Exclusive interview with "Deathly Hallows" e-book pirates - Page 2

Steven Lyle Jordan · 07-31-2007, 04:07 PM

I hate to add this, though, but part of me wonders if providing this interview with a group that acted against the wishes of the author and publisher to create electronic works, is in fact a defacto acceptance of those actions...

"Gee, boys, you really shouldn't have done that. So how did you do it, again?..."

yvanleterrible · 07-31-2007, 04:23 PM

As I've said before, a good marketing ploy will be to release the whole series in e-version when all translations will have been done and that the inertia has subsided a bit. It is inevitable. Newer more powerful readers are on the way and publishers will have a way more to their liking as to deal with them. At that moment, I figure about two years, the HPebooks will be released.

JSWolf · 07-31-2007, 04:26 PM

Well, since J. K. Rowling already knows about these illegal ebook copies, why not release legal ebook copies then and at least make some money on them instead on none on the other copies? Seems silly to me not to have ebook versions.

JSWolf · 07-31-2007, 04:27 PM

I know what would have sold a lot of readers. A reader with the complete Harry Potter series on board. Now that the price for the Sony Reader has dropped to $299.99, imagine a reader at $350 with all 7 book on it. That would sell pretty well in mi opinion.

Bob Russell · 07-31-2007, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I hate to add this, though, but part of me wonders if providing this interview with a group that acted against the wishes of the author and publisher to create electronic works, is in fact a defacto acceptance of those actions...

I'm quite sure this is not presented in order to accept and approve of the actions (in terms of motive, at least.. I suppose one could argue back and forth about effect).

I think that there is a lot of fascination with this sort of thing. I'm glad to get this peek inside. We wonder who would dare to do it and why, we are frustrated by Rowlings' position against e-books (because so many of us are fans of the books and want the e-books). We have vehement feelings about the levels of current copyright protection and the balance between readers' rights and authors' rights. It is a fascinating topic and very emotional.

So a story like this is all the more fascinating. I think it's common to feel empathy for both the "authors should have full control over their content and how it is used or distributed" camp and the "content should be free" camp. I suppose it's due to frustration with things like long copyright terms, onerous DRM schemes causing headaches and constant repurchase of material, and yet a strong feeling of wanting authors to be properly compensated for their work. Nobody seems to have any good answers, and it makes this sort of paradigm-bending event all the more intriguing. Especially with regard to the motives and thoughts behind it. Most of us share the "just want to be able to read it my way" feeling, but want to stay within the lines and support authors. This sort of event challenges a lot of our perspectives as we consider it and the people involved.

Egghead · 07-31-2007, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I know what would have sold a lot of readers. A reader with the complete Harry Potter series on board. Now that the price for the Sony Reader has dropped to $299.99, imagine a reader at $350 with all 7 book on it. That would sell pretty well in mi opinion.

Remember the Harry Potter iPod? Had the first 6 audiobooks on it, along with being inscribed on the back with the Hogwarts Logo. Could not something similar be done with an ebook reader? Have the 7 books pre-loaded, and then have some sort of physical differences to the device and/or the cover?

HarryT · 08-01-2007, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I hate to add this, though, but part of me wonders if providing this interview with a group that acted against the wishes of the author and publisher to create electronic works, is in fact a defacto acceptance of those actions...

"Gee, boys, you really shouldn't have done that. So how did you do it, again?..."

Steve,

I was very much against providing a soapbox for these criminals to air their views; I've said that all along and make no apology for that.

Alexander Turcic · 08-01-2007, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I hate to add this, though, but part of me wonders if providing this interview with a group that acted against the wishes of the author and publisher to create electronic works, is in fact a defacto acceptance of those actions...

Steve, like Harry already pointed out, we were not exactly in a full agreement. We condemn these action in unison; but I believe there is also a valid reason to publish an interview like this one to give people a more complete picture of what was going on behind the leak (which major newspapers, like the NY Times, had talked about). Also, I strongly believe that censorship is the wrong avenue to take when dealing with Internet piracy.

HarryT · 08-01-2007, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexander Turcic

Steve, like Harry already pointed out, we were not exactly in a full agreement.

... but we can always "agree to disagree" without getting into pointless arguments

. That's the nice thing about this board - it's one of the few places on the internet where one can actually have intelligent conversations with people who hold different viewpoints without them degenerating into childish bickering.

Steven Lyle Jordan · 08-01-2007, 09:35 AM

Bob, Harry, Alex: All good answers. Yes, reporting the news is perfectly reasonable, and it is certainly news. Personally, as the meat of the interview is Why they would do such a thing, I would have avoided asking How they did it, which is really the only point in the interview where it sounds like someone's hoping to take notes and try it elsewhere... or maybe just rephrased it to "How hard or easy was it to pull off?" without asking for details. But as you pointed out, we're not all the same, and don't have to be in full agreement on these things.

Obviously, it's a shame that anyone should have to take actions so drastic, to enjoy a single book in a particular way that seems pretty harmless to us. Of course, if it is not demonstrated to be sold by the parties, or given away to those who otherwise would have bought the book, its illegality is still in question. Obviously the author's clear intent has been intentionally violated. But let's face it, once the book's purchased and yours, you're free to read it, give it away, use it as a doorstop, burn it, or transcribe it if you want to.

And I'd be willing to bet Rowling is just happy that her books are popular enough that someone would want to go through all that trouble...

Mambo · 08-01-2007, 11:54 AM

Days may come when after reading a book, you have to allow your brain to be erased in half an hour so that you can not remember the story and tell anybody else and this way mar somebodey else's "enjoyment".

JKR is sooooo sensitive. She cares about our enjoyment. And the ending of the HP stories must be so surprising... I remember when the most important event was in a HP book that somebody died. Oh it's is full of twists. Strange that I am not able to read any of the Harry Potter stories without falling asleep. Well, I tried but the language was so simple and the story was flat I rather go back to Dickens. "Jamie(?) and the magic torch" (if you remember) beats HP in every aspect (although it's animation).

Otherwise, authors should decide whether they want to publish they f. book or not. Once published it is public and it is not up to you to decide what happens next. It is fully up to the readers. I can give it to my mother for reading, I can photocopy it, OCR it and send it to my friend, because it is your fault that it leaked out: why did you PUBLISH it. But don't be afraid, I will not do that - with HP books - It does not worth it. JK Boring.

What did she think? That she writes 1-2 or 7 books and you don't have to work anymore? And poor people will have to decide whether to spend money on food or her book, while she is earning millions? She is collecting poor, ignorant people's money who can not find any other enjoyment in their life it's so hollow and she is making pressure on them to buy using the power of the media to grab even their last cents. And if they can't pay but still want to read something she puts them into jail or criminalise them.

HarryT · 08-01-2007, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mambo

Otherwise, authors should decide whether they want to publish they f. book or not. Once published it is public and it is not up to you to decide what happens next. It is fully up to the readers.

Er, no. That's precisely what "copyright" laws give authors - the right to control how a book is copied. If JKR says "no eBooks" then that's her right - no eBooks it is. We can disagree, but she has the absolutely right to make that decision.

nekokami · 08-01-2007, 03:20 PM

I think that may vary per country, HarryT. In the US there was recently a decision that books may be transformed to formats accessible to handicapped readers if the reader owns a copy, without explicit permission from the copyright holder. Some organizations are using this to share scanned/ocr'd copies of books between readers who are able to demonstrate a visual impairment.

In the case of the Harry Potter books, there are audio versions available, of course, but they are much more expensive than the print version.

Also, though I know scanning a whole book is illegal in the U.K. based on what you've posted here, I think it's less clear if that is the case in other countries.

What is clear from reading up on copyright law in different countries is that the meaning of terms like "copyright," "fair use," and "author's rights" differ from country to country, sometimes very widely. I don't think any of us can assume we know what's legal or considered ethical in another country or culture, unless we've studied it specifically.

HarryT · 08-01-2007, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nekokami

I think that may vary per country, HarryT. In the US there was recently a decision that books may be transformed to formats accessible to handicapped readers if the reader owns a copy, without explicit permission from the copyright holder. Some organizations are using this to share scanned/ocr'd copies of books between readers who are able to demonstrate a visual impairment.

It's the same in the UK, too, in the situation you describe, but that's a completely different situation from somebody publically posting a scanned or typed copy on the internet where it can be downloaded by anybody. That's a flagrant breach of copyright - and a criminal act - in any western country.

You're right - definitions of things like "fair use" vary from country to country. In the UK it's clearly defined (one chapter of a book, or one article from a magazine) - I understand the meaning is rather less clear-cut in the US, and that it might be argued that scanning a book one has bought for personal use is "fair use". There is clearly, however, a fundamental difference between scanning a book for one's own personal use, and posting that scan on the internet where it can be downloaded by anyone.

Liviu_5 · 08-01-2007, 05:08 PM

Personally I think that JK Rowling should cut a check to the people who scanned HP7 and posted it, since that story transformed a mega-mega event into a mega-mega-mega event in the publishing world, and most likely improved her sales by a significant fraction

The more general question about uploading/downloading books is very tricky in my opinion; I guess if you leave anywhere in the western world there is no way not to break some law or another, from jaywalking to traffic law, to tax law (for example anyone in the US buying the Sony Reader online tax free and not paying their state sales tax on it at tax time is breaking the law - not that your state income tax enforcement people are going to bother), and even considering that downloading or uploading is deliberate while sometimes you are not aware of this or that law, ignorance is not an excuse legally.
Maybe it's a good idea to break tax law but not break copyright law, but the issue is not that black and white.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New "E-Book Devices" "Bookeen Opus" forum desired	ericch	Bookeen	3	08-06-2009 06:31 PM
Paulo "The Alchemist" Coelho pirates own books to increase sales	Alexander Turcic	News	27	12-04-2008 11:46 AM
E-Book: "As the Oceans Rise" with exclusive MR coupon	Alexander Turcic	Deals and Resources (No Self-Promotion or Affiliate Links)	3	03-07-2008 03:05 PM
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows PRE-ORDER	TadW	Reading Recommendations	12	02-03-2007 05:00 PM

07-31-2007, 04:07 PM	#16
Steven Lyle Jordan Grand Sorcerer Posts: 8,478 Karma: 5171130 Join Date: Jan 2006 Device: none	I hate to add this, though, but part of me wonders if providing this interview with a group that acted against the wishes of the author and publisher to create electronic works, is in fact a defacto acceptance of those actions... "Gee, boys, you really shouldn't have done that. So how did you do it, again?..."

07-31-2007, 04:23 PM	#17
yvanleterrible Reborn Paper User Posts: 8,616 Karma: 15446734 Join Date: May 2006 Location: Que Nada Device: iPhone8, iPad Air	As I've said before, a good marketing ploy will be to release the whole series in e-version when all translations will have been done and that the inertia has subsided a bit. It is inevitable. Newer more powerful readers are on the way and publishers will have a way more to their liking as to deal with them. At that moment, I figure about two years, the HPebooks will be released.

07-31-2007, 04:26 PM	#18
JSWolf Resident Curmudgeon Posts: 79,749 Karma: 145864619 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3	Well, since J. K. Rowling already knows about these illegal ebook copies, why not release legal ebook copies then and at least make some money on them instead on none on the other copies? Seems silly to me not to have ebook versions.

07-31-2007, 04:27 PM	#19
JSWolf Resident Curmudgeon Posts: 79,749 Karma: 145864619 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3	I know what would have sold a lot of readers. A reader with the complete Harry Potter series on board. Now that the price for the Sony Reader has dropped to $299.99, imagine a reader at $350 with all 7 book on it. That would sell pretty well in mi opinion.

08-01-2007, 09:35 AM	#25
Steven Lyle Jordan Grand Sorcerer Posts: 8,478 Karma: 5171130 Join Date: Jan 2006 Device: none	Bob, Harry, Alex: All good answers. Yes, reporting the news is perfectly reasonable, and it is certainly news. Personally, as the meat of the interview is Why they would do such a thing, I would have avoided asking How they did it, which is really the only point in the interview where it sounds like someone's hoping to take notes and try it elsewhere... or maybe just rephrased it to "How hard or easy was it to pull off?" without asking for details. But as you pointed out, we're not all the same, and don't have to be in full agreement on these things. Obviously, it's a shame that anyone should have to take actions so drastic, to enjoy a single book in a particular way that seems pretty harmless to us. Of course, if it is not demonstrated to be sold by the parties, or given away to those who otherwise would have bought the book, its illegality is still in question. Obviously the author's clear intent has been intentionally violated. But let's face it, once the book's purchased and yours, you're free to read it, give it away, use it as a doorstop, burn it, or transcribe it if you want to. And I'd be willing to bet Rowling is just happy that her books are popular enough that someone would want to go through all that trouble...

08-01-2007, 11:54 AM	#26
Mambo Gadget fan Posts: 147 Karma: 3968 Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: London Device: RM Tablet PC, iLiad, PRS 505, iPod Touch	Days may come when after reading a book, you have to allow your brain to be erased in half an hour so that you can not remember the story and tell anybody else and this way mar somebodey else's "enjoyment". JKR is sooooo sensitive. She cares about our enjoyment. And the ending of the HP stories must be so surprising... I remember when the most important event was in a HP book that somebody died. Oh it's is full of twists. Strange that I am not able to read any of the Harry Potter stories without falling asleep. Well, I tried but the language was so simple and the story was flat I rather go back to Dickens. "Jamie(?) and the magic torch" (if you remember) beats HP in every aspect (although it's animation). Otherwise, authors should decide whether they want to publish they f. book or not. Once published it is public and it is not up to you to decide what happens next. It is fully up to the readers. I can give it to my mother for reading, I can photocopy it, OCR it and send it to my friend, because it is your fault that it leaked out: why did you PUBLISH it. But don't be afraid, I will not do that - with HP books - It does not worth it. JK Boring. What did she think? That she writes 1-2 or 7 books and you don't have to work anymore? And poor people will have to decide whether to spend money on food or her book, while she is earning millions? She is collecting poor, ignorant people's money who can not find any other enjoyment in their life it's so hollow and she is making pressure on them to buy using the power of the media to grab even their last cents. And if they can't pay but still want to read something she puts them into jail or criminalise them.

08-01-2007, 03:20 PM	#28
nekokami fruminous edugeek Posts: 6,745 Karma: 551260 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Northeast US Device: iPad, eBw 1150	I think that may vary per country, HarryT. In the US there was recently a decision that books may be transformed to formats accessible to handicapped readers if the reader owns a copy, without explicit permission from the copyright holder. Some organizations are using this to share scanned/ocr'd copies of books between readers who are able to demonstrate a visual impairment. In the case of the Harry Potter books, there are audio versions available, of course, but they are much more expensive than the print version. Also, though I know scanning a whole book is illegal in the U.K. based on what you've posted here, I think it's less clear if that is the case in other countries. What is clear from reading up on copyright law in different countries is that the meaning of terms like "copyright," "fair use," and "author's rights" differ from country to country, sometimes very widely. I don't think any of us can assume we know what's legal or considered ethical in another country or culture, unless we've studied it specifically.

08-01-2007, 05:08 PM	#30
Liviu_5 Books and more books Posts: 917 Karma: 69499 Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: White Plains, NY, USA Device: Nook Color, Itouch, Nokia770, Sony 650, Sony 700(dead), Ebk(given)	Personally I think that JK Rowling should cut a check to the people who scanned HP7 and posted it, since that story transformed a mega-mega event into a mega-mega-mega event in the publishing world, and most likely improved her sales by a significant fraction The more general question about uploading/downloading books is very tricky in my opinion; I guess if you leave anywhere in the western world there is no way not to break some law or another, from jaywalking to traffic law, to tax law (for example anyone in the US buying the Sony Reader online tax free and not paying their state sales tax on it at tax time is breaking the law - not that your state income tax enforcement people are going to bother), and even considering that downloading or uploading is deliberate while sometimes you are not aware of this or that law, ignorance is not an excuse legally. Maybe it's a good idea to break tax law but not break copyright law, but the issue is not that black and white.

Advert

Advert