Pirate Party Politician Goes After Book Pirates

[drjenkins]

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

Pirate Party Politician Scuttles the Ship she sailed in on

Julia Schramm, a prominent board member of the German Pirate Party, had success in scoring a lucrative book deal and finally had her work published this week. Nothing out of the ordinary there, if it wasn’t for the fact that Schramm and her publisher are now clamping down on book pirates. Dropbox removed a copy of Schramm’s book after it received a DMCA take-down request today and another copy hosted on the Pirate Party’s own site also vanished into thin air.

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

-drjenkins

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by drjenkins

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

-drjenkins

I don't know who she is, so perhaps someone in the know could comment on what her party position actually is? I know some pirate parties are not actually calling for the abolishment of all copyright laws, but changes in durations and what can/can't be done. Does her party fall into that group or is it really hypocrisy, which would be rather funny

[fjtorres]

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

[FatDog]

There was a thread a few months ago from a Swedish author who was being interviewed. She refused to allow her work to be sold in electronic form because of all the asia and european piracy.

Her son was in the room with the interviewer and interrupted by asking his mom why she got him to fill her iPod with all the pirated music a few weeks earlier if piracy upset her so much.

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.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by FatDog

They tend to over-compensate because of their guilt.

Nah.
They're just hypocrites, just like 90% of the human race.
"Everyone's crazy 'xcept me and thee... and I'm not so sure about thee."

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by FatDog

The most rabid anti-smokers I meet are people who used to smoke.

OT, I know, but to be fair, ex-smokers know better than anyone else how bad they can be for their health and general comfort.

I grew up in a household of smokers (mother and 3 out of 4 brothers). I put myself in that "rabid anti-smoker" group because when I moved out I discovered how wonderful it was not to have everything I owned smell like smoke or contain a yellow film of god-knows-what. My brother quit smoking a few years back and still hasn't stopped talking about how much better food tastes.

I do understand how hard it is to quit, so I don't harass people for smoking (I might nudge now and again). I do ask them not to do it in my car or in my home. I was thrilled when the smoking ban went into place in restaurants so I could enjoy my meals without choking on cigarette fumes, even if there were "designated non-smoking areas".

[Giggleton]

You didn't build that.

[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.

Having said that, I can't find anything in mainstream media to suggest she has a generalized support for author's rights.

[fjtorres]

Some animals are more equal, huh?
No need to bother with equal protection under the law.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Some animals are more equal, huh?

I don't quite understand your point.

Are you saying that unless all forms of intellectual property get the same protection, we are living in an Animal Farm-like police state? Probably not, so I'm confused.

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

OT, I know, but to be fair, ex-smokers know better than anyone else how bad they can be for their health and general comfort.

I grew up in a household of smokers (mother and 3 out of 4 brothers). I put myself in that "rabid anti-smoker" group because when I moved out I discovered how wonderful it was not to have everything I owned smell like smoke or contain a yellow film of god-knows-what. My brother quit smoking a few years back and still hasn't stopped talking about how much better food tastes.

I do understand how hard it is to quit, so I don't harass people for smoking (I might nudge now and again). I do ask them not to do it in my car or in my home. I was thrilled when the smoking ban went into place in restaurants so I could enjoy my meals without choking on cigarette fumes, even if there were "designated non-smoking areas".

i'm an ex tobacco smoker but I'm not rabid about it. looking back it's easier to see what a disgusting habit it actually is. i think my biggest revelation came when i realized just how bleeping bad cigarettes stink. they literally smell almost as bad as an open sewer and i can't believe i intentionally did that to myself.

i don't spit on smokers, i don't give them a hard time but it is a vile habit that makes one smell like dog **** and i am glad that i don't have to be subjected to it everywhere i go now anymore. 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.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

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

She is probably just as opposed to American companies making money from music and film as she ever was.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

She is probably just as opposed to American companies making money from music and film as she ever was.

Ding. Ding. Ding!
Not hard to figure out at all.

[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.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Article here.

Nice article, actually.

It's a good illustration of the observation made here earlier this year by Mark Bide:

"Privacy and copyright are two things nobody cares about unless it's their own privacy, and their own copyright."

Schramm won't be the first activist to discover, quite unexpectedly, that copyright protection has its uses.

...or *not* so unexpectedly. Not when you created something that generates "vile lucre".