Pirate Party Politician Goes After Book Pirates

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by FatDog

The most rabid anti-smokers I meet are people who used to smoke. I suspect if you searched the computer or iPod of most anti-piracy advocates you would find a lot of pirated material. They tend to over-compensate because of their guilt.

Maybe this goes some way toward explaining post-menopausal Mothers-in-Law?

[NASCARaddicted]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What an article in "The Register" points out is that it's her PUBLISHER (Random House) who issued the take-down notices, and it's not at all clear whether she was even aware that it had been done, so we may perhaps be letting ourselves get a little carried away with the criticism.

Article here.

I did some search on the Internet, and according to a german languaged article, she was well aware of it. She even talked to Random House about it, before the book was released ... of course now they try to talk themself out of it.

She said "she is not against Copyright, but the concept of intellectual property is a wrong term to her ..." yeah, right.

Here is the link, for the ones that speak german (or want to check out google translator). It also shows the woman itself. I think if she would be ugly, she would have much less media attention.

http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschla...-Buch-Download

However, what also should be mentioned: before the book was even released, she already earned 100.000€ (about $130.000) in advance. And, even more interestingly: The biggest german newspaper (or how I like to call them "crap-paper") also reported about this book. And according to them, the whole book is just boring and crappy ...

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by drjenkins

I ran across this article in a security forum I visit:

Pirate Party Politician Scuttles the Ship she sailed in on



It seems that it is harder to walk-the-walk once the shoe is on the other foot.

-drjenkins

I think that the problem was this:

To help her publish the book Schramm signed a major deal with the Random House owned publisher Albrecht Knaus Verlag. In addition to earning a 100,000 euro advance, this deal with the “content mafia” required her to sign away her copyrights.

She doesn't own the copyright anymore. She had a copy on the Pirate Party’s own site, but she doesn't have the right to do that. What comments she can publicly make on the subject might also be limited by the contract that she signed.

Or this could just be the topic of her next book.

Originally Posted by xg4bx

Infinitely safer and infinitely less offensive things like electronic cigarettes exist these days (which I use, it's just nicotine in a propolyne glycol base, the same stuff that's in toothpaste, cake icing, etc, with flavoring added. nicotine unto itself isn't harmful and actually has some health benefits), there's no need to still be smoking those reeking cancer sticks.

Nicotine Promotes Cardiovascular Disease

Invade and conquer: Nicotine's role in promoting heart and blood vessel disease

nicotine is three times as toxic as arsenic and one and one half times as toxic as strychnine.

Study Claims Nicotine Causes Cancer

[SteveEisenberg]

Re the medical advice at the bottom on #18 -- none of the four links are peer-reviewed, and the one-peer reviewed study linked from inside on of those links is mouse research. This evidence comes no where near meeting the Hill Criteria of Causation used to conclusively prove tobacco smoking as a whole is dangerous.

I had no idea coming in when people should and should not be using nicotine. And reading those last four links in #18, I still don't.

I realize that you were just responding to xg4bx, who also made a medical claim about nicotine. In general, I would question whether MobileRead is a good source of medical advice.

I would personally suggest http://www.cochrane.org/ as an alternate web-based medical information source. But, then, since you read it here, don't believe it

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Re the medical advice at the bottom on #18 -- none of the four links are peer-reviewed, and the one-peer reviewed study linked from inside on of those links is mouse research. This evidence comes no where near meeting the Hill Criteria of Causation used to conclusively prove tobacco smoking as a whole is dangerous.

I had no idea coming in when people should and should not be using nicotine. And reading those last four links in #18, I still don't.

I realize that you were just responding to xg4bx, who also made a medical claim about nicotine. In general, I would question whether MobileRead is a good source of medical advice.

I would personally suggest http://www.cochrane.org/ as an alternate web-based medical information source. But, then, since you read it here, don't believe it

The first two links involve the same results. As far as I can tell the research isn't finished yet and the findings were only presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Biophysical Society. At the end of the article in the second link to the abstract of the presentation.

The third link gives information on how lethal nicotine actually is, and it's quoting a book. It also gives definitions of nicotine form a medical dictionary (it's poisonous), and from a dictionary of toxicology (one of the most toxic and addicting of all drugs and it is toxic by all routes of exposure including the intact skin). I don't know how far I would have to look to find a peer reviewed article of the discovery that nicotine is lethal, but there is a New York Times article from 1921 about a case where nicotine was the cause of death, so it's safe to say that 90 years ago people weren't confused about the dangers of nicotine.

As for the fourth link, yes, I know that at this point it is only proven that nicotine is carcinogenic to mice, and it will take a while until it gets to human testing. But this is far from "nicotine unto itself isn't harmful".

[ebusinesstutor]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

There wouldn't be anything hypocritical about being against book piracy, but for appropriating music and movies.

Musicians can make money at performances. Movies are better seen in theaters, at least in the view of many people. By contrast, authors have relatively few means to make money from their art other than book sales.

[/url]

Not all musicians perform and most who perform are doing it to expose more people to their music so they buy their CDs. It is hard for musicians to make money off of performing alone.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by ebusinesstutor

Not all musicians perform . . .

If you are saying that both music piracy and book piracy are mistaken actions, I'd agree. However, if someone is already pirating music, I hope they don't think consistency requires pirating books as well.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Most of the people that want to abolish patents and copyrights are those that never produced anything worth patenting or copyrighting.

this!

besides, all politicians are liars.

[Torwan]

This was a good laugh here in Germany and the "Pirates" didn't handle this very well. As long as you are on receiving side of "no copyright", it's all fun, but when you are on the giving side, it changes a little.

Anyway, the former general-secretary of the "Pirates" announced that the book she is writing shall be copyright-free, so anyone can copy it. She is obviously a little more into the stuff her party advocates.
(Source (German): http://www.fr-online.de/literatur/ma...,17899850.html)

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Torwan

Anyway, the former general-secretary of the "Pirates" announced that the book she is writing shall be copyright-free, so anyone can copy it. She is obviously a little more into the stuff her party advocates.
(Source (German): http://www.fr-online.de/literatur/ma...,17899850.html)

Based on the Amazon reviews, she'll be lucky if she can give the book away. (Which was kind of what I took away from the video on the Amazon book page anyway).

[NASCARaddicted]

just to add this:

recently, I read a blog of a german book pirate. This guy said, he believes that all the big fuzz (aka. Shitstorm) was made up. A publicity stunt. Before all this happened, no one cared (or even knew) about her book. Then, after all this copyright stuff became big news, many people talked about her.

And another, similar stunt: not too long ago, the wife of former german president wrote her autobiography. Well, "coincidentally", at the same time, rumours appeared that she worked in redlight district before her marriage. She sued several people and companies (including Google) - but she claimed that this rumours date back to 2006 ... So, just when the book was released, she started to fight all this rumours? What a coincidence ...