Pirate Party Politician Fights Piracy (Of Her Book)

[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.

 

[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.

Except it's not exactly hard to have free distribution of digital material, especially when you already have a blog. No, it's simple greed. Someone offered her $100,000 for a book, and "information wants to be free" flew right out the window.

Hypocritical? Yes, but I don't find it very delicious.

Still stabbing the voodoo dolls? Bet on it.

 

[DugMachine]

The irony is so delicious om nom nom nom nom

 

[Skeleon]

Way to stand up for your principles, lady. If you actually hold them and aren't just an opportunist making appealing promises to a segment of the population.

 

[McMullen]

Pirate Party Politician Fights Piracy (Of Her Book)

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.

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.

 

[Signa]

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...

That's not cool with Schramm or her publisher

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.

 

[Andy Chalk]

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.

 

[Souplex]

"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.

 

[Thoric485]

Great, now it's guaranteed to be up 24/7 on every filesharing site out of spite.

 

[1337mokro]

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.