If instead of "pirates"...

[Namekuseijin]

Those you are talking about are certainly not pirates. Perhaps circunvecting old laws inadequate with a copy-free world, but not pirates.

Pirates are those who take a work that cost a living author quite a lot of effort and copy them in less than a minute or host them in their ad-serviced servers, such as this lowlife:

[Image too large - MODERATOR]

[carld]

Originally Posted by latepaul

(source)

This quote is from Richard Stallman and is talking about software but what he says in that snippet applies to other forms of copyright too. Stallman is a bit extreme in some ways but I think he makes a very good point about hidden assumptions.

Just a bit ...

If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs.

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/qu...#ixzz1lLtEalGI

I refuse to take anything he says seriously.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by carld

I refuse to take anything he says seriously.

Some of the things he says I agree with, some not. I'm not going to dismiss something that makes sense because of an unrelated quote that stretches a point too far.

[apbschmitz]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I often get the feeling that people here are not actually paying attention to what the posts are saying.

I was asking apbschmitz why he (she?) or any other author with orphaned books doesn't take action to take them back from obscurity. Why do they wait for someone to remind them that technology and communication evolved enough to make it possible for old works to be revived?

Thanks for the query. Actually, I have requested that the rights for one of my novels be returned to me by the original publisher. The publisher, Ecco, very quickly agreed. I converted the text to an eBook and republished it myself.

My point was that before simply deciding that a book has been orphaned, scanning it, posting it and giving it away, it would be a matter of common courtesy, among other things, to ask the author what his or her intentions were regarding the work in question. Giving away your own work is one thing; giving away someone else's is another. In my opinion.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by DebbyS

If instead of "pirates" those who rescued older books were called "Robin Hoods", would it make a difference?

The Robin Hoods gather, scan, fix up, convert -- to rtf or epub or whatever -- books that are old and forgotten but not out of copyright. I've scanned and fixed up some old books I recall liking a great deal back in the 1980s. I couldn't find them (can't imagine having tossed them after pdfing them -- poorly -- but I guess I did... ) and had to re-buy them (Abe Books) so I could rescan and turn them into epubs. I'm probably the only one in the history of the rest of the world who will do that for these poor forgotten SciFi/Space Opera books by Ian Wallace... but I'd be called a pirate if i shared them on the net. I'd rather be thought of as a Robin Hood [or Maid Marion if she was the brains behind the outfit ].

Maybe there should be a classification for those of us who'd like to make sure some books, books maybe too silly for Project Gutenberg, are never forgotten.

Just a thought

I'm a fan of "booklegger" from Walter Miller's A Canticle For Lebowitz. You don't have to take the Monastery Oath, though.

(Don't know it? Worth reading the book just for that (and lots more).)

Although in this day and age, I suppose it ought to be "Datalegger".

[Dulin's Books]

did anyone else see that? for a moment under apbschmitz , ralph sir edward and Namekuseijin there were repeating phrases like the forums were being hacked. under Name and Ralph it said something like "should be tired of the karma fortunes" over and over and under apbs it said "asbschmitz calls his reader vera" over and over

i went to the previous page to see if mine or others looked compromised before taking a screen capture and they were all back to normal

[carld]

Originally Posted by latepaul

Some of the things he says I agree with, some not. I'm not going to dismiss something that makes sense because of an unrelated quote that stretches a point too far.

Well honestly, looking at the bit you quoted, I think I'm completely correct to dismiss him out of hand.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by carld

Well honestly, looking at the bit you quoted, I think I'm completely correct to dismiss him out of hand.

Why? I thought he made a good point - traditionally a pirate describes someone who robs, kidnaps and kills at sea - a rather nasty criminal in fact. Morally and legally copyright infringement may be wrong but it's hardly in the same league.

What exactly about what I quoted made it seem so out of hand wrong?

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by latepaul

Why? I thought he made a good point - traditionally a pirate describes someone who robs, kidnaps and kills at sea - a rather nasty criminal in fact. Morally and legally copyright infringement may be wrong but it's hardly in the same league.

What exactly about what I quoted made it seem so out of hand wrong?

Point.

The term came into popular use to describe people who are monopoly infringers.
Monopoly infringers doesn't sound so bad, so authors and publishers (primarily publishers) departed from civil debate by using the term "Pirate".

It would not be one whit more uncivil to refer to the Publishing houses and their lobyists who have pushed for ever longer copyright monopolies maintained on the public dime as "Pedophiles". Preying on those who are unaware and defenseless. An equal stretch all around.

So there you have it. Pirates or Pedophiles with no middle ground. Pick a side.

Or we can have copyright holders, and copyright infringers. We can all play nice, and have a cup of tea.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by latepaul

Why? I thought he made a good point - traditionally a pirate describes someone who robs, kidnaps and kills at sea - a rather nasty criminal in fact. Morally and legally copyright infringement may be wrong but it's hardly in the same league.

What exactly do you mean when you say "traditionally"? The use of the word "pirate" to describe someone who copies a printed work without the author's permission goes back to at least 1603 (Thomas Dekker's booklet "The Wonderfull Yeare", in which, attacking the common practice of reprinting works without permission, he says "Banish these Word-pirates, (you sacred mistresses of learning) into the gulfe of Barbarisme..."). The term is used in the 1886 International Berne Copyright convention, in which Article 12 states "Pirated works may be seized on importation into those countries of the Union where the original work enjoys legal protection."

You really can't write off the use of the term as some modern coinage, I fear.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

did anyone else see that? for a moment under apbschmitz , ralph sir edward and Namekuseijin there were repeating phrases like the forums were being hacked. under Name and Ralph it said something like "should be tired of the karma fortunes" over and over and under apbs it said "asbschmitz calls his reader vera" over and over

i went to the previous page to see if mine or others looked compromised before taking a screen capture and they were all back to normal

It's just the karma fortune. You see the text if your browser decides, for whatever reason, that it can't display the graphic.

[patrickt]

Of course, how you choose to label something makes a difference. I remember listening to adolescents, some quite old, who referred to stealing someone else's property as liberating the property. I remember a reviewer of President Obama's book describing his theft of ice cream from his employer as evidence of his "generosity".

So, renaming pirates as Robin Hoods might make some adolescents feel better about what they're doing. It doesn't alter the facts, though.

[Dulin's Books]

thanks Harry. had never seen it before.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What exactly do you mean when you say "traditionally"? The use of the word "pirate" to describe someone who copies a printed work without the author's permission goes back to at least 1603 (Thomas Dekker's booklet "The Wonderfull Yeare", in which, attacking the common practice of reprinting works without permission, he says "Banish these Word-pirates, (you sacred mistresses of learning) into the gulfe of Barbarisme..."). The term is used in the 1886 International Berne Copyright convention, in which Article 12 states "Pirated works may be seized on importation into those countries of the Union where the original work enjoys legal protection."

You really can't write off the use of the term as some modern coinage, I fear.

Yup. People have used offensive and innaccurate hyperbole to lambaste opposing views for millenia. And generally having fits when it is turned back at them.

Human nature is a constant.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Point.

The term came into popular use to describe people who are monopoly infringers.
Monopoly infringers doesn't sound so bad, so authors and publishers (primarily publishers) departed from civil debate by using the term "Pirate".

Presumably that was before Walt Disney and others romanticised the idea of what a (sea) pirate does? Booklegger I always liked, though I didn't know it came from the Canticle books (I only know those from the radio versions). Did the people who memorised books in Faranheit 451 have a name?