Hypocritical? Yes, but I don't find it very delicious.Buretsu said:
Still stabbing the voodoo dolls? Bet on it.
Pirate Party Politician Fights Piracy (Of Her Book)
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Still stabbing the voodoo dolls? Bet on it.
This is a pattern, Andy. You ask us not to be rude to you when pointing out the untruths in your titles and articles. Fair enough. But when you distort the truth of your stories so frequently and so unnecessarily, It makes me wonder why you think you're so deserving of courtesy. Society doesn't tend to respect liars, nor should it, and you are so reliably unreliable as a news source that it's hard to believe you're not doing it intentionally.Andy Chalk said:
Why do you do this so often? Is it as intentional as it seems? If it is intentional, then why are you complaining when people take exception to it? If you want people to not accuse you of being bad at your job, you need only create the appearance that you're good at it.
EDIT: Alright, that last bit was unnecessary. Still, this is not good. Most people on the thread believe she betrayed her principles, when the truth is probably that she had to either go along with this to avoid a breach of contract, or that she had nothing to do with it and the publisher is solely responsible. Her statements support that much. That most of the thread believes the worst and least explicable interpretation is an objective failure to effectively communicate news to your readers. As a person who often criticizes the same shoddy reporting from other news sources, you run the risk of being a bit of a hypocrite yourself.
I generally support the Pirate Party's anti-corporate ideals, but this is just wrong. It's easy to feel a certain way when you don't have a horse in the race, so to say, but you have to be a strong person to hold those ideals once you do. If getting slapped with the reality of what she's supporting offended her, she still should have been cool-headed about it. Asking pirates by nicely saying "I'm fighting for your side, can you find it in yourself to support me?" goes a lot further than slapping a DMCA notice on it.
Though there is one part...
Though there is one part...
So which is it? Schramm or her publisher, or both? By the sound of it, she might have made a deal that she couldn't uphold because pirates are screwing her out of her end of the bargain. If she's really going to offer the book for free in 10 years once she has control over it, then Kudos to her. That's a lot more than what can be said of Tolkien, and the recent LOTR mod fiasco.
The takedown notice in question:
"This file is no longer available due to a takedown request under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by Julia Schramm Autorin der Verlagsgruppe Random House."
That's her name on the takedown notice. Did Random House issue it on her behalf? Quite possibly. If she has such abhorrence for the "content mafia," why did she sign a deal with them?
Perhaps some of you find the flexibility of her principles a little uncomfortable. Maybe you wonder how many other paragons of higher thinking would so readily salivate when the money bell rings. (Probably lots.)
These are valid things to wonder. But taking out your disappointment and frustration on me isn't going to accomplish anything.
"This file is no longer available due to a takedown request under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by Julia Schramm Autorin der Verlagsgruppe Random House."
That's her name on the takedown notice. Did Random House issue it on her behalf? Quite possibly. If she has such abhorrence for the "content mafia," why did she sign a deal with them?
Perhaps some of you find the flexibility of her principles a little uncomfortable. Maybe you wonder how many other paragons of higher thinking would so readily salivate when the money bell rings. (Probably lots.)
These are valid things to wonder. But taking out your disappointment and frustration on me isn't going to accomplish anything.
"It's good that I don't have to pay, but I still want to be paid."
Oh pirates, you so cray-cray.
Pirates, Libertarians, and Spoiled Children all want to be allowed to do whatever they want, but when they realize other people doing whatever they want kind of sucks for them, they change their tune.
Oh pirates, you so cray-cray.
Pirates, Libertarians, and Spoiled Children all want to be allowed to do whatever they want, but when they realize other people doing whatever they want kind of sucks for them, they change their tune.
This really isn't that surprising. We have anti-piracy agencies using pirated copyrighted material in their anti-piracy videos without paying for it. We have anti disney copyright law activists issue DRM and Legal papers to people pirating their stuff.
Everyone is a hypocrite when money is involved. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
Everyone is a hypocrite when money is involved. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
But if she didn't sell it to a publisher then how could she encourage the pirating of it?Aeonknight said:
Yeah, didn't think of that did you. :crosses arms:
uts on sunglasses:
Well, it's the publisher's fault, for one, not her's.
Also:
"for non-commercial purposes"
Nothing hypocritical about issuing takedown notices to people who are profiting on her book who isn't her or her publisher.
That being said, I think her position is an idiotic, throw the baby out with the bathwater response to a real problem.
Also:
"for non-commercial purposes"
Nothing hypocritical about issuing takedown notices to people who are profiting on her book who isn't her or her publisher.
That being said, I think her position is an idiotic, throw the baby out with the bathwater response to a real problem.
Well, technically she admits to policing her own copyrights in the TorrentFreak interview, so the title is not misleading and the stench of hypocrisy is thick.
On the other hand, if I were in the Pirate Party and wrote a book, I'd see no problem with giving my work to a publisher. I'd get a cash advance, royalties from whoever decides to pay for the book, and then leave it unspoken that I have no issues with said work being reproduced or otherwise copied after the fact.
Hell, given where I stand in life, I'd be extremely happy with a $120,000 advance and small royalties over the next few years.
Then again, I'm not affiliated with any political party, those people ooze hypocrisy and self-absorption out of every orifice regardless of platform.
On the other hand, if I were in the Pirate Party and wrote a book, I'd see no problem with giving my work to a publisher. I'd get a cash advance, royalties from whoever decides to pay for the book, and then leave it unspoken that I have no issues with said work being reproduced or otherwise copied after the fact.
Hell, given where I stand in life, I'd be extremely happy with a $120,000 advance and small royalties over the next few years.
Then again, I'm not affiliated with any political party, those people ooze hypocrisy and self-absorption out of every orifice regardless of platform.
I find it amusing, all these "It's not her, it's her publisher" commentaries.
1. It's irrelevant who's doing it. She knew what she was signing into, she knew the rights she was giving up, she knew the conflicts with the principles she allegedly defends.
2. I know some people who dreamt of getting a book published. They did it - they self-published. They didn't get 100K for it, though.
I don't care if it's her publisher, she doesn't get to stand on both sides of the fence on this issue. She's totally within her right to publish a book like this. She just has to accept the consequences.
A final note. When you become a public figure, deals like this are a lot easier to get by. Here in my corner of the world, there's hardly any news anchor who hasn't got a book published with a high-profile launch, books ranging from "Da Vinci Code" knock-offs to cooking books. I'm not questioning the quality of the books, since I didn't read them. The point is that their previous public exposition is what got them the opportunity in the first place.
In her case, her previous public exposition came from fighting everything implicit (and explicit) in the contract she signed.
So, is she human? Definitely. Is she innocent? No.
1. It's irrelevant who's doing it. She knew what she was signing into, she knew the rights she was giving up, she knew the conflicts with the principles she allegedly defends.
2. I know some people who dreamt of getting a book published. They did it - they self-published. They didn't get 100K for it, though.
I don't care if it's her publisher, she doesn't get to stand on both sides of the fence on this issue. She's totally within her right to publish a book like this. She just has to accept the consequences.
A final note. When you become a public figure, deals like this are a lot easier to get by. Here in my corner of the world, there's hardly any news anchor who hasn't got a book published with a high-profile launch, books ranging from "Da Vinci Code" knock-offs to cooking books. I'm not questioning the quality of the books, since I didn't read them. The point is that their previous public exposition is what got them the opportunity in the first place.
In her case, her previous public exposition came from fighting everything implicit (and explicit) in the contract she signed.
So, is she human? Definitely. Is she innocent? No.
