E-reads and Curtis Agency Declare War on Piracy

[molman]

I can see why starrigger dropped out of this thread. I don't necessarily agree with him on some elements of his view (more to do with how we carry on discourse), but he strikes me as a decent enough bloke such that I feel somewhat sorry for him that we are still circling around this (not that I'm probably helping taking it on some of my own tangents).

[tompe]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

If he hadn't distributed the copy, it would never have got back to the author.
The author didn't break into his house and take a copy he made for his personal use.

So if the author broke in to the house would it be illegal or morally wrong for the author to sell the ebook?

And if the thing that is wrong is distribution then you should be able to stop distribution. And that should be all. You should not be able to sell the thing against the producers will.

And what happens if another person distribute the work against the producers will?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by molman

I can see why starrigger dropped out of this thread. I don't necessarily agree with him on some elements of his view (more to do with how we carry on discourse), but he strikes me as a decent enough bloke such that I feel somewhat sorry for him that we are still circling around this (not that I'm probably helping taking it on some of my own tangents).

Well, calling copyright infringment for stealing is not decent and usually derails threads here. It is supporting the dishonest method of trying to change the language to convince people of something that you do not have good arguments for or are not willing to present the arguments for.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by molman

I can see why starrigger dropped out of this thread. I don't necessarily agree with him on some elements of his view (more to do with how we carry on discourse), but he strikes me as a decent enough bloke such that I feel somewhat sorry for him that we are still circling around this (not that I'm probably helping taking it on some of my own tangents).

He started it!

I'm talking about the thread: he is the OP.
It's more than a little naive to think that bringing up the subject of piracy won't make people talk about the morals and lack of morals of it. He only decided to move away from the discussion when his own morals were questioned, which is why he doesn't strike me as a decent enough bloke.

[molman]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, calling copyright infringment for stealing is not decent and usually derails threads here. It is supporting the dishonest method of trying to change the language to convince people of something that you do not have good arguments for or are not willing to present the arguments for.

I agree about the language (which starrigger and me agreed to disagree about). That said I don't begrudge him his view.

However, we've taken this thread a fair way from talking about E-read actions which was the genesis of this thread, and continuing to parse the whole using the scanned works/digital copyright infringing version has probably gone on long enough (with the breaking into people’s houses hypotheticals we now seem to be at).

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

He started it!

I'm talking about the thread: he is the OP.
It's more than a little naive to think that bringing up the subject of piracy won't make people talk about the morals and lack of morals of it. He only decided to move away from the discussion when his own morals were questioned, which is why he doesn't strike me as a decent enough bloke.

I think it is clear that your perceptions are different. I don't think either side will change position so there is probably not much point belabouring it.. and what you may see as different moral perspectives for a particular case doesn't necessarily have to equate to judgement of the overall decency of an individual.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by molman

However, we've taken this thread a fair way from talking about E-read actions which was the genesis of this thread, and continuing to parse the whole using the scanned works/digital copyright infringing version has probably gone on long enough (with the breaking into people’s houses hypotheticals we now seem to be at).

I see the use of Starrigger's example as a way to simplify things because a real case would be better than hypothetical ones. And I have asked about whether the Curtis Agency will be able to act on behalf of publishers as well in post 108, and there was a reply in 116, so it's not like all we talked about was Starrigger.

Originally Posted by molman

I think it is clear that your perceptions are different. I don't think either side will change position so there is probably not much point belabouring it.. and what you may see as different moral perspectives for a particular case doesn't necessarily have to equate to judgement of the overall decency of an individual.

I don't remember any post of his from another thread, so he didn't make any lasting impressions on me. All I have to go on is his behaviour on this thread so this is a single point perspective.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by molman

Any comment on my question re: the possession of illegally copied files without distrubution being ok (see above). Curious.

I can't find anywhere in US law where mere possession of an unauthorized copy of a file is criminalized or in any fashion illegal.

As I've remarked in other discussions, the DMCA structure tracks that of Prohibition pretty closely. It was not illegal merely to possess bootleg liquor during Prohibition - there had to be some additional element involving transportation, selling it, or at a minimum, being involved in a commercial transaction.

Likewise, I can't see that it is illegal merely to possess an unauthorized copy of a file. That doesn't mean you get to keep it if you are found out.

It's no different than your possessing anything else you don't actually own. If the real owner can establish his ownership, you can be compelled to give it back. But that doesn't mean that your possession itself was criminal, unless the law says it is. Which, as I said, it doesn't, on my reading.

[mr ploppy]

What if the author broke into the pirate's house, raped his dog, smashed up his scanner, pulled all the wheels off his car and rolled them down a hill, at the bottom of which he had tied up the pirate with the USB cable from the scanner? Isn't that EXACTLY what has happened here????????????

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

What if the author broke into the pirate's house, raped his dog, smashed up his scanner, pulled all the wheels off his car and rolled them down a hill, at the bottom of which he had tied up the pirate with the USB cable from the scanner? Isn't that EXACTLY what has happened here????????????

You're on to me, Mr. Ploppy!

Seriously, I left the room because the atmosphere was becoming toxic with smoke. I don't promise to stay, because this isn't how I want to spend my life. But since some reasonable people have weighed in in the interim (I read through quickly, and so apologize for not acknowledging folk by name or post), I thought I should at least state some clarifications. I am not going to rejoin the conversation about piracy and rights per se--too much of that already--but since I've seen some misstatements about what I did, here's a recap:

A fan sent me a PDF of my novel, telling me he'd downloaded it from a torrent site and thought I might want to know, or be able to use it. Said PDF was a digitization of my novel, distributed worldwide without my permission (or even a request for permission, which I might have granted if I'd been asked). I was in the process of getting the book into ebook production at the time, so instead of using the publisher's scanning service, I converted the PDF to an RTF file and proofed, edited, and reformatted my own copyrighted novel and sent it to the publisher for production.

I have no idea who the original scanner is, but somehow--unless the person is a real jerk, which I have no reason to think--I doubt that this person would object to my making use of his/her scanning work in the creation of a licensed version of the book.

Others here have defended this action on my behalf already--and thank you. I've seen nothing in this discussion since then to persuade me that I did not have the moral and legal right to do what I did.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by starrigger

Others here have defended this action on my behalf already--and thank you. I've seen nothing in this discussion since then to persuade me that I did not have the moral and legal right to do what I did.

I actually wish more authors would take advantage of some of the free digitization available to them. Especially if it helps them reduce the time/costs involved in getting some of their back-list titles into the ebook stores.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by starrigger

I have no idea who the original scanner is, but somehow--unless the person is a real jerk, which I have no reason to think--I doubt that this person would object to my making use of his/her scanning work in the creation of a licensed version of the book.

I think that the original scanner might have a problem with you calling them a parasite while making use of their scanning work:

Originally Posted by starrigger

But as a general breed, I think the illegal uploaders are behaving like parasites feeding on the creative work of others, whether for profit or egoboo.

Originally Posted by starrigger

Others here have defended this action on my behalf already--and thank you. I've seen nothing in this discussion since then to persuade me that I did not have the moral and legal right to do what I did.

Those that defended you didn't pay attention to your previous posts on the thread:

Originally Posted by starrigger

I'm not talking about legal definitions, which may differ; I'm talking about ethics and morality. You take something that isn't yours. That's stealing.

^This is what you did.

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by starrigger

(or even a request for permission, which I might have granted if I'd been asked)

Hmm, Interested in getting anything digitized and into Project Gutenberg? You pick what, the only restrictions are you have to have the worldwide erights, either still or reverted and it has to have been published previously somewhere.

Greg Weeks

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by gweeks

Hmm, Interested in getting anything digitized and into Project Gutenberg? You pick what, the only restrictions are you have to have the worldwide erights, either still or reverted and it has to have been published previously somewhere.

From the PG "Permission How-To" site:

For copyrighted content
There are thousands of items in the Project Gutenberg collection which are still under copyright protection. Each copyrighted item is clearly indicated as copyrighted in the eBook's header. Unless there is an included license with the copyrighted item (such as a creative commons license), you will need to contact the copyright holder for any needed permission. Project Gutenberg cannot do this on your behalf, and does not have any ability to sublicense copyrighted works.

http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenb...mission_How-To

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

What if the author broke into the pirate's house, raped his dog, smashed up his scanner, pulled all the wheels off his car and rolled them down a hill, at the bottom of which he had tied up the pirate with the USB cable from the scanner? Isn't that EXACTLY what has happened here????????????

Was it a blind dog?

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I think that the original scanner might have a problem with you calling them a parasite while making use of their scanning work:




Those that defended you didn't pay attention to your previous posts on the thread:

^This is what you did.

See, this is the kind of crap that made me leave the thread, and probably will leave it again. First, I didn't call the scanner a parasite. I said that those who operate pirate sites, probably making a profit in the bargain, are behaving as parasites. If the distinction was unclear in my previous post, I hope it is clear now. The uploaders, I suggested, probably range between those who do it out of good intentions--perhaps a kind of civil disobedience, but still breaking the law--to those who do it for misguided egoboo (Hey, I cracked the latest bestseller and got it up before anyone else). I don't know where I would put those who uploaded my most recent novel, which I made available for free with a polite request that it not be reposted.

As for the rest of your post, I can only wonder, are you someone perhaps who engages in this uploading activity? If so, that might help explain the tenor of your accusations. If not, then I have no explanation.