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:
Pirate Party Politician Fights Piracy (Of Her Book)
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
I contract with publishers, and know several people who also enter contracts with publishers. I can tell you they don't exactly give you a lot of choice in what the terms are because unless you're a very big name in your market, they don't have to.Andy Chalk said:
In my experience, piracy and decisions on what to do about it are not the author's domain. For the most part, the publisher handles the business of the book whether the author wants to go along with their decisions or not. This story sounds exactly like what happens when a publisher unilaterally decides on a course of action.
Not all of us can get through life without making compromises, especially when it comes to business. Her mistake was going through a publisher instead of publishing it online herself and requesting donations. Not sure why she did what she did. Maybe she didn't know about or didn't trust self-publication. Seems like a case of being naive and painting oneself into a corner to me.Andy Chalk said:
You misunderstand the source of my disappointment. I'm not invested in the piracy debate; I don't like piracy but I don't like IP law either, and the loudest factions in the debate only seem to be trying to make it worse. I don't really care about what went on with that book.Andy Chalk said:
Where my disappointment comes from is people who either intentionally spread misinformation, or spread it accidentally but don't show any interest in learning from their mistakes. Your articles and your response to the criticism of said articles strongly suggests that you are one of the latter. If instead of investing energy in claims of persecution you put more time into research and were more cautious about indulging in sensationalism, I think we could both get more of what we want.
Yes, thankyou. I'm yet to see anything that suggests that she personally made efforts to prevent the distribution. Sounds to me like it was all the publisher.Woodsey said:
I kind of agree with their ideas, but you need to support the content producers.
This article does seem unnecessarily inflammatory, though. She said herself that she doesn't own the copyright to her book, and that's not necessarily her fault as she wouldn't have been able to publish it whilst maintaining the copyright. Therefore the DMCA orders are not hers, they're the responsibilty of the copyright holder to issue. I appreciate the irony in the title of the book 'Click Me', given the nature of this article.
This article does seem unnecessarily inflammatory, though. She said herself that she doesn't own the copyright to her book, and that's not necessarily her fault as she wouldn't have been able to publish it whilst maintaining the copyright. Therefore the DMCA orders are not hers, they're the responsibilty of the copyright holder to issue. I appreciate the irony in the title of the book 'Click Me', given the nature of this article.
While people are right in claiming that she is probably not behind the takedown notices herself (which, considering most of that happens under German jurisdiction, probably have nothing at all to do with the US Congress' "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA) and are rather derived from German copyright law), there is something else to consider.
As a politician, you NEED to watch your step at every turn. If you are incapable of doing that, you have failed in the political arena. The argument that "she is not to blame" fails to apply at the point where we are talking about someone in active politics.
The same applies for any politician, which is why the former defense minister as well as the previous two Presidents had to step down for good reason - they, too, had failed to protect themselves from what is essentially an everyday threat to anyone with a certain political profile.
As a politician, you NEED to watch your step at every turn. If you are incapable of doing that, you have failed in the political arena. The argument that "she is not to blame" fails to apply at the point where we are talking about someone in active politics.
The same applies for any politician, which is why the former defense minister as well as the previous two Presidents had to step down for good reason - they, too, had failed to protect themselves from what is essentially an everyday threat to anyone with a certain political profile.
Yes, that may be true. But according to <link=http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2012-09/Julia-Schramm-Piraten-Buch-Download>Die Zeit there was an agreement between the author and the publisher on how to handle possible issues arising from piracy. From what I could gather it boils down to immediately taking legal action against commercial distributors whilst private distributors get a warning first. She knew what she was getting into and she's apparently okay with the way the publisher handles these things.JochemHippie said:
So there's still quite a bit of hypocrisy going on.
You expect me to believe that one of the leading figures of a political party devoted to copyright issues is ignorant of self-publishing? Come on, that's just silly. "Why she did what she did" - which, to be clear, is to sign a contract with the "content mafia" that she purports to find so disgusting that gave it an explicit right to control and profit from the dissemination of her book - is simple: money. 130 large and change. And she bears the same responsibility for having her name at the end of the DMCA takedown notices as she does for putting it on that contract.McMullen said:
I don't hold anything against her for protecting her work - I'm no fan of piracy, although the DMCA takedown mechanism is a loathsome, blunt instrument - but the hypocrisy on display is staggering.
As already said by some others, the title is misleading, but hey, i think i'm getting used to this shit - no, not realy, it'll always piss me off.
However, as already said as well, she's still to blaim for being stupid enough to sell her book, while there were already enough ways to publish/offer it for free and still get something back, not only in the possible forms of donation, but also as good publicity for her party. In addition, she would've been in a very good position to promote new ways of distributing intellectual work and ideas.
But instead she gave away the opportunity, undermined her parties' ideas, got bad publicity and a nomination for both, "best & worst fail of the year", though, she got very tough competition for those catigories from many other german politicians.
I have to say, i knew why i wouldn't vote for the pirate party in the last election, because i thought of those scenarios to happen and they've definetly proven me right. Their only "excuse" is, that they're a very young party and not experienced enough to properly deal with those issues, as well as to see how their high set idealism is hard to stand for as a whole group, or otherwise, to aim lower.
However, as already said as well, she's still to blaim for being stupid enough to sell her book, while there were already enough ways to publish/offer it for free and still get something back, not only in the possible forms of donation, but also as good publicity for her party. In addition, she would've been in a very good position to promote new ways of distributing intellectual work and ideas.
But instead she gave away the opportunity, undermined her parties' ideas, got bad publicity and a nomination for both, "best & worst fail of the year", though, she got very tough competition for those catigories from many other german politicians.
I have to say, i knew why i wouldn't vote for the pirate party in the last election, because i thought of those scenarios to happen and they've definetly proven me right. Their only "excuse" is, that they're a very young party and not experienced enough to properly deal with those issues, as well as to see how their high set idealism is hard to stand for as a whole group, or otherwise, to aim lower.
