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

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

Why would anyone pirate any of the ghastliness that Goodkind has spewed forth?

He is an author who sells a lot of books. Perhaps, if I may offer a thought, other people may like his books even if you yourself do not?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

Anonymity is easy through usenet,

Not if you want to post binaries it isn't.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by Catlady

There are a lot of nuts. Suppose some misguided fan were to go after this pirate--that would be Goodkind's responsibility.

No it wouldn't. It would be the misguided fan's responsibility. As far as I can recall we are still personally responsible for our actions, no matter how much we try to blame it on society, our parents, bullying or drugs. We make a choice, Goodkind's choice was to expose the pirate. If some nut goes after Goodkind or the pirate, it is a consequence, not a responsibility.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

No it wouldn't. It would be the misguided fan's responsibility. As far as I can recall we are still personally responsible for our actions, no matter how much we try to blame it on society, our parents, bullying or drugs. We make a choice, Goodkind's choice was to expose the pirate. If some nut goes after Goodkind or the pirate, it is a consequence, not a responsibility.

OK--yes, you're right, the actual responsibility would be the misguided fan's, but Goodkind would be morally responsible for inciting the fan. Why take the chance of enabling some dangerous nut?

Goodkind could have contacted the pirate privately and he could have vented all he wanted to publicly without identifying the guy. But he chose the worst, nastiest, most potentially harmful way to handle the situation.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I don't condone the piracy, or the stupidity of bragging about it, but it still seems to me that the author's response was totally disproportionate.

There are a lot of nuts. Suppose some misguided fan were to go after this pirate--that would be Goodkind's responsibility.

I think that a letter threatening legal action would probably have been more than enough.

I don't know anything about this author, but I now have an image of him as a nasty jerk and a self-righteous bully.

I disagree.

A letter threatening legal action would probably have done nothing or, at best, removed this one download source.

However - publicly outing the uploader has caused a big media hit and has shown a lot of other people who upload IP that it actually has consequences.

Considering the number of people sued for uploading (Approaching zero) and the legal expenses incurred I think more people should use the "Name and Shame" method.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Catlady

But he chose the worst, nastiest, most potentially harmful way to handle the situation.

Not even close.
http://www.teleread.com/paul-biba/ha...off-your-hand/

All three authors have taken the piracy personally, but each took a different approach.
Kress tried engagement and education and got slapped in the face for it.
Ellison went all pitbull and actually had some very minor success in court.

Goodkind went for shame and scorn.
He called him what he is.
He didn't call for any action so he isn't responsible for anything else.
Depending on the laws where he lives the most he is liable for is a libel suit and if he has any kind of evidence linking the guy to the piracy he's in the clear.

Going underground until it all blows over is the best course of action for the pirate.
He's probably just an amateur who never stopped to think there might be consequences for "giving back to the community". Unlike the waste of DNA making money of Kress' book in russia.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by Catlady

OK--yes, you're right, the actual responsibility would be the misguided fan's, but Goodkind would be morally responsible for inciting the fan. Why take the chance of enabling some dangerous nut?

Goodkind could have contacted the pirate privately and he could have vented all he wanted to publicly without identifying the guy. But he chose the worst, nastiest, most potentially harmful way to handle the situation.

My best guess is that Goodkind was upset, or to use the more clinical term; thoroughly pissed. It may very well come back to haunt him, I don't know. If it does, then I agree, he would have to share some of the responsibility.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Goodkind could have contacted the pirate privately and he could have vented all he wanted to publicly without identifying the guy. But he chose the worst, nastiest, most potentially harmful way to handle the situation.

On the other hand, there is no such thing as bad publicity. The history of written word is full of characters that embraced the aura of controversy, and profited from doing so.

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Kress tried engagement and education and got slapped in the face for it.

And also made at least one sale that she wouldn't have otherwise. Before reading this exchange I'd never heard of her, afterwards I now have one of her books, which may (if it's as good as it sounds) spur me to buy more and recommend her works to others... or as Doctorow is fond of saying, obscurity is the enemy of success [very loooooosly quoted, I'm too lazy to look up exactly how he says it, and I cringe at the thought of having to read much else that he's written trying to find it].

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by Barcey

Not a smart move, better to deal with it via a standard take down notice and not make it personal. It's not likely to change general behavior other then making pirates more careful about protecting their identity. For the specific person he attacked he either convinced him to not share his books anymore or made a life long enemy that will go out of his way to harm him in the future. My guess is the later.

[shrug] I guess it made him feel better and gave himself a bunch of free publicity.

+1

I agree with this.

I'm also thinking that Goodkind opened himself up nicely for a slander lawsuit. If his only "proof" of piracy was the bragging of the other guy, then he has no hard facts to connect that any copies of the book floating in the ether as having come from that guy's computer and his public "shaming" of the guy could really backfire. Wouldn't be the first time that some guy has claimed to do things that they actually haven't done.

A letter from his legal firm would have been more appropriate.

I'm sure there are going to be people who are going to upload his books to the 'net just out of spite now, so while Goodkind might have gotten some initial satisfaction by venting, I think that he just ensured that any future books will go up as soon as the ARC is released.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

+1

I agree with this.

I'm also thinking that Goodkind opened himself up nicely for a slander lawsuit. If his only "proof" of piracy was the bragging of the other guy, then he has no hard facts to connect that any copies of the book floating in the ether as having come from that guy's computer and his public "shaming" of the guy could really backfire. Wouldn't be the first time that some guy has claimed to do things that they actually haven't done.

There's no basis for a libel (or slander) suit here because Goodkind is repeating what the pirate himself said. It doesn't matter whether the pirate was lying because - among other reasons - the pirate was the first person to spread the lie.

A letter from his legal firm would have been more appropriate.

I don't think so; I think this has been pretty effective.

I'm sure there are going to be people who are going to upload his books to the 'net just out of spite now, so while Goodkind might have gotten some initial satisfaction by venting, I think that he just ensured that any future books will go up as soon as the ARC is released.

This would probably happen anyway.

[elemenoP]

I have to say, I'm all for it. If I understand it right, this person was a fan and/or was posting in fan sites about having uploaded the book, right? I think there is this culture that piracy is A-OK. It's cool, it's fun, it's free books. On another reading-related message board I'm on, I have seen people post, "send me a private message and I can get you X, Y, or Z book for free." When I have posted that I wish people wouldn't do this, I have been mocked for it. But when the AUTHOR comes out against it, people are going to think about it! It's going to make all the fans on that message board think twice about who is affected when we pirate books. If you are a fan, why hurt the person you are a fan of? And naming names is certainly more powerful than just saying, "hey guys, please don't do this, ok?"

My father used to have an office coffee service. When he had a client--such as a restaurant or a law firm--who didn't pay their coffee bill, he could sue them and it was costly, took a long time, and rarely resulted in any money in the end. So he started picketing his deadbeat clients. He would alert the local police that he was coming and then hire homeless people to carry signs ("Smith and Smith Law Firm Won't You Please Pay Your Coffee Bill?") in front of the office. He got paid within an hour every time he did this. Name and shame, in action! Before Facebook!

eP

[Lynx-lynx]

As to whether Goodkind has committed any offences - I'm wondering about 'vigilantism' type offences?

Yes - it appears Goodkind has reacted and acted on the words of the person who stated that they pirated his book, but, the extent to which Goodkind then reacted may, or may not , be considered vigilantism.

Yes or no?

And is it a recognised offence in Goodkind's part of the world?

If it is - then it wouldn't matter that the person that he outed was in another country and that the action was via the internet, because ostensibly the police in his local town would arrest him based on the fact that the actions occurred in their jurisdiction.

Speculation on my part, but Goodkind's actions do seem to have the connotation of taking the law into his own hands by the degree of the 'outing' he gave the person.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by elemenoP

I have to say, I'm all for it. If I understand it right, this person was a fan and/or was posting in fan sites about having uploaded the book, right? I think there is this culture that piracy is A-OK. It's cool, it's fun, it's free books. On another reading-related message board I'm on, I have seen people post, "send me a private message and I can get you X, Y, or Z book for free." When I have posted that I wish people wouldn't do this, I have been mocked for it. But when the AUTHOR comes out against it, people are going to think about it! It's going to make all the fans on that message board think twice about who is affected when we pirate books. If you are a fan, why hurt the person you are a fan of? And naming names is certainly more powerful than just saying, "hey guys, please don't do this, ok?"

My father used to have an office coffee service. When he had a client--such as a restaurant or a law firm--who didn't pay their coffee bill, he could sue them and it was costly, took a long time, and rarely resulted in any money in the end. So he started picketing his deadbeat clients. He would alert the local police that he was coming and then hire homeless people to carry signs ("Smith and Smith Law Firm Won't You Please Pay Your Coffee Bill?") in front of the office. He got paid within an hour every time he did this. Name and shame, in action! Before Facebook!

eP

Great story. It is a shame though, that dead beat pirates elicit so much more good will than dead beat lawyers. Or will we hear the crowd say "hey, it could have been somebody from another law firm pretending to be from Smith&Smith?"

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

He's not publishing it in paper except for the $300 limited edition.

I missed that. It's kindda nasty. Did you see Goodkind's Wikipedia entry?

Originally Posted by Giggleton

So life saving drugs and food should be free to all who need them? I agree with you.

I said "vital foodstuffs," not food. It might seem a subtle difference, except it is the difference between a mixed economy with a safety net, as opposed to one without economic freedom.

By the way, if we can get books via the library, why is there a piracy problem??

Repeatedly asked and answered in my posting history -- and that of others.

Not yet answered is what the penalty will be for people who DRM texts in violation of your proposed anti-encryption law.