E-reads and Curtis Agency Declare War on Piracy

[starrigger]

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.

Greg Weeks

Thanks for the offer, but my novels are now all up for sale as ebooks. (A couple are still available for free.)

I'm still slowly getting my short stories digitized, but I guess I'd have questions about putting them into Gutenberg. (I might consider it.)

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by starrigger

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.

No, you quite clearly said that the illegal uploaders are behaving like parasites, and as I pointed out before, the scanner is most likely the one who initially did the upload. Also, if X is saying "Y behaves like a ___" I've heard it referred to as "X called Y a ___".

Originally Posted by starrigger

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.

Cute, I was wondering if you were going to accuse me of something. But the explanation is simple: you said that from an ethical point taking something that isn't yours is stealing (post 57), after saying that you said that you took the digitized version to sell (post 53). I see that as an ethical dilemma and asked you about it.

Those that agreed that you did nothing wrong were talking from a legal point of view (the digitized work isn't copyrighted, the scanner/uploader did something illegal and doesn't have rights), but you said that your comments should be considered from an ethical, and not legal point of view (and reasserted that in post 59). So as I said, they didn't pay attention to your posts. Also, their comments weren't really affecting my point to you because they weren't talking about ethics.

[DiapDealer]

Those that agreed that you did nothing wrong were talking from a legal point of view (the digitized work isn't copyrighted, the scanner/uploader did something illegal and doesn't have rights), but you said that your comments should be considered from an ethical, and not legal point of view (and reasserted that in post 59). So as I said, they didn't pay attention to your posts.

I paid attention. But frankly, the only thing that really stands out in this thread is your odd little vendetta.

[molman]

@Sil_liS: Like DiapDealer I don't think there is much point to continuing this. starrigger's position is revealed in his actions, if you have another that's fine, but I don't think you are going to change his position or mind so I don't see why we shouldn't just drop this line of discussion (you've both had a chance to say your piece).

@Harmon: I find this whole knowing possession of infringing works interesting. I'll have to look into it. I mean though not the same, if I was in possession of knowingly stolen goods I would imagine there’d some repercussion under the US legal system (beyond just removal).

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by starrigger

I'm still slowly getting my short stories digitized, but I guess I'd have questions about putting them into Gutenberg. (I might consider it.)

Short stories are fine. One or more and they don't have to have been previously collected together. The best value for you would be if they haven't been digitized already. If you are ever interested shout. I've done a few for other authors.

Greg Weeks

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I paid attention. But frankly, the only thing that really stands out in this thread is your odd little vendetta.

It's not a vendetta. I would just like an answer from him from the ethical point of view that he decided to sustain in the thread before I pointed out that his actions were not ethical.

Also I do think that his point of view is important because he is the only author on the thread. Initially he was saying that the problem with piracy is the downloaders, and that the actions of E-reads/Curtis will help with that because it will increase awareness and the people who don't realize that the book s are there against the wishes of the authors. After my questioning his ethics, he decided that this is the fault of the uploaders (the one who did the download is now a kindly fan). After I pointed out that they don't profit from this, piracy is the fault of the torrent sites. I'm not sure if he realizes that the torrent sites are just search engines.

Where the blame lies is important because authors are the ones who have to request the help from E-reads/Curtis. Do they even know who will get punished as a result?

He also brought up the point that the books that he gives for free are pirated as well. He doesn't think about the fact that as much as he considers that the scanner of his book wouldn't mind if he uses it, the people who got the promotion books might think that the author wouldn't mind if they are shared on a larger scale => torrents because the books are for free anyway, right?

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by starrigger

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.

Honestly, I'm sure starrigger wouldn't agree with my stance that I have no qualms about downloading the pirate-ebook-scan edition of a book of books that I already own. Sometimes I have to spend a while proofing against my physical copy of the book. But it's better than buying price-fixed DRM-infected books.

But if I consider that OK, criticizing an author for using a scan of his own books would be pretty ludicrous from me.

Anyway, I'm with starrigger on this. It's his book, and grabbing a pirate edition to save some time for an official release seems fine to me. It's just a shortcut. He still has to do the work (or pay someone else) to edit and release the final product, and he's the one that did the work to write it in the first place. It's his intellectual property, after all.


Especially because I consider the folks like him the good guys - folks with DRM free books on Smashwords and the like. I go out of my way to buy DRM free books whenever possible to support their writing (and their willingness not to hobble the consumer's rights with DRM).

[anamardoll]

Must... not... get... into... thread...

OK. I'm with Sil_lis on this. Yes, the author owns the book. Yes, the author has the right to take the changes and use them (and thank god for that because errors are not fun to find). Yes, the author owns the modified content.

BUT! If you're going to do that as an author, maybe best not to complain about piracy with your left hand while your right hand is using piracy to save time and money on editing your own books. Maybe best to just consider the situation a wash and not sling around nasty names on the interwebs.

BUT! That's my opinion. When I finish my dang book -- and why does it take so much longer to write than to visualize and when is someone going to invent something to take dictation directly from my head?!? -- I do intend to find someone to put it on a torrent site or three. And I equally intend to not gripe about the torrent sites on internet forums.

Now maybe that's not what was happening here. But it sure seemed that way. So just chiming in to say I see Sil_lis' point. And since zie and I disagree about 50% of the time, this is the other 50%, I reckon.

Also, I want to SERIOUSLY thank Harmon, because I hadn't thought about PG distribution. Thank you Harmon. You are awesome.

[starrigger]

Sure seems like a vendetta, and has certainly poisoned the atmosphere on this topic for me--the more so when Sil_ distorts so much of what I've said. I won't deny the possibility that I was unclear in some of my earlier posts--I've been unclear before, and I'm sure I'll be unclear again, especially if I'm annoyed--but I don't really think that's the root of what's going on here.

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

Honestly, I'm sure starrigger wouldn't agree with my stance that I have no qualms about downloading the pirate-ebook-scan edition of a book of books that I already own. Sometimes I have to spend a while proofing against my physical copy of the book. But it's better than buying price-fixed DRM-infected books.

While I wouldn't actively encourage you to do that, I wouldn't get up in arms about it, either. You would probably call it "format-shifting" the book you own, and I wouldn't quarrel, at least not strongly. I'd be uncomfortable with the idea of actively supporting the pirated-book industry, but beyond that, I'd say there are more important things to worry about. Personally, I hope the day comes soon when the purchase of a paper book gets you an ebook as well.

But if I consider that OK, criticizing an author for using a scan of his own books would be pretty ludicrous from me.

Anyway, I'm with starrigger on this. It's his book, and grabbing a pirate edition to save some time for an official release seems fine to me. It's just a shortcut. He still has to do the work (or pay someone else) to edit and release the final product, and he's the one that did the work to write it in the first place. It's his intellectual property, after all.

Especially because I consider the folks like him the good guys - folks with DRM free books on Smashwords and the like. I go out of my way to buy DRM free books whenever possible to support their writing (and their willingness not to hobble the consumer's rights with DRM).

Thank you.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

BUT! If you're going to do that as an author, maybe best not to complain about piracy with your left hand while your right hand is using piracy to save time and money on editing your own books. Maybe best to just consider the situation a wash and not sling around nasty names on the interwebs.

Don't forget that since the ebook was published through E-reads, this will also fall under the action that the Curtis Agency is taking. Will the DMCA takedown notices go to the sites? How does this work with torrents? The files aren't hosted somewhere so what do they take down, the search item? Are they actually finding the original uploader?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by starrigger

I won't deny the possibility that I was unclear in some of my earlier posts--I've been unclear before, and I'm sure I'll be unclear again, especially if I'm annoyed--but I don't really think that's the root of what's going on here.

I can see an error in your logic here: if you were unclear in the earlier posts, and then clarified things, that means that you became more clear when you got annoyed. If being annoyed makes you less clear, that means that you wouldn't have been able to clarify things.

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Yes, the author owns the modified content.

BUT! If you're going to do that as an author, maybe best not to complain about piracy with your left hand while your right hand is using piracy to save time and money on editing your own books. Maybe best to just consider the situation a wash and not sling around nasty names on the interwebs.

There was no modified content, anamardoll. The content was the text of my book. Only the medium was changed. Actually, I did treat this incident as a wash; I didn't issue any complaints or takedown notices.

I didn't start this topic to complain about piracy, either; I find most of the discussions here on the topic incredibly tedious. I merely reported on an event peripherally related to my work, and swore I would not get into it about the piracy good/bad thing. Then molman innocently questioned my use of the word "stealing" (which I consider accurate when it refers to copyrighted work taken without permission, and he doesn't), but we agreed to disagree.

At some point, tempers started rising, and I responded to what I thought was a question about what I really thought about piracy. (I'd already said I didn't worry much about it, though the bottom line was I considered it stealing.) Against my better judgment, I said I thought it ranged from well-meaning people acting illegally at one end of the spectrum to people profiting parasitically off the creativity of others at the other end. I may have been unclear in distinguishing between individuals uploading and downloading, and those operating pirate sites. The "parasite" remark was directed at those who do this on a large scale, probably for a profit.

Anyway, I still don't worry overly much about the pirates. I think they may (incidentally) help some people, and financially hurt others. It's illegal. But it's still small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, or even the small scheme of book publishing.

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Don't forget that since the ebook was published through E-reads, this will also fall under the action that the Curtis Agency is taking. Will the DMCA takedown notices go to the sites? How does this work with torrents? The files aren't hosted somewhere so what do they take down, the search item? Are they actually finding the original uploader?

I have no idea. To the last question, probably not.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I can see an error in your logic here: if you were unclear in the earlier posts, and then clarified things, that means that you became more clear when you got annoyed. If being annoyed makes you less clear, that means that you wouldn't have been able to clarify things.

Oh, give it rest, will you?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by starrigger

I have no idea. To the last question, probably not.

So will you authorize the takedown notice when/if they find the files?

Originally Posted by starrigger

Oh, give it rest, will you?

I like logic.

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

So will you authorize the takedown notice when/if they find the files?

Haven't thought about it. It's certainly had a run of some years on the darknet, and I might opt to end the free ride. Or I might leave it. Either way would be within my rights, but I really haven't given it much thought.

I like logic.

Uh-huh.