Authors Without A Yacht (AWaY) discussion

Here's a link I wanted to share with all of you, courtesy of our fellow GoodReads author, Vicki Tyley.

http://trueslant.com/fpaulwilson/2010...

It is a great article that makes some good points. The really scary part of the article is that moronic video that the writer is referring to. Make sure you watch it.

I'm in the middle of a busy time and didn't have an account to comment on the blog, but kudos. Some of the comments, however, made me want to bang my head into my keyboard.

Thanks for sharing.

Brit

Thanks, Guido.
Paul Wilson rocks!

Guido,
Have you joined Trueslant? Have you left a comment? If so I should like to "call out" your comment to give you some sidebar publicity on the site.

The discussion is getting pretty heated! Be sure to check out "All Comments"

http://trueslant.com/fpaulwilson/2010...

Rowena, I tried but I really can't. Many of these comments make me want to reach into the computer screen and strangle the moron who wrote the comment. I cannot believe the arrogance these thieves have.

I'd love to know what Ilovetoread makes of this discussion, which is still open for comments.

Hildebrand really holds nothing back

Sharing our opinions is kind of fun :). Here's mine.

Well I think the video itself is absolutely ridiculous. How far do some people need to delve into delusion to convince themselves that giving away something that doesn’t belong to them is acceptable. Mindless excuses are abundant aren’t they. I honestly cannot fathom a reason why a person would go to the time and effort to create a video that is designed to encourage others to break the law. I originally used the word steal here instead of the words break the law. Stealing is how I view it, But after reading Ben Lebovitz comment that copyright infringement and stealing are two different sections of the law I changed my wording because regardless of what you call it, it’s a crime punishable by law.

“Copying is fun”. The words ’Cheap Thrills” comes to my mind. The kind of thrill a person gets from getting away with something they know they shouldn’t be doing. I wonder if they would find it fun to copy and share if the only way to do so would be to handdwrite every copy they give away of a book they’ve purchased. For example if they posted a 600 page book and 200 people wanted a copy they had to handwrite or even type out each copy instead of just taking a few minutes to click a few buttons to upload to a hosting site. It would still be stealing of course but would it be fun? The effort of handwriting the copy is minimal compared to what the author has contributed.

Or perhaps they are among the ones that are of the mind that “I bought it so it’s mine now”. Then let everyone who wants to read it without paying for it come to your home and read it on your computer or book reader. Then you won’t be breaking the copyright law. Let us know how fun it is after several hundred people have arrived to wait their turn at borrowing ‘your’ book.

I truly question what is the motivation of a pirate. I don’t mean the hosting sites. It’s obvious there reward is profit. And the person that is downloading so they can read a free book is rewarded with money saved. What is the reward for the up-loader? The only thing I can see they receive is a number next to their name showing how many people clicked a thank you button. Is that number really worth the risk? I’m sure the author’s would be happy to thank them not to give there work away without their permission.

In one comment Ben Lebovitz said:
“Try this with any other product or service — and you will actually be arrested for, and charged with, theft.”
No, this is wrong. It’s unfortunate that Paul chose a stupid and inarticulate video as a representation of the other side of his argument, rather than something well articulated by a Doctrow/Lessig type. So, to give a brief lesson in my poor understanding of common law, “in the common law, theft is usually defined as the unauthorised taking or use of someone else’s property with the intent to deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.”
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Theft...

So, in file sharing, as no one is deprived of use, it is not theft. Copyright infringement, yes; theft, no. You might view this as symmantics, but these are two very different sections of law.”

My response to this comment is that I agree no one is deprived of use by file sharing. It is the authors, publishers and book sellers that are deprived in income lost. A person’s copyright is protected by law. So copyright infringement is breaking the law just as theft is breaking the law. Since only the copyright holder can authorize reproduction anyone who argues that it’s not the same as stealing is just manipulating their interpretation of the law to serve their own purpose. So what if they are two different sections of the law,. Breaking either law is a crime and it’s petty to argue the ‘symmantics’ in this manner. Didn’t anyone teach him that two wrongs don’t make a right. Argh…I’m sorry if this sounds like a rant but Ben’s comment just frustrated and annoyed the heck out of me.

To all who hold the point of view that E-book pirating isn’t stealing and tell yourselves lots of reasons why it’s acceptable please go use your search engine and find Wubbzy’s song ‘Don’t Lie’ and listen to the words. Even little children understand the difference between right and wrong.

Thank you for your thoughtful post, Ilovetoread.

I'll tell you what some uploaders gain, beside the thanks from those who download. Credits, free memberships or even money.

Sites such as Ziddu or MegaUpload that host the uploads (not the same as the sites that host the pirate forums) pay commissions for clicks.

It is possible to deprive an author of use.

Suppose for instance that I decided that I wanted to sell the ebook rights of Knight's Fork (published as a paperback by Dorchester Publishing) to Richard Curtis of ereads.com . I ought to get an okay contract.

However, Richard might discover that the pirate sites are full of e-versions of Knight's Fork, and he might decline to give me a contract.

If I've never sold my e-rights, (but a pirate has scanned the paperback and created an ebook) and now I cannot sell my e-rights, then the pirate has taken something real from me.

I had read that some hosting sites pay people to direct others to their site and it slipped my mind I was so annoyed at that darned video. I suppose greed is the all around motivator for the majority. For some though it just appears to be something to do. They don't all use sites that reward.

Oh my goodness I've just had a lightbulb moment.Two busy forum I've seen do not have any advertisements. I've wondered several times why they go to the trouble to maintain such a busy site for no apparant profit. I just realized that in the case of one of them they have what they call a mirror team. If a person for whatever reason doesn't want to download a file from hosting site 'A' they can request a mirror from the mirror team, who will then provide a new link to another site. Most of the time they provide multiple new links. I had once read the requirements of the mirror team and one was that they only link to certain sites. I just looked back to make sure and yes they are the ones that reward. The other sites without adds probrably do the same thing and I either didn't notice or they make it less obvious. Very sneaky.

The site I mentioned with the mirror team says their goal is to provide a pleasant add free place to gather together and share. That's not the exact wording. I can't find where I read that at the moment. It is however the implication of what was stated. As if they have no other agenda. I knew they must be getting a financial gain somehow. I'm old enough to know by now that theives are motivated by greed. I should have figured this out right off the bat.

Thank you for pointing out the ways an author is deprived of use. I think most people who are just readers like myself wouldn't know these things and in this fight against piracy, knowledge is a key factor. Do you mind if I copy your comments about how an author is deprived of use? I'd like to be able to refer to them to help me comment in the future if I see the statement on a blog or comment that no one is deprived of use. Since I am not the author I would change the word "I" to "an author", or I could say "to quote author Rownena Cherry", or direct them to this site by saying "If you don't think pirating is depriving an author us use please read this information provided at the 'Authors Without a Yacht Group' at Goodreads.com and link to this page.

This is really interesting. I had no idea what a "Mirror" site was, or how it worked. Thank you for sharing that.

My example of how an author could be deprived of use is a bit esoteric. It doesn't apply to a lot of people, and since I haven't actually tried to sell my e-rights to Richard Curtis or anyone else, the argument hasn't been tested.

Moreover, pirates would probably reply that J K Rowling is going to release the Harry Potter series as ebooks, so obviously, she wasn't seriously deprived of use.

(Of course, a hugely successful author such as J K Rowling isn't an indicator of how things would work for a low midlist author).

Also, so far as I know, Knight's Fork hasn't been scanned. I think if you were to quote me, someone would take it as a challenge.

Therefore, I'd rather you did not quote me directly.
:-)

You are obviously free to paraphrase.

I forgot to address your other question, so here goes

While we welcome all readers, this group is intended for pleasant, constructive conversations about copyright, I don't think that an influx of unrepentant hard core pirates would be an unmitigated blessing.

We'd have to have moderation and restricted postings if persons who expressed their opinions in very powerful language decided to join us.

I understand. Thank's for the information. The mirror team isn't another site. It's a group within the site. After I posted I went back to the site I mentioned and looked a little more closely. Ironically they will only post mirrors for links posted at certain sites and they appear to be the hosting sites that reward pirates. By this I mean say for example a person posts a link to a hosting site that only allows 1 free download a day unless you are a paid member. Or I think Rapidshare or one of them only allows 10 downloads of a file thats uploaded by a person who isn't a paid member. The Mirror Team has a paid account at some of these sites so if they post the link then the downloader doesn't have to wait 24 hours, the file can be downloaded by all who find the link and they don't have to wait, and the Mirror Team gets whatever reward is given per click or download or however it works. I don't know if this is a common practice or not. There are so many sites out there and I've only looked at a few in various categories.

I like the way you think, Ilovetoread. Isn't it fascinating what an informed eye can see?

Possibly, one might argue the that original uploader who posted to a site that only allows one free download per day is not the real menace. They are still breaking the law, and one download a day means the potential of 365 illegal downloads per year.

It's not in the league of someone instantaneously sharing a copyrighted work with 6,000 followers on Twitter.

I'm off to see what a search for "Mirror" turns up on Google.

Someone on the Word Thief discussion has shared a link to Joe Konrath's blog on the subject.

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2010/05...

I like Joe, and I enjoy his sense of humor, but just occasionally when he talks about file sharing, he reminds me of an extraordinary Peter Sellers movie called "I'm All Right, Jack" which was about the British trade union movement.

Quoted from Word Thieves with permission.

Outrider wrote:
I stand second to no one in my regard for Dr. Wilson’s creative output, which I believe is inarguably his, save for such rights to it as he has legally extended. I also think the worldview as regards such intellectual property is undergoing a paradigm shift such as we have never seen, and I do not know whether rigorous respect for ownership of such ‘intangible’ creative work will withstand that change. A central issue here is that a significant percentage of those violating creators’ intellectual property rights do *not* view what they are doing as stealing the creators’ work; they aren’t plagiarizing it, they aren’t denying the creators credit. They are simply replicating the created work for their own consumption. When creators defend their right to control such replication, a frequent aspect of their defense involves remuneration; it is absolutely valid, but it rings materialistic and hollow to an entire generation for whom easy replication of content has become the norm. For many, the only way to personalize the loss would be for they themselves to be so creatively victimized, and that isn’t likely to happen to a significant enough percentage to stem the tide. When a significant percentage of a society ceases believing something is wrong–and within a generation, that could be a majority, on this issue, especially when the advancing rapid-prototyping technology makes replicating *things* as easy as replicating creative works is, now–it may cease to *be* wrong, legally. I hope it does not come to that, as the devaluation of genuine creative genius would be a likely consequence…but I foresee it.


I replied:
Outrider,

Your analysis is superb. Please may I quote you?

I suspect that pirates do all they can to enhance the appearance that their views are mainstream.

However, look at the outrage whenever Facebook errs. There (on Facebook) is a significant percentage of the population which may or may not believe that sharing ebooks is wrong, but they demonstrably do take it very personally when their content is “shared” without their permission.

It would be quite easy by way of demonstration to visit a pirate site, copy a few pirates’ discussions, and publish that content.

A major newspaper ought to do it, possibly with the permission of the authorities.


I ought to point out that cutting and pasting without permission is not legal. It is ironic that the playing field is so far from level!


Outrider gives me permission to repost his analysis:

outrider

Of course you may. I think that is implicit in a public post like this but, given the context, I very much appreciate the courtesy of your request :)

I think I understand what the pirates are hinting at when they mutter darkly that authors need to figure out how to adapt, innovate, move with the times, give their books away, and still make money.

They're thinking that we should do what they do. Upload our books on one of the file sharing sites that pays uploaders a commission for every so-many-hundred downloads.

As far as pirates are concerned, its a win-win. They get free books. Ziddu and their ilk pay the authors. Editors and publishers get nothing.

Of course, it is not sustainable. Ziddu etc probably only pay for original/unique/first time visitors. A true booklover can only be a unique visitor once.

Ziddu etc will eventually end their practice of paying a bounty on downloaders. (That day can't come too soon IMHO.... in fact, I think they ought to be legally liable for making piracy profitable for pirates.)

The first authors to try it might make money before the market is saturated. Late comers will be out of luck. It's a Ponzi scheme.