View Full Version : Barnes and Noble and the Darknet


TGS
04-20-2010, 07:34 AM
Sometimes, when my moral fibre is weak and I'm edging towards complete degeneracy, I skirt the edge of the Darknet. Well, today was just such a time, so I found myself on one of those file sharing search engine sites that we don't mention because we'll frighten the children, and what do you think I found there? On the welcome page a nice Flash banner ad for Barnes and Noble Nook - the clicking of which took me straight to here (http://www.barnesandnoble.com/nook/index.asp).

So it seems that they are quite willing to sell you a device on which you can read your ill-gotten ebooks, and advertise it in a place where you might go to get such ill-gotten ebooks, whilst at the same time being hysterical about the prospect of anybody actually daring to get such ebooks.

Talk about double standards!

abo.saud
04-20-2010, 07:50 AM
will, I think they think you might buy a nook and start reading legal book
from their e-books store.
they look for profit so they put there ads in any site deal with e-books and have a lot
of visitor

HansTWN
04-20-2010, 07:59 AM
They probably want to show how easy it can be to buy books legally. Isn't that one of the pirates' most frequently used arguments "it is such a hassle to buy legal ebooks"?

mr ploppy
04-20-2010, 08:45 AM
I bought an ebook from Barnes & Noble last month, I had to get a friend in America to pay for it then email me the book. I would class that as a hassle.

Steven Lake
04-20-2010, 08:52 AM
Yeah, I'm thinking that too. This might be more of an effort to make you a legal, paying customer rather than a illegal file sharer. There's also the potential that they're just using a context sensitive advertising system which just happened to pull this up from their database. I've seen that before.

HansTWN
04-20-2010, 08:58 AM
I bought an ebook from Barnes & Noble last month, I had to get a friend in America to pay for it then email me the book. I would class that as a hassle.

Can't blame B&N for problems under international law and contractual obligations to the publishers. But you can easily buy from B&N or others even from abroad, if you have need help, PM me.

TGS
04-20-2010, 09:12 AM
This might be more of an effort to make you a legal, paying customer* rather than a illegal file sharer. There's also the potential that they're just using a context sensitive advertising system which just happened to pull this up from their database. I've seen that before.
That might be right, I was really just pointing to the irony that if this is such a dark and evil place of wrongdoing, why would they want to be associated with it. I does make me think that, despite the hullabaloo about "piracy" there might be some sense in which publishers welcome it, or at least see it as not unambiguously bad. Now they couldn't ever say that of course - "come steal my stuff, and sod the mugs who pay for it", but there may be a way in which a certain amount of "piracy" is, or will be, good for business.


*Which I am, your honour, (most of the time at least) - though not usually of B&N!

HansTWN
04-20-2010, 09:29 AM
Well, just like the FBI recruited some check forgers to catch other forgers later. Book sellers are not stupid (perhaps a few publishers are, though), you can't stop piracy completely. Why not try to win people over?

Rich_D
04-20-2010, 09:52 AM
Can't blame B&N for problems under international law and contractual obligations to the publishers. But you can easily buy from B&N or others even from abroad, if you have need help, PM me.

I find it beautifully ironic that international nook users have to choose between violating international copyright laws to purchase a book or downloading pirated copies.

:smack:

jmaloney
04-20-2010, 09:57 AM
I doubt B&N specifically chose to put their ad there. They've likely paid into an advertising system that auto generates relevant ads based on the content of the site, and the site you were on uses that service. I would not in any way take that as B&N approving of the site on which you saw the ad.

HansTWN
04-20-2010, 10:00 AM
I find it beautifully ironic that international nook users have to choose between violating international copyright laws to purchase a book or downloading pirated copies.

:smack:

Not really, if you download from the US seller while being abroad you may only violate your country's tax laws. Theoretically you should declare the purchase, though nobody will care because of the minimal value. Any responsibility in the US is the seller's only. So I do it freely, because the local government doesn't tax pbooks I have sent by mail either.

It is just that the development of the internet has outstripped legal agreements and contracts between publishers and sellers. Now it is possible to buy goods in another country from your computer without ever going there :thumbsup:

HorridRedDog
04-20-2010, 10:20 AM
What I have looked at has been "out of print" books (darknet ebook versions if you will).

And while the proofreading quality of ebooks is poor, the quality of "out of print" ebooks is non existent.

If current darknet ebooks are of the same quality as "out of print" darknet ebooks then perhaps B&N doesn't mind you looking for darknet ebooks.

Kypt
04-20-2010, 10:56 AM
Since I got the nook I'm pretty much paying for my books now unless I can't find them. There are several books that I've been wanting to buy but there is just no where I can get them from so I download if possible. If, however, it's not available on the darknet either, I cry a little inside.

Steven Lake
04-20-2010, 12:56 PM
TGS, yeah totally agree and point taken. My biggest gripe though with the idiots in the big companies who complain about piracy is that they call it piracy, which is by definition the wrong term all together.

Piracy = Stealing something to make a profit.
File Sharing = Sharing something for free with no intent to make a profit

But, of course, piracy sounds more evil, so that's why they use it all the time.

Kali Yuga
04-20-2010, 01:44 PM
I doubt B&N specifically chose to put their ad there. They've likely paid into an advertising system that auto generates relevant ads based on the content of the site, and the site you were on uses that service. I would not in any way take that as B&N approving of the site on which you saw the ad.
+1

It is ironic, but almost certainly unintentional.

WillAdams
04-20-2010, 01:56 PM
File Sharing (of copyright materials w/o permission) = providing someone else's work, to a person who isn't paying for it, w/o the possibility of recompense to the owner of the copyright

If a person wants to give away their own work, fine, but they shouldn't allow themselves to use technology to take that decision away from others.

William

HorridRedDog
04-20-2010, 03:46 PM
File Sharing (of copyright materials w/o permission) = providing someone else's work, to a person who isn't paying for it, w/o the possibility of recompense to the owner of the copyright

If a person wants to give away their own work, fine, but they shouldn't allow themselves to use technology to take that decision away from others.

William

In the event that the author or their inheritors are living, I agree that it is theft of income and do not do it.

A book like "Gone with the Wind" (1936) written by Margaret Munnerlyn Mitchell (November 8, 1900 August 16, 1949) and still in publication, I also agree - theft of income.

But if there is a book that has not been published in the last 20-30 years. NO, I would now convict anyone of theft in those conditions.

I have had the misfortune of meeting a few (VERY few thankfully) that honestly believe that a person, no mater how old or young, shall go to hell for knowingly stealing anything, even a paperclip. NO forgiveness - HELL.

If I'm wrong then I'm going to hell. It's too late now for me to return those little office thingies that went home in my pocket, pens, thumb tacks, etc.

So I STRONGLY disagree with you that it is ALWAYS wrong.

You may say "So what, Im' still right". :angry:

To which I say "Naa, naa, na naaaa naaaaa, the books downloaded were so bad that I deleted them anyway". :D

And that was my earlier point. If you go looking for "out of print" ebooks on the web you will not offend B&N. It will make their books look better, typos and all.

Heck, if I were to "steal" an ebook it would be "Under the Eagle (http://ebooks.whsmith.co.uk/27FCE51F-DD3B-499D-90E5-3551F0DC15B9/10/132/en/ContentDetails.htm?ID=93E9CBA0-0D9B-4131-84F0-0D7B9471C4DF)" by Simon Scarrow. It is only available over seas. If I could buy it I would. But I will not download it for free.

That's just me. I'll condemn no one else.

mr ploppy
04-20-2010, 06:06 PM
File Sharing (of copyright materials w/o permission) = providing someone else's work, to a person who isn't paying for it, w/o the possibility of recompense to the owner of the copyright


Not true at all. If it is downloaded there is the possibility of future sales, assuming the product is good enough. Whereas if it is not downloaded there is no possibility of a sale.

Shaggy
04-21-2010, 09:42 AM
File Sharing (of copyright materials w/o permission) = providing someone else's work, to a person who isn't paying for it, w/o the possibility of recompense to the owner of the copyright

Whether or not payment is involved has nothing to do with whether or not it's copyright infringement.

Shaggy
04-21-2010, 09:44 AM
In the event that the author or their inheritors are living, I agree that it is theft of income and do not do it.


There's no such thing as "theft of income". If you are shopping for a pBook but decide not to buy it, is that theft of income too? There is no right that guarantees income.

The loss of a potential sale is very different from "theft of income".

bgalbrecht
04-21-2010, 10:09 AM
A book like "Gone with the Wind" (1936) written by Margaret Munnerlyn Mitchell (November 8, 1900 August 16, 1949) and still in publication, I also agree - theft of income.

In Australia and Canada, Gone with the Wind is PD, and one can download it from PG Australia for free. In fact, Mitchell's heirs sued PG Australia and lost. Here in the US, under the laws in place when she wrote it, it should have been in the PD in 1984, but because of the two copyright extensions, this book won't be PD until 2031, assuming Disney and other corporate IP holders don't again lobby Congress into extending copyright for another lifetime or two. It may be theft of income to you and Mitchell's heirs, but I'm not going to be outraged by someone in the US illegally downloading it from PG Australia.

HorridRedDog
04-21-2010, 03:28 PM
There's no such thing as "theft of income". If you are shopping for a pBook but decide not to buy it, is that theft of income too? There is no right that guarantees income.

The loss of a potential sale is very different from "theft of income".

I did not mean to have you think that I was an incompetent lawyer. I am not a lawyer, and do not make sweeping statements about what is law.

But when I Google "theft of income" law, I get 643 listings. Maybe not a lot by Googles standards but enough to show that the term is not unknown.

In fact it may be entirely inaccurately used be me and many others. As in "All About Copyrights (http://equitog.com/handbells/faq/faqcopyright.htm)"

"On the ethical question, the artist is entitled to receive income from the sale of the product. Pirating by making copies of existing music, or making arrangements or other alterations to the music and text, results in the loss of sales and theft of income to the publisher and the artist."

Or the SAA (http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/infringements-obstacles).

"Without a more concerted, diligent effort, infringements will continue to create unrecoverable theft of income for both."

"North Dakota Department of Health
Division of Health Facilities" (http://www.ndhealth.gov/hf/pubs/LTCCommitteeMinutes/LTC%20Minutes%202007-08-16.pdf)

"Financial abuse fits into one of two general categories – theft of income or theft of assets."

"Prepared Remarks of Acting Deputy Attorney General Craig Morford (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/prepared-remarks-of-acting-deputy-attorney-general-craig-morford-at-the-us-chamber-of-commerce-anti-counterfeiting-and-piracy-summit-58416567.html)"

"This was theft not only of the services of the provider, but also the
intellectual property of the original producers of movies, sporting events,
and other programs. And it was theft of income from ...."

OLX (http://washingtondc.olx.com/wanted-attorney-iid-4194381) Job search -Wanted Attorney — Washington DC

"Wanted attorney for littigation , involving an estate ( class) . Oil Producing real estate (apparent seizure of control ,theft of income by fraudulent means ) . Assault with injury by hotel employees (multinational luxury chain ) trisodium phosphate , tripotassium phosphate in cereal (detergent / industrial cleaner )"

I am not a lawyer, AND NO NOT WANT TO BE.

Lay (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lay) people (Adj. (DEF 2): Not of or from a profession) will say that so or so murdered someone. Legally that may be wrong because the law breaks it down to murder in the degree.

"If you are shopping for a pBook but decide not to buy it, is that theft of income too?"

Sophism.

If you [B]will acquire something by simply taking it, then yes.

If you wish to be pedantic (http://www.yourdictionary.com/pedantic) about common usage of words on this site all I can do is to place you on my "ignore list".

HorridRedDog
04-21-2010, 03:41 PM
In Australia and Canada....

It may be theft of income to you and Mitchell's heirs, but I'm not going to be outraged by someone in the US illegally downloading it from PG Australia.

I wouldn't buy it, or download it (free). I liked the movie, but wouldn't read the book.

Personally I think that the copyright should last for 20 to 40 years. If I was a REAL big author I would probably say a 1,000 years. :D

calvin-c
04-21-2010, 07:26 PM
There's no such thing as "theft of income".
Sure there is-but it's not what we're talking about here. (Theft of income would be somebody stealing my paycheck.)

An interesting analogy (to what we're actually talking about) is 'theft of service'. That is legally defined although, from what I've read, the definition doesn't quite fit copyright infringement-but it's the closest 'theft' definition I can think of.

calvin-c
04-21-2010, 07:29 PM
I doubt B&N specifically chose to put their ad there. They've likely paid into an advertising system that auto generates relevant ads based on the content of the site, and the site you were on uses that service. I would not in any way take that as B&N approving of the site on which you saw the ad.
Assuming B&N disapproves of the site, the presence of their ad on it *does* indicate a lack of oversight on their part of what's being done in their name. Or maybe it's a lack of foresight, e.g. the contract failed to give them any veto power.

HorridRedDog
04-21-2010, 09:47 PM
I doubt B&N specifically chose to put their ad there. ....

I have to agree. I've seen, and heard, badly placed ads before.

I just can see B&N giving an ad agency a fist full of money and saying "Put our ads where the most interest is." OK. :D

Blue Tyson
04-21-2010, 10:12 PM
In Australia and Canada, Gone with the Wind is PD, and one can download it from PG Australia for free. In fact, Mitchell's heirs sued PG Australia and lost. Here in the US, under the laws in place when she wrote it, it should have been in the PD in 1984, but because of the two copyright extensions, this book won't be PD until 2031, assuming Disney and other corporate IP holders don't again lobby Congress into extending copyright for another lifetime or two. It may be theft of income to you and Mitchell's heirs, but I'm not going to be outraged by someone in the US illegally downloading it from PG Australia.

There was no suit. It was correspondence more like - 'That's what you think? That's nice. Would you like to provide some legal evidence of this under Australian law (note, not American, for you really slow lawyers'.

Then they of course went away, given that the request for evidence is impossible to do.

HorridRedDog
04-21-2010, 10:37 PM
There was no suit. It was correspondence more like - 'That's what you think? That's nice. Would you like to provide some legal evidence of this under Australian law (note, not American, for you really slow lawyers'.

Then they of course went away, given that the request for evidence is impossible to do.

Is this a carryover from another thread?

I feel like I've missed large portions of the conversation that you are referring to.

Mr. Dalliard
04-21-2010, 11:20 PM
I doubt B&N specifically chose to put their ad there. They've likely paid into an advertising system that auto generates relevant ads based on the content of the site, and the site you were on uses that service. I would not in any way take that as B&N approving of the site on which you saw the ad.

Exactly.

bgalbrecht
04-22-2010, 12:37 AM
Is this a carryover from another thread?

I feel like I've missed large portions of the conversation that you are referring to.

No, it's just additional derailment of the original topic that started with your example of downloading Gone with the Wind being theft of income. Blue Tyson just corrected my statement that Mitchell's heirs sued PG Australia, when what actually happened was that the heirs sent PG Australia a cease and desist letter (possibly the Australian equivalent to DMCA takedown notice, if they have one), and PG Australia told them they had no standing because it was PD in Australia. Since then the Australia parliament folded to the demands of the US and EU and bumped the copyright term from life+50 to life+70. Fortunately, not retroactively, so Gone with the Wind is still PD in Australia, but there won't be any new PD materials in Australia for about 15-17 years, just as there won't be any new PD materials in the US until 2019.

I have no sympathy for any lost income for Margaret Mitchell's heirs. Margaret Mitchell was dead for 29 years when the book's copyright was extended the first time in the US, from 1992 to 2011 (like that would encourage her to produce new works), and then again to 2031. The big IP owners stole 39 years of public domain from us, just so they could make money on less than 1% of all of copyright material.

Getting back on topic, I wouldn't be surprised if the darknet site's advertising was served by a legitimate advertiser, like Google Adwords, and because the page had some keyword like book, Barnes & Noble's ad was served. I agree with Kali Yuga (there's a first time for everything), that "It is ironic, but almost certainly unintentional."

basschick
04-22-2010, 02:02 AM
most likely if the banner for the nook is from a sponsor program, there probably was also an agreement not to run advertising on a file sharing site. eventually - when the program finds out what site the ad is running on - they will terminate the affiliate's account.

HorridRedDog
04-22-2010, 01:39 PM
No, it's just additional derailment of the original topic that started with your example of downloading Gone with the Wind being theft of income. Blue Tyson just corrected my statement that Mitchell's heirs sued PG Australia, when what actually happened was that the heirs sent PG Australia a cease and desist letter (possibly the Australian equivalent to DMCA takedown notice, if they have one), and PG Australia told them they had no standing because it was PD in Australia. ....."

Thanks. Now it makes sense.

Over there you may not have heard of "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act)".

"In addition to Disney (whose extensive lobbying efforts inspired the nickname "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act")...."

MV64
04-28-2010, 10:28 PM
This whole copyright thing confuses me. Can someone explain that wikipedia article in plain English?

Things that have already entered public domain remain so.

Things that haven't entered public domain and were published before 1978 (but after 1923) can't be released until 95 years after they were published, correct, unless the owner renewed the copyright, correct?

I don't understand these draconian rules. Why should someone 90 years after the death of the author benefit from the author's work? Seriously?

lene1949
04-29-2010, 01:58 AM
I really can't see how theft of income comes into piracy...

I'd love to buy books for my readers, but they don't want to sell them to me...

For now I'm OK, but should something be published, which I could not live without, I would have to have a way through the darknet...

Also the darknet can't be that 'dark', if it's supported by advertising.

aagstn
04-29-2010, 09:58 AM
This whole copyright thing confuses me. Can someone explain that wikipedia article in plain English?

Things that have already entered public domain remain so.

Things that haven't entered public domain and were published before 1978 (but after 1923) can't be released until 95 years after they were published, correct, unless the owner renewed the copyright, correct?

I don't understand these draconian rules. Why should someone 90 years after the death of the author benefit from the author's work? Seriously?
Its honestly the Walt Disney rule. Disney made billions making public domain stories into movies, but they don't want any of their characters going into the public domain. Lots of books are lost completely because they aren't public domain and publishers have no interest in putting them in print. Sad situation in the US.

DawnFalcon
04-29-2010, 07:39 PM
Things that have already entered public domain remain so.

Not always. Some copyright extensions have been retroactive.