Pirate Party Politician Fights Piracy (Of Her Book)

[maninahat]

OK, I'm a bit confused. Because from what I can tell, it's actually her publisher who has something against the piracy, not her. And she says that when her deal with the publisher runs out, in 10 years, she'll happily make it available for free after it's up to her.

By my count, all she's guilty of is poor negotiation between herself and her publisher regarding the copyright issue. But I can see why it's more fun to just call her a hypocrite and thus try to invalidate any opinion she has or stands for

Warning. Title is Missleading.

She's not the one issuing the take down reports. Her publisher, whom she sold the copyrights to is.

Still a bit hypocritical, but not as much as the title implies.

THANK YOU!

Except, as someone who hates copyright in all it's forms, and as a prominent member of a political party that upholds those beliefs, you can't then sign up to a lucrative copyright contract and not expect to catch some flack!

Selling it to a publisher in the first place is hypocritical enough. If you hate IPs and copyrights, it would have made more sense to freely distribute the text as a free ebook.

 

[Queen Michael]

Could reality please stop being a parody of itself?
Also, why is this not the first time I've said that? Why, why?
Furthermore, she tells people that pirating things are okay and then she gets mad when they do what she said is okay to do? Honestly, some people...

 

[Moth_Monk]

She's not really that much of a hypocrite. In today's society everyone needs to make money somehow. The members of the Pirate Party who are creating content, like the one in the OP, could only really stick to their principles if no one needed money.

What are we going to do, mock someone for functioning correctly in modern society?

(She could have had her book distributed for free and asked for donations, but, come on, who *really* would donate?)

 

[ResonanceGames]

She's not really that much of a hypocrite. In today's society everyone needs to make money somehow. The members of the Pirate Party who are creating content, like the one in the OP, could only really stick to their principles if no one needed money.

What are we going to do, mock someone for functioning correctly in modern society?

(She could have had her book distributed for free and asked for donations, but, come on, who *really* would donate?)

Unless there's some intended irony here that isn't coming across, this point genuinely and truly makes no sense. It would be like sticking up for Ingrid Newkirk if she bought a bunch of stock in a factory farm company and then justified it by saying she needed the money.

 

[GAunderrated]

This story kinda reminds me how publishers/developers were saying that $60 is too expensive for games except for their upcoming releases because "they deserved the price tag."

Pretty much people saying what we like to hear until the $$$ start getting in the way of those ideals....kind like politicians.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

I understand it is actually her publisher.

Okay, so why does she have a publisher? Should have just file-shared it directly. I mean, having a publisher to distribute and sell copies is only "creating false scarcity".

Funny how someone can adjust their values based on what benefits them the most.

 

[Neofishie]

Except, as someone who hates copyright in all it's forms, and as a prominent member of a political party that upholds those beliefs, you can't then sign up to a lucrative copyright contract and not expect to catch some flack!

That's not what bothers me. What bothers me is the article. Misleading as hell, makes her look even worse than it should by stretching the truth.

I think you're both right. The aritcle should've made clear it was the publisher that was throwing around DMCAs, because that's the truth. But it could've still remarked that as a member of a Pro-Pirate political party, she shouldn't have signed into a traditional publishing deal. I mean, I think most of us can understand why that's still a bit hypocritical, right?

That way everyone is treated like they're literate and we still get a village idiot to mock.

 

[Playful Pony]

This is pretty silly... If you are trying to make a stand for piracy, the very least you should make sure is that there wouldn't be a problem in pirating your very own works... Seriously, that is the LEAST one would expect. I guess that money is just too damn tempting, and who can blame her, money is money after all!

Isn't this what you English-speakers call a 'sellout'? Someone that basically traded off his/her principles and ideals for a fat lump of money? I guess in the end, even 'pirates' enjoy getting paid for their work. Again, who can blaim them for that. It's nice to get something back from your hard work. That's why piracy isn't a good thing... That's why car manufacturers don't give their cars away for free. It's not a very sustainable business model, a lot of work went into making the damn thing...

 

[Dogstile]

Misleading as all hell article escapist, not cool. It seems like she's not issuing the notices at all, her publisher is, who she sold it too. She doesn't have control over the publisher.

 

[drummond13]

I'm confused. It sounds like the publisher is the one having the problem, not her. She just wrote the book for them. How is that even remotely hypocritical?

 

[Playful Pony]

I'm confused. It sounds like the publisher is the one having the problem, not her. She just wrote the book for them. How is that even remotely hypocritical?

She entered into a contract with the publisher. She knew what kinda deal she was making, and if she truly DOES mean that piracy is 100% OK, she should have made sure there wouldn't be a problem in pirating her own work. I guess it IS kinda neat getting payed for your work after all, she took a deal she never should have had she had any integrity...

 

[Doom972]

Pirate Party Politician Fights Piracy (Of Her Book)

Umm... well, no. That's not what you've written. What you've written is that her publisher - the one who owns the copyright to the book - fought the piracy of her book.

Not really the same thing now, is it?

If she was a true pirate she would've never sold it to the publisher in the first place.

My thought exactly. She could've just put it online and let people share her book, but I guess she suddenly felt like getting money for her work.

She said that her dream was to write a book. I'm willing bet she joined the pirate party because no publisher wanted to publish anything she wrote and she wanted revenge.

 

[Lopende Paddo]

Pirate Party Politician Fights Piracy (Of Her Book)


Permalink

From reading the text I'm getting the impression that she herself is not actively fighting the pirated versions of her book but in actuality the publisher (thats holding the rights to her book) is doing all this.

So basically she's at fault for selling her intellectual rights to a publisher that does not support her opinion. The question remaining is:

Could she have sold her book without a publisher as middleman (maybe as an ebook but most people still prefer actual paper in hand).

at least I think the title to this article is a bit unfair and misleading to the actual article.

nothing said if she was actively fighting the piracy herself....

 

[Gigano]

She'll go far in politics.

There's just the right amount of "I'll happily screw over my principles if you lobby me the right way", which is to say that this is all there is. She could've published it digitally simply by uploading it under a creative commons licence, but I guess selling somebody the copyright to it pays better.

 

[lacktheknack]

All she's guilty of is total failure to negotiate reasonable (to her and her affiliations) terms.

She's probably stabbing voodoo dolls of her publishers right now, you know.