Brian Keene on piracy

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by no.guru

He was giving it away until he wasn't.

Many authors give away their books for a limited period of time - look at all the "free" download offers in the Deal forum here at MR. The fact that an author chooses to give something away for a limited period of time doesn't place it in the public domain, and certainly doesn't give anyone to right to repost it without the copyright holder's permission.

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Many authors give away their books for a limited period of time - look at all the "free" download offers in the Deal forum here at MR. The fact that an author chooses to give something away for a limited period of time doesn't place it in the public domain, and certainly doesn't give anyone to right to repost it without the copyright holder's permission.

I'm not advocating violating a copyright, but it seems naive to release anything online except under a Creative Commons or GPL license.

I want to say that being offended and/or surprised in this case is an act, but maybe it's time to apply Hanlon's razor.

[DiapDealer]

I don't think anyone is arguing that he's not well within his legal rights to do what he's doing, Harry. It's just that it seems quite silly (not to mention naive and alienating) on his part to pour water into a tilted pan and then scream bloody murder at gravity when all of the water inevitably ends up at the downhill end.

But screaming can be quite a useful SEO tool, as we've all learned. Even a little disingenuous screaming will drive traffic to a quite good—but not really globally recognized—author's website. "The screaming wheel gets the web traffic/attention" and all that.

[wallcraft]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Many authors give away their books for a limited period of time - look at all the "free" download offers in the Deal forum here at MR. The fact that an author chooses to give something away for a limited period of time doesn't place it in the public domain, and certainly doesn't give anyone to right to repost it without the copyright holder's permission.

I agree, and in principle it is also the authors right to never publish it again in electronic form. However, this is one of the cases where established laws go against what many people think is fair. A ebook version created by the author exists and is in the hands of the public (those to knew about it and chose to download), but it is now not legally available to new readers at any price. This is different from free for a while and now still available but only if you buy it.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Thanks for that. It seems pretty clear that reposting it is not permitted.

Maybe so, but several people did risk having their face eaten by reposting it on their blogs, and no action was taken against any of them at the time. It was only when he announced it was going to be made available to the speculator market that it became a problem. That suggests to me that he thinks having a first draft available for free in virtual form is going to hurt his speculator income.

[pilotbob]

Wasn't it Doctorow that said that an authors biggest problem isn't piracy but obscurity. If this author is so popular that his works are being "pirated" then he is selling lots of books...

(attach all my posts about how people that download pirated works wouldn't have bought it in the first place so it is NOT lost revenue)

BOb

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

What right does anyone have to judge Keene over how he sells his entertainment product? You have a right to say yay or nay, but you don't have a right to throw a virtual brick through his storefront and rob from him and his family.

Hello there,

This is a bit OT but I noticed that the graphic at the bottom of your posting listed a number of your novels with a tagline of "available for $2.99 or free." So I went to your website but there was only one book out of your collection that was available to read for free, a bit of a bait and switch if you ask me. But of course you did not ask me.

At any rate have you considered making all your books available for free and then including a donation button on your site and within your books?

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Maybe so, but several people did risk having their face eaten by reposting it on their blogs, and no action was taken against any of them at the time. It was only when he announced it was going to be made available to the speculator market that it became a problem. That suggests to me that he thinks having a first draft available for free in virtual form is going to hurt his speculator income.

You've really got a bug about "speculator" especially as most limited edition/high quality production books are actually bought by collectors because they really want them... only a few get bought by speculators because most people have more sense - just because a book is limited etc, doesn't mean it will increase in price... most actually decrease...

[JeremyR]

Originally Posted by wallcraft

I agree, and in principle it is also the authors right to never publish it again in electronic form.

I would actually disagree with this. According to the Constitution, the whole point of copyright (or IP) is:

to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Or in other words, the whole basis of copyright law is to balance the rights of creators with the the good of civilization as a whole.

While I wouldn't say that would be the case here, what if Shakespeare decided he never wanted any of his stuff published, ever? Wouldn't that have hurt society dramatically? William Shatner would never have become famous, since there would have been no Star Trek...

[xg4bx]

i won't be supporting him any further.

i get the whole argument yada yada but what i can't stand is whiners. this could have been handled behind the scenes and nobody would have been the wiser but this whole d-baggy rant he posted just makes him seem small and "oh woe is me". i think by mentioning it he drew faaaaar more attention to it than it would have otherwise gotten. now everybody knows about it rather than merely the handful who downloaded it from the site where it was posted.

personally i think someone who takes the time to compile, edit, format and compose a cover for free text from a website is more of a fan than somebody who simply clicks a "buy it now" button. most authors could only dream of having fans with dedication like that.

and if you want to come from a position of being on the "moral high ground" you might want to avoid cursing every other word or making rape analogies. its tacky.

is he wrong? no, not really. but if you want to engender sympathy there are better ways to do it than coming off like an absolute d*ck.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by wallcraft

However, this is one of the cases where established laws go against what many people think is fair.

Laws aren't supposed to follow "what many people think is fair." "Many people" often don't know the full facts, and therefore can't make a "fair" judgment. So laws are created to be just.

Originally Posted by JeremyR

Or in other words, the whole basis of copyright law is to balance the rights of creators with the the good of civilization as a whole.

Yes... but this doesn't somehow give individuals rights to ignore copyright laws because it is personally inconvenient, and that is the case here (and, in truth, in most copyright arguments).

If laws are unjust, they should be changed. But claiming a law is unjust is not a good enough reason to just ignore or violate it at will.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

i get the whole argument yada yada but what i can't stand is whiners. this could have been handled behind the scenes and nobody would have been the wiser but this whole d-baggy rant he posted just makes him seem small and "oh woe is me". i think by mentioning it he drew faaaaar more attention to it than it would have otherwise gotten. now everybody knows about it rather than merely the handful who downloaded it from the site where it was posted.

Well, that seems to be the world everyone wanted when they created the web, and forums, and blogs and Facebook and Twitter... opportunities for people to whine about every little thing. And they do... mission accomplished.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Yes... but this doesn't somehow give individuals rights to ignore copyright laws because it is personally inconvenient, and that is the case here (and, in truth, in most copyright arguments).

I don't think that was the reason at all, I would put it down as misguided enthusiasm more than anything else. The person in question was an active fan, who was probably personally responsible for introducing Keene to a lot of other readers. What he did was just an extension of that, using something that was given away for free anyway in a different form. Despite the impression Keene gives, he wasn't pirating all the commercial releases too, that was other people.

BTW, the forbidden text in question still exists in full on Keene's website, and also on his Goodreads blog.

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

If laws are unjust, they should be changed. But claiming a law is unjust is not a good enough reason to just ignore or violate it at will.

It is if the individual ignoring or violating the unjust law is confident of the outcome. That's often how unjust laws are changed.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Laws aren't supposed to follow "what many people think is fair." "Many people" often don't know the full facts, and therefore can't make a "fair" judgment. So laws are created to be just.

What's the distinction?

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com

just [juhst]
adjective

1. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness: We hope to be just in our understanding of such difficult situations.

2. done or made according to principle; equitable; proper: a just reply.

3. based on right; rightful; lawful: a just claim.

4. in keeping with truth or fact; true; correct: a just analysis.

5. given or awarded rightly; deserved, as a sentence, punishment, or reward: a just penalty.

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Yes... but this doesn't somehow give individuals rights to ignore copyright laws because it is personally inconvenient, and that is the case here (and, in truth, in most copyright arguments).

If laws are unjust, they should be changed. But claiming a law is unjust is not a good enough reason to just ignore or violate it at will.

Would you say the same to The Mother of the Freedom Movement? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks

Laws that are outrageously unjust are routinely ignored. Despite the high financial penalties imposed on speeders, the ticket itself, the extra money to attend traffic school, the traffic school fee, if you get another one the increase in your mandated car insurance for several years, almost nobody follows the posted limits.

If you want to win this battle, you have to change the mindset of the consumers, and the best way to do that is without vitriol or woe-is-me rhetoric. It's with honesty and hard evidence.