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

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by 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)

Well first of all I dispute your use of the word ingratiating. You can only ingratiate yourself if the person you are ingratiating is aware of your ingratiating behavior.

And I am curious as to what you mean by the elites. Anyone who is successful in life perhaps? Or has gained more success or money than you have though their effort or luck etc.?

I think copying without the owners permission is wrong and in this case, because the perpetrator was doing it for personal gain (self aggrandization can be considered personal gain) and encouraging others by his actions to do something at the very least unethical is worse than stealing your car. Only one person is stealing your car while this person is encouraging as many people as possible to take the author's property without paying for it.

Regardless of the law if I had something someone else owned and did something with it against their wishes without their permission I would consider this unethical and sleazy behavior, whether it be copying a book, or using their grandmothers antique soup tureen as a chamberpot.

You are perfectly within your rights to defend pirates big or small, I will not even accuse you of ingratiating yourself with them as I doubt you could. Just be aware that the more you lower your ethical standards, the faster snd farther they will fall.

Helen

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Only one person is stealing your car while this person is encouraging as many people as possible to take the author's property without paying for it.

Another reason car theft may be less bad is that it can be insured against. Because the damage of being forced against your will to give free samples to all comers is incalculable, losses are completely borne by the victim.

Originally Posted by Quexos

And it is totally ingratiating to go to such length to uphold the elite's interests.

In the US, at least, one can safely say that the average professionally published author has a below average income. I can't prove it, but my impression is that even borderline New York Times bestselling authors ofen have a below-average income. My editor sister-in-law may be doing better than the average author, but that doesn't make her the elite either. The stockholders of publishers? A lot, maybe most, of the stock is owned by institutions like charities and pension plans. Yes, CEO's of big publishing houses can make a couple million US dollars a year, but this still comes to a tiny portion of book prices.

But what about the claim that giving out free samples, for every book, increases book sales? If true, which I doubt, and if your claim about publishing people being elite is also true, which I doubt, then, by your own standards, pirates should be assailed for propping up the elite.

The real difference, in terms of elites, is that book pirates are often from highly educated upper income elites, or are in the process of joining elites. I'd be surprised if Yale, MIT, and Stanford aren't hotbeds of book piracy. By contrast, shoplifters and so forth are much less elite.

[Quexos]

Then let us call it third party ingratiation as it is showing up to the community here how one is on the side of the establishment and how one is the good guy while those not agreeing with this are the bad guys.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Well first of all I dispute your use of the word ingratiating. You can only ingratiate yourself if the person you are ingratiating is aware of your ingratiating behavior.

Anyone that has a money gain that is totally disproportionate to their amount of effort as opposed to anyone working hard and making the minimum wage or a reasonable amount above the minimum wage.
I'd like to add that, he who makes a lot of money, good for him. I am not opposing that. I only oppose he who is not even quenched by his huge amount of disproportionate money made, that he has to on top, make sure nobody among the little hard working people can dare and try to get a little more if they are smart enough to get it, as if saying: not only I must have way way more than the average guy, I also must make sure they don't have a little more, not even a tiny bit if they are smart enough to do so.

It's the syndrome of the guy that only enjoys his caviar if he knows the great majority can't afford it. If one day the majority for whatever reason can afford it then it does not taste so good anymore. And that is what is wrong and that is what I stand against.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

And I am curious as to what you mean by the elites. Anyone who is successful in life perhaps? Or has gained more success or money than you have though their effort or luck etc.?

Depends what you do with it, if you say you wrote it then yes it would be wrong, if you sell it then yes it would be wrong as you'd be making money out of something you never put an effort to create. If you change words or chapters in it, you twist the author's vision without his permission.
But if all you do is read a copy of it, the author is still the author, he's still got the money he made off it and the fame if that's what his ego needs. But if he can't stand that someone does not pay him just cause that someone is smart enough to circumvent or bypass that then it's the caviar syndrome previously mentioned in this post.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Regardless of the law if I had something someone else owned and did something with it against their wishes without their permission I would consider this unethical and sleazy behavior, whether it be copying a book, or using their grandmothers antique soup tureen as a chamberpot.

[silasgreenback]

Sci-fi author C.J. Cherryh has recently taken her own approach in dealing with a commercial pirate:

If you’re just now tuning in, an overseas pirate has put up a ripoff masquerading as a Foreigner novel, which is actually a repackaged ripoff of a Foreigner novel. Do honest writers a favor and hit this little offering, along with Rendezvous with Zama and the rest of his piratical offerings…with the most scathing reviews you can manage. They put this stuff out on a weekend, apparently, so all the people that could act are out of the office—but WE aren’t. So go do a good deed....


Campaign Against a Pirate

This all transpired over the weekend and she was victorious as far as the material no longer being hosted on Amazon.

I'm actually a fan of Cherryh's and while the situation and approach are different than Goodkind's, I couldn't blame her if she used his methods or he hers.

Edit: It appears John Scalzi is also involved.

John Scalzi's Site

[Harper Kingsley]

silasgreenback: I should have paid attention to my email over the weekend, but sometimes Scalzi's just not interesting to me. Still, wow, that guy was pretty gutsy thinking he was going to get away with something like that.

I think all this pirate stuff is going to come to a head and there's going to be a gigantic blowup. Of course, six months later all the drama will be rehashed on CNN and will happen again to more public outrage

[WritePR]

Originally Posted by Quexos

Anyone that has a money gain that is totally disproportionate to their amount of effort as opposed to anyone working hard and making the minimum wage or a reasonable amount above the minimum wage..

Who the hell are you to judge whether writing a book is hard work or not? Ever tried it? You really need to get off your high horse and over your complex about how life is oh so unfair if you aren't one of the "elite". Honestly I think you are just jealous of people who have things and opportunities you don't.

Someone making minimum wage is not somehow superior to someone making $100,000 a year and vice versa.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by WritePR

Who the hell are you to judge whether writing a book is hard work or not? Ever tried it? You really need to get off your high horse and over your complex about how life is oh so unfair if you aren't one of the "elite". Honestly I think you are just jealous of people who have things and opportunities you don't.

Someone making minimum wage is not somehow superior to someone making $100,000 a year and vice versa.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by 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 ?

It sounds to me like you just to take stuff for free from people who worked hard to produce it. But since you know this is wrong, you feel the need to come up with specious arguments to support it.

The whole copyright-infringement-isn't-stealing canard is a good example. Stealing *does not* require that the owner be deprived of the good. (Some, but by no means all definitions of theft do). If you steal cable service from your provider, they are still able to provide as much cable to everyone else as they were before. But you are still stealing.

And of course the pirate in this case didn't just download a copy of the book; he uploaded a copy so that thousands or millions of other people could also get a copy for free.

And I know your next argument - it's okay because we can't prove that these people would have bought the book in the first place.

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)

Yeah, this works great, especially if you define as the elite anyone who has anything you want. But it does seem like you just want moral license to take whatever you want from whoever you can get it from, and will use any one of a number of post-hoc rationalizations: (1) it's not *stealing*; (2) all artists are rich; (3) it's the evil publishers; (4) etc.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by WritePR

Someone making minimum wage is not somehow superior to someone making $100,000 a year and vice versa.

Some folks seem to think that anybody that makes good choices in life is by definition corrupt.
(shrug)

The whole 1%-99% percent crap is all about reassuring people on the wrong side of the global economic downturn that they are in no way shape or form responsible for how their life has turned out; it's all really the fault of the faceless "elites". With "elites" being anybody who studied a discipline that is still in actual demand, working in a growing industry, or creating products that actually add something to the sum total of human achievement/enjoyment.

Because it is, of course!, more virtuous to spend months camped out in public spaces ranting and raving than to actually go out and do something with your life. Like joining an NGO or helping out a local charity in all that free, government-subsidized, time.

And, of course, it is totally virtuous to undercut the efforts of an "elitist" author by giving away free copies of his brand-new effort, released *independently* of the giant multinational oligarchs that think they control publishing.

Somehow, the guy who is actually challenging the status quo, putting *his* money and reputation on the line to bypass the entrenched corporate monsters, somehow *he* is the heavy of this exercise?

He may or not be the jerk some think, but even anti-heroes deserve *some* respect. If you're going to rip the guy off, at least have the common sense to rip him off in the shadows with the rest of the cockroaches!

[Quexos]

Funny so far it sounds to me like you are the poor little one writer who keeps complaining how life is unfair and how the bad internet pirates are big meanies that don't bow down to your every whim.
Also I have to wonder, is there any post by you that is not an aggressive complaint ? If you can't debate calmly with opinions others than yours, I suggest you refrain from posting. And if you're going to keep posting, I suggest you keep your written hysteria at bay. Thank you very much

Originally Posted by WritePR

Who the hell are you to judge whether writing a book is hard work or not? Ever tried it? You really need to get off your high horse and over your complex about how life is oh so unfair if you aren't one of the "elite". Honestly I think you are just jealous of people who have things and opportunities you don't.

Someone making minimum wage is not somehow superior to someone making $100,000 a year and vice versa.

[Quexos]

So now we are going from debating this issue to pointing fingers and throwing accusations ? So now I take the stuff from people for free ? This is as ludicrous as me saying that you are paid by the publishers to defend their interests in internet forums.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

It sounds to me like you just to take stuff for free from people who worked hard to produce it. But since you know this is wrong, you feel the need to come up with specious arguments to support it.

I don't know if this is a continuation of your personal accusations against me but FYI I don't have cable because I am not interested by the deals they offer and I don't have the slightest idea how to pirate cable. (So I must be stealing from them by not agreeing to their deals I suppose )

You must remember that this is an opinion and you cannot impose it on the entire world. My definition of stealing is when something is taken from me and I cannot use it anymore because I don't have it anymore.

You put the system of exchange of goods for money above everything else so by your definition people that cannot afford to pay for food MUST watch their kids starve to death because (in this case it would be actual stealing) stealing food is wrong and they must pay whatever price food companies demand. Now you'll probably argue that this is not the same issue. However the principle is the same, if we accept that the exchange of goods (whatever goods) for money is the ultimate universal truth then people that cannot afford the price demanded by food companies MUST die, it's the only "moral" choice ...
Well I try to transcend those concepts which some people wants to see as universal truths giving them the right to impose it on others.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

The whole copyright-infringement-isn't-stealing canard is a good example. Stealing *does not* require that the owner be deprived of the good. (Some, but by no means all definitions of theft do). If you steal cable service from your provider, they are still able to provide as much cable to everyone else as they were before. But you are still stealing.

Morals are subjective. Please remember that.
I could also say that by your argument, you give all companies moral license to do whatever they want with their product (see the food argument)

Consider for a second the imaginary character Robin Hood. To say things in a simplistic way, this guy took from the rich to give to the poor. So I'm curious, in your opinion, is this guy right or wrong ?

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

But it does seem like you just want moral license to take whatever you want from whoever you can get it from, and will use any one of a number of post-hoc rationalizations: (1) it's not *stealing*; (2) all artists are rich; (3) it's the evil publishers; (4) etc.

[maxiart]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Take him to court, presumably. But that certainly wouldn't have had the deterrent effect that this action has. I certainly applaud the author for doing this.

Exactly how is this a better deterrent than a fine? This is just the consequence of stupidity, but no real deterrent to anyone marginally smarter than the aforementioned idiot. And someone marginally smarter will not be fined, either, so...

Yeah.

But I do agree on one thing, and it is that there is no need for rationalizations.

[DarkScribe]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I'm not an expert on UK law, but Harry did say "libel" and not "defamation," which is a broader concept. In the US, for example, where it is much more difficult to prosecute a libel case than in the UK, truth is an absolute defense to libel. But it isn't a defense to certain other offenses involving communication, such as "invasion of privacy," where someone publishes embarrassing (but true) information of a private nature concerning a private individual. I.e., if you find an embarrassing package of love letters that fell out of my pocket, you can't necessarily publish them on your blog without repercussions. (Although you may be able to if I'm a public figure, or if they relate to a matter of genuine public interest.)

But none of these niceties really are at issue in this particular case, where the pirate himself invited the attention by letting hundreds or thousands or millions of people know that he was a pirate. If Goodkind could file a suit against the guy (which would be public document including all of the facts already published, possibly more), he can also make this information public without filing suit.

OT - The background on why some people don't like Goodkind is interesting. I read "Wizard's First Rule," which I liked enough to read the second book in the series, which I didn't like enough to to read any more by him. But since those books are fairly conventional, not to say formulaic, I always wondered about why some people felt so strongly about him.

Nor am I "expert", though I am experienced. My tertiary training in law began and ended with a couple of units of business law, but my mother was a magistrate and I grew up in a quasi-legal environment. I use defamation in its intended broader sense, libel, slander etc., are specific forms of defamation. My experience comes from my early days in journalism, covering court cases, plus my tertiary training in journalism. Ethics and law, particularly law pertaining to defamation as it applies to journalism are two areas that are heavily emphasised. A matter of self preservation in many ways. A number of journalists and their employers have lost cases when they had only published truth. In my direct experience, defamation - of whatever nature, often requires proof of damage or loss, the issue can go beyond true or false.

With regard to Goodkind, is it only on these forums that you find him disparaged or is it elsewhere? I have not read anything from him - not in my area of interest. Some people do have a way of polarising others - I do. I am often less than politically correct, in fact I find political correctness to be one the most negative influences on modern society. When you lose the ability to say exactly what you feel in an honest manner, you might as well keep silent.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

Some people do have a way of polarising others - I do. I am often less than politically correct, in fact I find political correctness to be one the most negative influences on modern society. When you lose the ability to say exactly what you feel in an honest manner, you might as well keep silent.

Polarizing people serve a valuable social role by challenging "accepted wisdom" groupthink.

Keeping folks silent is the *intended* purpose of Political Correctness; instead of countering uncomfortable ideas with logic and reason, it counters it with decibels and intimidation.
Of course, driving dissent underground *never* comes back to bite you...

Political correctness is a very dangerous game because by muting dissent it makes it easy to delude yourself into thinking your position is righteous and universal... until reality (or an angry author on the warpath) smacks you a good one. (Case in point, the subject of this thread.)

Edit: Heinlein said it pretty concisely:
Reason is poor propaganda when opposed by the yammering, unceasing lies of shrewd and evil and self-serving men. [Assignment in Eternity (1953)]

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein

[plib]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Some folks seem to think that anybody that makes good choices in life is by definition corrupt.
(shrug)

The whole 1%-99% percent crap is all about reassuring people on the wrong side of the global economic downturn that they are in no way shape or form responsible for how their life has turned out; it's all really the fault of the faceless "elites". With "elites" being anybody who studied a discipline that is still in actual demand, working in a growing industry, or creating products that actually add something to the sum total of human achievement/enjoyment.

For the vast majority the choices you make in life, other than the choice of your parents, actually have very little to do with whether you are part of the 1% or the 99%. Whether you studied a discipline that is still in demand or work in a growing industry may mean that you still have a job, it doesn't really have an effect on whether you can join that one percent. This article is a little statistics heavy but it has a good historical analysis of what the 1%/99% divide actually means. I very much doubt that any poster on here is in the top 10%, who own 70% of the wealth in America, let alone the top 1%.