least I can trust the one self-righteous actions, if not motives.

By the way, this concept of "Mutual Trust" being the foundation for societies is not just some half-baked idea. It's actually the foundation of economics. Money is nothing but the embodiment of a favor. When I want something done, I trade my "favors" (money) for what I want. Whoever gets my money can then trade their money for whatever favor they want. This whole system crumbles when no one can trust anyone else to redeem their favor. Ever wonder why Russia's economy has *never* been strong? The whole national mentality is one of mistrust. Most Russian families horde their life savings in American dollars because people at least trust the American government to stand behind their "favors".

Sorry for getting a little offtopic.

-Ted

I must say that I fundamentally disagree. Such an attitude only leads to a total lack of accountability among all affected parties. It leads to mentalities of, "I'll let you get away with your stuff if you let me get away with mine," which in turn makes everyone else distrustful.

So, by extension, you think that an Orwellian society in which people are willing to turn in their neighbors, friends, and family, is a more "trusting" society?

The end result is that no one trusts anyone, and without trust, no progress can be made. (Would I buy a car if I knew everyone else would look the other way as it was stolen from me?) It is this mentality that causes total industrial, civic, aggricultural, and political stagnation.

I believe that you're living in a different America from the one I'm living in. In the America in which I live, business always distrust other businesses, businesses frequently distrust consumers and vice-versa, and everybody distrusts the goverment (or at least the half they disagree with). Nevertheless, progress (as it's generally defined) marches forward.

Which is not to say that trust doesn't exist in this country, but that trust is either earned, or it takes the form of a nice lengthy contract; it's not implied, and certainly not between strangers. What you have been referring to as trust is actually something else, namely apathy, complacency, and gullibility.

By the way, this concept of "Mutual Trust" being the foundation for societies is not just some half-baked idea. It's actually the foundation of economics. Money is nothing but the embodiment of a favor. When I want something done, I trade my "favors" (money) for what I want. Whoever gets my money can then trade their money for whatever favor they want.

Ask the man on the street whether he thinks money is an embodiment of his trust in society. You'll be lucky to receive a blank stare. People use money, because, well because it works. People don't actually think about it on a macroeconomic or philosophical level, so to say that money manifests trust is somewhat misguided. If anything, money is a convenient shared myth.

Ever wonder why Russia's economy has *never* been strong? The whole national mentality is one of mistrust.

Russia's failure to sustain a viable economy is a terribly overused rhetorical device to prove anything and everything, and it's a lousy argument. Russia also succeeded in educating their children in the mathematics and sciences to levels that we wouldn't dare imagine for our own schools. Does this prove that a good technical education also leads to a decaying economy? Be weary of generalizing the causes of a complex phenomenon, such as the weakness of a nation's economy.

Nonetheless, you are absolutely right in saying that the national mentality is one of mistrust. This only proves my point. There was no trust because, among other things, anyone might be an informer on your life, your activities, your beliefs, even your sexual orientation.

So no, I don't think that a society of people willing to inform on petty crimes creates an environment of trust. Quite the contrary, in fact.

   MeowChow                                   
               s aamecha.s a..a\u$&owag.print

Since you've clarified via the Chatterbox that you don't care whether this is copyrighted work or not...

I have to wonder whether you'd feel differently if I saw a burglar carrying all of your possessions out of your house. Should I keep quiet, or do I have a civic duty to call the police?

This situation really isn't all that different. Theft is theft, regardless of whether it's done physically or via the internet.

buckaduck

If you saw someone light up a joint, would you feel it your civic duty to inform on them? I suppose it all comes down to your ethical beliefs. As for myself, I draw the line of "informing" well beyond copyright infringement.

   MeowChow                                   
               s aamecha.s a..a\u$&owag.print

Yes, this discussion did hit a nerve.

Although I also recently emigrated, and also from former Eastern Block country - From Slovakia (former Czechoslovakia), I do NOT agree with MeowChow. Just the opposite. Widespread neglect to rights of others (intelectual property, and also civic right) was one of the reasons why I decided to leave country where I grow up. It was not easy to leave in 40, basically throwing away all contacts what I build there, and my small software company with surviving product.

MeowChow protects student's "freedom" to steal CD. Student knows, or should know s/he is stealing. Book is expensive? What about car: woull be MeowChow like student who cannot afford own car drove Meows', while Meow is working and does not need it? Or take a shower in his appartment and then watch TV? Why not?

When I was running my small company in Slovakia, I bought tools of craft needed: PC, FoxBase and Borland C++. Price of software is very high compared with salary, it hurt a lot, and I confess I did my development on "stolen" copy of FoxBase and paid for it only after I first or second sale. Many other small software developers used only stoled software, but I bought it, because I believe it was fair.

I wrote this to assure you that even in Eastern block there are many developers who are not comfortable with stealing software. For them, Open Source is a godsend. Let's help it grow, and let's do everything to protect this spirit.

One of the reasons why tyrant as Stalin was possible in Russia was that people were afraid to protect rights of other citizens. "Better do it to him than me".

Sorry about long comment mostly repeating what other said, but I just cannot bear than you fellow monks might think that all programmers from Eastern Block are thieves. They are not, and after they come here they are as sensitive to fair play as americans are. I assure you, best of them do pay for tools they use and also expect to be paid fair.

pmas

Methinks he means The Perl CD Bookshelf.

I'm a fence sitter on this one as well... Perhaps because it is so similiar to the IP battles that the music industry is currently going through. I certainly wouldn't give up my copy of the Cookbook even if the entire contents was available online for free. Perhaps it would even encourage more people to buy the book (cause it is a damn good book!!!)

It's hard to compare O'Reilly with the IP Warlords of the music industry, so perhaps that isn't really fair. I suppose its immaterial either way. O'Reilly doesn't want you to do it, and it was their dime (and authors' sweat) that made the book a reality. If they discourage that type of usage, who am I to disagree.

-Blake

xoxo,
Andy

%_=split/;/,".;;n;u;e;ot;t;her;c; ".   #   Andy Lester
'Perl ;@; a;a;j;m;er;y;t;p;n;d;s;o;'.  #   http://petdance.com
"hack";print map delete$_{$_},split//,q<   andy@petdance.com   >

I don't think you really get it.

Randal (and his co-authors ;--) did a great job with "Learning Perl". Since he wrote it he has been on the road teaching Perl. Overall he has done more for the promotion of Perl than anybody but Larry and Tim O'Reilly.

What have you (and the people who put the Perl CD online) done for us?

It's not like you need the books by the way, did you notice that Perl comes with a huge amount of documentation? Did you have a look at the huge amount of information that you can get on the web, including Randal's Web Technique columns? So the books are nice, I have a whole bunch of them, but you can certainly learn Perl without them (how do you think Randal learned it by the way?)

Plus I thought I had spotted a couple of posts by merlyn around here, so it is not like he doesn't volonteer his time and skills for free here.

I don't think we can put O'Reilly, which put quite a lot of hard work into the development of Perl, and record companies, which are mostly concerned with marketing and money. You just have to compare the rate of royalties in both cases to see the difference.

One last question: what have you done for merlyn? While you were enjoying reading for free books he spent a good deal of time and energy writing, Randal was busy being the defendant in a pretty nasty lawsuit, then spent his life on the road to pay the legal bills. Did I hear you do anything to help him? Oh, sorry, you were busy being disgusted by him asking for a compensation (update: sounds better than the original retribution ;--) for his work...

So pleeeze, stop thinking that Open Source means that you can still people's hard work. The day merlyn stops writing books we will all be poorer.

Another student's view:

I agree that being a student is tough with lack of $$ and all. School is expensive, text books are expensive ... everything is expensive ... but I don't think that you can just steal people's hard work becuase you are a student.

Most extra resources are created as additions. They are not manditory for you to learn or use whatever you are trying to do. There are man pages, documentation, etc. that is available for free provided with whatever you are trying to learn.

Actually, students maynot have to steal, there is a lot of free resources for students that others may not have access to. These include:

The Library: Most schools have one of these, and you can find all types of books here ... for free. If I can't afford a certain book, I go here first. Some of the stuff is out of date, but you can usually find some of what you need here.

Profs: Go see a Comp Sci or Engineering prof and see if they have resources that you can borrow. There are certain licences that allow students to have access to s/w and other sorts. Ex: I needed a specific Java IDE for a Java course. The reatil package was too expensive for me at the time, but my deptment had a special licence that let the students have a copy of the IDE for free (the school paid the licence). It was not the full/pro version but it had more than what we needed. Plus, companies want people to use their products and who better to taget.

The Internet: There is tones of free tutorials, online communities (i.e.: Perlmonks), IRC channels, etc. Form what I have seen, every student has an Internet account and access to a computer, so let's do more than just surfing for Britney Spears' pics ... (nothing wrong with that, she is cute !!) ... and surf for resources and learning material. Search school web sites for courses, this usually generates a plethera of usefull, relaible info.

However, as a student I can see your point. I am not trying to prove you wrong or diss your point. There has been many, many times when I needed some s/w, a manual, a text book, etc. and it is way too expensive (i.e.: $100 for a 8086, out of print, "manditory" Assembly reference book ... which I no longer need). Sometimes you just have to look in other places for the info that you need.

Ducati ~~ Still a po' student ... but getting there.

============================================

"We rock the body to rock the party ... until the party rocks the body"

De La Soul

So, what would you as a student do if the CD didn't exist ?

Would you photocopy one of the books ?

If you personally can't afford the book/CD, you should persuade whatever institution you study at to purchase it for their library and then borrow it from the library for the time that you need it like any other book.

Just because it is easy to make the CD available on a web site doesn't make it any less of an offence than copying the pages of a book.

Would you consider it OK for me scan in "Learning Perl" (or any other book) and make that available on a web site ? - it is just the same IMHO.
--
Brovnik