Dangerously e-books: How do I know if my ebooks have been altered?

[John F]

Here is the link to Alex's version:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=232461

... The source text was Project Gutenberg 1917-h.htm. I have corrected typos, curled quotes, and modernised punctuation, spelling, and hyphenation using oxforddictionaries.com.

As always if you find any errors please let me know so I can correct them.

As you mentioned earlier in this thread, there appear to be some errors: 'gay' to 'light hearted'. Could you fix this please.

If nothing else, maybe a mod could post about the liberties taken in the translated version.

[DiapDealer]

That note does seem rather insufficient (assuming the editor has a desire to be clear and up front about the modifications to the original).

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's extremely important in this case that a note to that effect is added inside the book, because uploads made to MR inevitably get copied elsewhere (I find copies of my uploads all over the place).

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Completely agree.

And isn't this little discussion just proving what I said about how anyone can decide to make changes for any reason, upload the "new and improved" version, and have it proliferate all over the Internet?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

And isn't this little discussion just proving what I said about how anyone can decide to make changes for any reason, upload the "new and improved" version, and have it proliferate all over the Internet?

Nobody disagreed with you when you said that people can do it. The only disagreement was whether it's worth worrying about. I dislike it, but I don't worry about it.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Catlady

And isn't this little discussion just proving what I said about how anyone can decide to make changes for any reason, upload the "new and improved" version, and have it proliferate all over the Internet?

It absolutely does. Unfortunately, it does not support your conclusion, that this is a problem.

As has been said before, if you just buy/download any random old e/book without actually checking it's validity.... well...
And, you can STILL do the same with pbooks, you know.

You kind of deserve anything you have coming to you as a result of this, if you are in the habit of accepting anything put in front of you on blind faith.

EDIT: Just to be clear, this is the general "you" "people in general", not an accusation against anyone in particular.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Catlady

And isn't this little discussion just proving what I said about how anyone can decide to make changes for any reason, upload the "new and improved" version, and have it proliferate all over the Internet?

Yes. And it's also proving that it's hard to do so quietly. There will always be vocal proponents of the "best" editions of works that would most elicit that sort of desire to change. Scholars will be vocal about changes to "classic" works.

I have no trouble doing my own research into the authenticity of various editions. I'm not really concerned about other readers being fooled. Not because I don't care, but because I'm willing to trust that most readers aren't hapless victims, and can think and choose for themselves.

Nobody's entitled to free--meticulously verified--public domain works. Probably need to choose which of those aspects is more important to us as readers.

[susan_cassidy]

I don't think anyone reading a Wilkie Collins book could be unaware of the fact that words' meaning have changed slightly over time, or words' usage, at least. Also, spelling.

I find it the height of hubris for someone to decide that they knew better than Collins, and to edit his work in this way.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Yes. And it's also proving that it's hard to do so quietly. There will always be vocal proponents of the "best" editions of works that would most elicit that sort of desire to change. Scholars will be vocal about changes to "classic" works.

I have no trouble doing my own research into the authenticity of various editions. I'm not really concerned about other readers being fooled. Not because I don't care, but because I'm willing to trust that most readers aren't hapless victims, and can think and choose for themselves.

Nobody's entitled to free--meticulously verified--public domain works. Probably need to choose which of those aspects is more important to us as readers.

We are more fortunate in the area of cheap/free ebooks being genuine than in many other things such as cheap/free Rolex watches.

I don't care overly if an ebook has been altered to reflect changing times although I agree it should be made clear and a link or a listing of an unmodified version would be a nice touch.

Of course maybe I am saying that because my brain has been warped by accidentally reading an altered book or two.

Helen

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It absolutely does. Unfortunately, it does not support your conclusion, that this is a problem.

As has been said before, if you just buy/download any random old e/book without actually checking it's validity.... well...
And, you can STILL do the same with pbooks, you know.

You kind of deserve anything you have coming to you as a result of this, if you are in the habit of accepting anything put in front of you on blind faith.

EDIT: Just to be clear, this is the general "you" "people in general", not an accusation against anyone in particular.

My conclusion? My conclusion was that digital files can be more easily changed than print books, without the changes being apparent.

And when people download digital files, OF COURSE they assume the book has not been altered. It's absurd to think that people are going to go to a print source and proof a digital file against it before deciding to whether it's a legitimate copy that they want to read. When's the last time you did that?

Or, as was suggested, that they're going to buy the e-book version of a print book from a major publisher for $5-$10 when they can download it free from a multitude of sources.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Yes. And it's also proving that it's hard to do so quietly. There will always be vocal proponents of the "best" editions of works that would most elicit that sort of desire to change. Scholars will be vocal about changes to "classic" works.

Oh? Did someone other than the uploader report the Wilkie Collins work as changed? I don't recall seeing any posts warning about changes in books in the MR library, either this book or any others that have been uploaded.

When a traditional publisher offers a new edition of a classic, since the point is to sell more copies, the publisher highlights the changes as a selling point: Can't understand that old-fashioned language? Here's a modernized and updated version for ya.

There is no similar motivation for an uploader to be public about making changes.

I have no trouble doing my own research into the authenticity of various editions. I'm not really concerned about other readers being fooled. Not because I don't care, but because I'm willing to trust that most readers aren't hapless victims, and can think and choose for themselves.

Nobody's entitled to free--meticulously verified--public domain works. Probably need to choose which of those aspects is more important to us as readers.

Have you downloaded any books from the MR library? Project Gutenberg? Manybooks? How have you verified them for accuracy? Do you proof everything against the copies at archive.org? (Although of course Harry earlier noted some problems with even those copies.) Or do you proof them against your personal library of print copies?

Or do you assume--take on blind faith, like a hapless victm--that, say, Penguin e-book editions are accurate? Why? They're a major publisher, and why trust one of those money-grubbing, unscrupulous major publishers? Major publishers are demonized when it comes to current books, but the gold standard for classics?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Catlady

It's absurd to think that people are going to go to a print source and proof a digital file against it before deciding to whether it's a legitimate copy that they want to read. When's the last time you did that?

The last time I had concerns about a copy's legitimacy.

Or, as was suggested, that they're going to buy the e-book version of a print book from a major publisher for $5-$10 when they can download it free from a multitude of sources.

In which case they've decided that price was more important to them than legitimacy (or they did their own fact checking).

Exactly who are these unwashed, feeble-minded masses you're looking to protect?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The last time I had concerns about a copy's legitimacy.

And you would have concerns why? Or, to put it another way, what publishers/individual uploaders don't cause you concern about legitimacy? In whom do you have faith? And why do you have faith? Don't you risk being a "hapless victim"?

In which case they've decided that price was more important to them than legitimacy (or they did their own fact checking).

Oh, so price is a guarantee of legitimacy? Does that work for current books too?

Exactly who are these unwashed, feeble-minded masses you're looking to protect?

The masses are neither unwashed nor feeble-minded.

I care about books.

[DiapDealer]

And you would have concerns why? Or, to put it another way, what publishers/individual uploaders don't cause you concern about legitimacy? In whom do you have faith? And why do you have faith? Don't you risk being a "hapless victim"?

Most of the time, I don't have concerns. I just don't care all that much. But through this thread (and similar past discussions ), I have faith that HarryT doesn't change words willy-nilly. But at the same time, I can't ever be a hapless victim because I really don't give a damn if I get "fooled" occasionally.

Oh, so price is a guarantee of legitimacy? Does that work for current books too?

Of course not. But if you're not willing to pay a thing for it, you have no reasonable expectation of perfection. None whatsoever. If perfection and accuracy are important to you, buy a print copy with which you feel secure.

We need to move this conversation along. Nobody is arguing that public domain ebooks aren't easier to be altered and propagated than their print counterparts. I think everybody is even in agreement that they'd rather it didn't happen. The question is: what do you propose can be done about it -- short of repealing public domain and having copyright enforced in perpetuity (at which time the all important "free"-ness would be off the table)?

Or is this simply a "we don't like it" thread and nothing more?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Most of the time, I don't concerns. I just don't care all that much. But through this thread (and similar past discussions ), I have faith that HarryT doesn't change words willy-nilly. But at the same time, I can't ever be a hapless victim because I really don't give a damn if I get "fooled" occasionally.


Of course not. But if you're not willing to pay a thing for it, you have no reasonable expectation of perfection. None whatsoever. If perfection and accuracy are important to you, buy a print copy with which you feel secure.

We need to move this conversation along. Nobody is arguing that public domain ebooks aren't easier to be altered and propagated than their print counterparts. I think everybody is even in agreement that they'd rather it didn't happen. The question is: what do you propose can be done about it -- short of repealing public domain and having copyright enforced in perpetuity (at which time the all important "free"-ness would be off the table)?

Or is this simply a "we don't like it" thread and nothing more?

Hear, hear!

[Glorfindel]

It would seem so