Book 'pirate' goes underground after being named by Terry Goodkind

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

What was he supposed to do ?

He could have laid out the facts in his blog without publicly naming the pirate. He could have contacted the pirate directly and explained why what the pirate did was wrong (it seems like the pirate didn't think it was, if he was openly bragging about it). He could have said that if the pirate didn't remove the material (yes, it would only be symbolic as you can't get the genie back in the bottle), he would take legal action. He could have threatened public exposure if it happened again.

He could have been firm but still reasonable and polite. Instead, he comes off as the bigger jerk of the pair.

What lesson does the pirate and other potential pirates really get here? Not why uploading copyrighted material is wrong, but only that they should keep their mouth shut when they do it.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Catlady

What lesson does the pirate and other potential pirates really get here? Not why uploading copyrighted material is wrong, but only that they should keep their mouth shut when they do it.

For starters.
If they're even vaguely reasonable people they might consider that there are many ways to identify uploaders and that name and shame is quick and cheap.

An infringed-upon author could simply post a notice saying: "We tracked an ilegal upload on such and such a date to such and such IP that the service provider said was in use at such and such address. The residents have been notified."

They might even append the name of all the residents at that address.
Nothing but verifiable facts.

On the employment question: if the issue shows up on a Google search for a prospective employee, some companies would surely shrug it off.
But a whole lot of them would simply move on to the next qualified employee that doesn't have questionable ethics/morals. Some employers have higher standards than merely what is legal, which is simply the *lowest* standard of behavior that a society will tolerate. Standards for ethics, morals, common sense, and, yes, intelligence. The guy fails all of the above.

So while the guy isn't getting lynched or even sued to within an inch of his life, he's not getting scott-free by any stretch of the imagination.

As I said: there is a precedent.
Now to see where things go from there.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Quexos

No, he is wrong because first he does not have any financial issues to complain about and second, he plays the righteous knight that knows what is right from wrong because he is on the good side of the establishment. Right and wrong is only in the eye of the beholder. He may bitch about how what was done is illegal but saying it is wrong is at best very questionable. His interest is not others' interest and while it makes sense he defends his interests, it is silly that people on the other side of the "fence" would ingratiatingly be on the elite's side.

I don't see any "ingratiatingly"-ing going on here, if you mean sucking up? And why is saying it is wrong questionable. It may not even be illegal, but it is most likely as wrong as someone stealing your car because you can afford one and they can't.

I would consider it wrong if anyone stole from me and or started passing out my goods to all and sundry. And bragging about it is in my mind stupid and insulting.

Hopefully you leave your doors unlocked and your valuables in easy reach because there is generally someone poorer than you who will be happy to take them and in their eyes it will be right.

Helen

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by WritePR

Every person who got a pirated copy didn't buy it, which takes income away from him. That's stealing.

But if they were never going to buy it in the first place, what income has been taken away from him? Has he instead gotten free publicity and potentially a future customer?

------

Thus, I've completed that particular circular argument.

Carrry on....

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

What I find ironic is people on a site devoted to books and reading condoning stealing an author's hard work.

What does that have to do with anything? We're not a hive mind; we come from a variety of backgrounds with a variety of moral/ethical codes. Liking books and reading doesn't automatically equate to be pro or con on the issue of book piracy/sharing.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by WritePR

Every person who got a pirated copy didn't buy it, which takes income away from him. That's stealing.

Taking income away has nothing to do with stealing. My house has plenty of stuff I will never use, and will not replace. Less clutter, and it might be worth more. Taking that useless stuff I should have thrown out months ago is no better, in a legal or moral sense, than taking something I actually would have to use income to replace.

I, like you, suspect that pirating, on average, decreases sales. But you can't prove it. No burglar could ever be convicted if it had to be proven that the stolen item was something the victim needed or still wanted. It's enough to say that the thief took something of value. Look at the value of the item stolen, not whether my house contents were less valuable after it was taken.

P.S. Of course, burglary is much worse than piracy (or shoplifting) because of greater psychic harm to the victim who will fear home invasion comes next. Mine isn't an argument about how bad, but about whether it is bad.

[haydnfan]

I applaud Goodkind for his actions.

I also found his article on ebook piracy insightful. He put alot of thought and research into why people pirate and is largely sympathetic. I wish the big 6 were as insightful!

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by WritePR

By your logic, it would be wrong for stores to go after shoplifters because after all, they are rich so why do they care?

Just because someone is financial well off doesn't mean it's okay to steal from them. His books are HIS copyrighted property and he has every right to be upset if some jerk takes it upon himself to take it and distribute free copies to people. Every person who got a pirated copy didn't buy it, which takes income away from him. That's stealing.

Yeah that.
If I made an application, sell it, makes money from it and all, I know I would still be upset if someone steal my work.
Worse being people actually making profit from pirated work.

[stonetools]

Goodkind should have showed up at the pirate's home with the Sword of Truth and run him through, shouting " Sic Semper Pirati".

Would have put an end to that pirate's career, anyway. Would have been the libertarian thing to do.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

What does that have to do with anything? We're not a hive mind; we come from a variety of backgrounds with a variety of moral/ethical codes. Liking books and reading doesn't automatically equate to be pro or con on the issue of book piracy/sharing.

Ah, but it is fair to assume that "liking books" would generate concern for the fate of author and source of that pleasure.

QED, quite a few of MR members believe that piracy is not threatening the existence of the publishing industry and the medium. Which should be alarming for publishing industry, considering that this forum is full of ... reading addicts, in the first place. Even the small (and carefully chosen) sample of their customers is showing alarming rate of disregard for their fate. That's how I would interpret the discussion. Mind you, I am not a financial wiz who is capable of squeezing the last cent from the readers, so this (very humble) opinion might be utterly irrelevant.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Ankh

QED, quite a few of MR members believe that piracy is not threatening the existence of the publishing industry and the medium. Which should be alarming for publishing industry, considering that this forum is full of ... reading addicts, in the first place. Even the small (and carefully chosen) sample of their customers is showing alarming rate of disregard for their fate. That's how I would interpret the discussion.

You are not wrong; that way lies Napsterization.
If dedicated hobbyists and influencers are blase about piracy and copyright, those attitudes could very well spread beyond the techie/hobbyist community.
That way lies a war that would benefit nobody.
(Just look to the music industry.)

[Quexos]

Again this kind of post is irrelevant. If someone steals my car, I won't have that car anymore. If I leave my door open and someone takes my stuff, it won't be there anymore. But this guy, nothing has been taken from him. A download is a copy only. Why do you compare stealing and copying ?
And it is totally ingratiating to go to such length to uphold the elite's interests. (Unless you are one of the elites, in which case it would make sense)

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I don't see any "ingratiatingly"-ing going on here, if you mean sucking up? And why is saying it is wrong questionable. It may not even be illegal, but it is most likely as wrong as someone stealing your car because you can afford one and they can't.

I would consider it wrong if anyone stole from me and or started passing out my goods to all and sundry. And bragging about it is in my mind stupid and insulting.

Hopefully you leave your doors unlocked and your valuables in easy reach because there is generally someone poorer than you who will be happy to take them and in their eyes it will be right.

Helen

[Harper Kingsley]

If someone works really hard and pours their heart and soul into what they do... should they not be paid for that work? Just because he's made a lucrative career out of selling his stories doesn't mean he should then forgo any future compensation.

Besides, none of us know what his current financial status is. You can get a general idea of what he's made but you have no idea how much of that is left, what is going on in his personal life, etc, etc. It's arguments about how the artist has made enough money to last their lifetime and so doesn't deserve to be compensated that ends up with a lot of bestselling artists in any profession dying penniless in a gutter somewhere. And I for one am tired of seeing these kinds of heartbreaking stories on CNN.

Sure, if you're just taking a digital copy there's an unlimited number of copies left to be made, blah, blah, blah. But if he's got a set number in his head of how many copies need to be sold to make X amount of dollars and that's how much he needs to make a profit... then if people are pirating more than paying, he's got a reason to be upset.

And maybe he just took the plunge for the little guy. You know, the people like me and you? Because I'm sorry, but hiring lawyers and suing people is very expensive, and it's just something that a lot of small publishers and authors just can't afford. But pointing people toward the public Facebook page of some guy bragging about stealing stuff? That's easy.

Best advice: If you're going to pirate stuff, keep your mouth shut and don't advertise. Make it so the common joe on the street has to actually do some work to find illegal downloads; at least then they have time to pause and think and reflect "Am I doing the right thing? If I have to do this much work to get a book, then isn't what I'm doing wrong?"

Because if someone leaves their laptop computer on a sidewalk somewhere and I'm walking along with no one around, I might be tempted to steal it. But if that computer's inside someone's house, I would stop and realize that stealing is stealing, and if you have to go to so much work to do it it's probably a bad idea.

BTW, if you've purchased an ebook, changing the format isn't that big a deal because it's for your personal use. But then taking that ebook and posting it on some torrent site is kind of skeazy, and yes, you are taking food out of the mouths of the writers. Go ahead and say you're just sticking it to the "Big Monolithic Publishing Machines With Their Outdated Binary System," but that's just an excuse to do whatever. Because somewhere at the end of the machine is someone with kids to feed and rent to pay and they do have faces and names and maybe they're tired of digging ditches to make ends meet.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

You are not wrong; that way lies Napsterization.
If dedicated hobbyists and influencers are blase about piracy and copyright, those attitudes could very well spread beyond the techie/hobbyist community.
That way lies a war that would benefit nobody.
(Just look to the music industry.)

Having a war with your customers is never a good idea. There are superficial similarites with the music industry, in that digital piracy drove sales of dedicated hardware, which in turn led to the creation of legal places to buy content for those devices, and eventually gave opportunities to DIY content producers.

But I don't see the writing industry making the same mistakes. I doubt many of the people buying ebook reading hardware now ever stray away from whichever website their reader is tied to, never mind go surfing pirate sites. That's why sales on Smashwords are so poor compared to the sites they distribute to that have dedicated hardware.

Ebook piracy will never be as big a problem for writers as the second hand book market has always been for them.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

But I don't see the writing industry making the same mistakes.

I'm tempted to say they're making *new* mistakes...

But the BPHs actually thought listening to Apple and adopting their retail model simultaneously was a good idea.

One antitrust lawsuit later...