Book Pirate gets called out

[jjdebenedictis]

Originally Posted by Stacia Kane

The only people this man should have been outed to are the legal departments at various publishers, his ISP, and whatever law enforcement agency is appropriate. I could even accept contacting his employers and informing them that they have a thief as an employee.

I disagree with the bolded bit.

There's this thing called due process. Terry Goodkind and the rest of us have no right to decide someone is guilty of a crime and then damage their life financially.

The accused has a right to defend himself against charges. He has the right to be judged by someone impartial, who will hear all the facts presented both by the accused and the accuser.

It's okay to bring charges to light. It's okay to hand the facts over to the authorities and ask redress.

It's not okay to punish someone who has been given no opportunity to defend themselves.

What Mr. Goodkind has engaged in is called vigilante justice, and he is hardly an impartial, dispassionate observer, is he?

[blacbird]

Originally Posted by Christine N.

Yeah, but the library PURCHASED the book. The author was paid for the book. If you buy a book and lend it to your friends, you still made the initial purchase. No problem with lending.

Pirates just steal it and the author gets nothing.

Not to mention that we all pay for libraries, their land, buildings, staff, and product purchases, via taxation. I'm a huge fan of public libraries. But let's be real now, and recognize that they aren't free, in an economic sense.

caw

[KalenO]

Originally Posted by IdiotsRUs

Wait, what? So what is he writing then (apart from dubious BDSM)?

Some kind of philosophical take on reality. I dunno. My eyes always glaze over whenever I've heard him talk about it at Comic-Con panels and such.

[blacbird]

Originally Posted by jjdebenedictis

It's not okay to punish someone who has been given no opportunity to defend themselves.

This alleged "pirate" is on-line. How does he have "no opportunity to defend" himself? Let's hear from him how he justifies what he does, or, how Goodkind is erroneous in his accusations.

caw

[blacbird]

Originally Posted by kuwisdelu

Not everyone will pay because it's the right thing to do, but almost everyone will pay when it's more convenient in every way than not doing so.

And when it isn't?

caw

[DancingMaenid]

Originally Posted by jjdebenedictis

I disagree with the bolded bit.

There's this thing called due process. Terry Goodkind and the rest of us have no right to decide someone is guilty of a crime and then damage their life financially.

The accused has a right to defend himself against charges. He has the right to be judged by someone impartial, who will hear all the facts presented both by the accused and the accuser.

It's okay to bring charges to light. It's okay to hand the facts over to the authorities and ask redress.

It's not okay to punish someone who has been given no opportunity to defend themselves.

What Mr. Goodkind has engaged in is called vigilante justice, and he is hardly an impartial, dispassionate observer, is he?

Yep, this. If he has the guy's name, he could have made a formal complaint and let the authorities handle it.

Due process exists for a reason.

[areteus]

Yep, Tor have made a recent decision to release all ebooks DRM free. The reasoning is that it actually does not stop piracy because pirates merely see it as a challenge and it is soon broken. All it takes is one clever coder who is morally predisposed to pirate to work out the method. Then they post the book online where anyone can copy it and it goes viral so everyone has it. There is also nothing to stop them posting the method they used to break the DRM so suddenly every kid in a school has the ability to break that particular DRM method and it becomes redundant.

Tor is therefore assuming that someone will break the DRM thereby pirating the book anyway so if you don't have DRM it makes little difference. It's the internet equivilent of leaving your car unlocked so the thieves don't break the window when they steal your stereo.

It could go horribly wrong and lead to the industry having to clamp down even more. On the other hand it may show other publishers that this is the way to go because it has been shown to make no difference to the sales or levels of piracy and since it costs money to DRM a file (if only in the time it takes for someone to do it for each format) they'll stop because it is pointless.

It will be interesting to see how it goes.

[Stacia Kane]

Guys, I'm not saying I think calling his employer would be a good or right thing to do. I didn't include it in the list of "the only people he should have been outed to." I didn't say I'd be behind such an act.

What I said was that I wouldn't have as big an issue with it as I have with outing him online in that fashion, to any random person who happens to take a look. What I said was that I could even accept him having done it (without the extreme disapproval I have for the action Goodkind actually took). Doesn't mean I think it's a good idea. It just means that if he'd taken that action I couldn't get as angry about it or condemn it as strongly. It means that if he felt the need to take this matter into his own hands and was committed to doing so in the harshest possible way--which he clearly was--he could have done it without making this man a target for thousands of random strangers. It means that even THAT would be preferable to what he did.

You think if the guy was visited by law enforcement and busted over this his employer wouldn't hear about it anyway?

You think there isn't the remotest chance that he's using his employer's ISP to engage in his illegal acts, thus opening the employer to legal action? There's no proof he is, no, but given the number of people who do their online business from work it certainly is a possibility.


As for piracy and entitlement, I wish I had a dime for every time a reader has explained to me why they have a "right" to pirate. Don't tell me it's not entitlement. They're not stealing a loaf of bread to feed their starving family. They're stealing a book because they don't want to pay for it but think they have a right to the content anyway.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's lost royalties. What matters is that they are consuming the content without paying, which they have no right to do (beyond certain legal channels, again like libraries).

You know, I'd like a Mercedes. I can't afford one. Even if I could I probably couldn't justify paying that much for a car. Does the fact that I think it's too expensive justify me stealing one? Even if I only "borrow" it? Even if I only drive it once? I mean, hey, I shouldn't have to pay the manufacturer's price, right? Because I'm special, you see, and deserve to have whatever I want whenever I want it, and those people who need to make a living from producing those items I want or who deserve compensation for their hard work in producing those items, well, they're just not as special and important as me. Neither are those people who actually pay for those items, the suckers.

[Cyia]

Originally Posted by areteus

The reasoning is that it actually does not stop piracy because pirates merely see it as a challenge and it is soon broken. All it takes is one clever coder who is morally predisposed to pirate to work out the method.

DRM is strippable, even by those who have legally paid for a particular title, in less than a minute via a well known / free program.

Open program; select book-of-choice; select output-file of choice (pdf, txt, etc.); start program. The books come out categorized by author in neat little folders so you can read them on any device you choose.

[Amadan]

Originally Posted by Cyia

DRM is strippable, even by those who have legally paid for a particular title, in less than a minute via a well known / free program.

It is also worth noting that it is perfectly legal to do this (at least in the U.S.).

[jjdebenedictis]

Originally Posted by Stacia Kane

You think if the guy was visited by law enforcement and busted over this his employer wouldn't hear about it anyway?

You think there isn't the remotest chance that he's using his employer's ISP to engage in his illegal acts, thus opening the employer to legal action?

But here's the thing I'm trying to get across--and based on your word choices above, I'm correct--you're already assuming this guy is guilty.

He might be, but you can't know that. You do not have all the facts; you have not heard both sides of the story; you may not have the expertise to judge the case according to the existing laws.

If the guy's visited by law enforcement, no, his employer won't hear about it. (Unless they need to talk to the employer about whether their computers were involved in a crime.)

If he's convicted, then yes, his employer will likely hear--but that's after he's been given opportunity to defend himself against the charges and been judged in a fair manner.

It is not fair to scare the employer with claims that his/her employee is a thief.

You're not really protecting the employer, after all, because the employer may indeed fire the employee on the basis of your claim, and thus open themselves up to a wrongful dismissal suit if it turns out the employee is not guilty.

[Marceline]

Originally Posted by Soccer Mom

I really think this is a false assumption. People will steal a dollar's worth of candy from the story.

Piracy isn't about how much things cost. It's about a sense of entitlement.

I don't know that it applies to books, but I think it's largely about convenience too. I know quite a few people who've stopped downloading movies and TV shows thanks to businesses like Netflix. As more and more businesses like that pop up, I hope piracy decreases.

I buy a lot of used books and I do wonder about the morality of it. As a writer, I feel like it's important to support the artists whose work you love. As a reader, I get excited when I can buy a lot of books cheaply.

[Amadan]

Originally Posted by Marceline

I buy a lot of used books and I do wonder about the morality of it. As a writer, I feel like it's important to support the artists whose work you love. As a reader, I get excited when I can buy a lot of books cheaply.

People who use libraries and buy used books a lot almost invariably also buy lots of books. I do not buy every single Stephen King novel I read. Sometimes I get them used, sometimes I check them out of the library. But I do periodically buy a new Stephen King novel. Used/library books promote book-buying. Only a very stupid author would call people who read used and library books "entitled."

I know this also to be true of pirates, contrary to some of what has been claimed in this thread. The frequency of pirates who download and read pirated ebooks and never ever buy them is probably about the same as the frequency of library patrons who never, ever buy a new book.

[Christine N.]

No, I agree that publishing the pirate's info is not right. However, I understand his frustration, when going after them in court or getting publishers to have the stuff taken down doesn't seem to stop them.

This stopped him. I don't agree with his methods, but you can't argue results.

[DancingMaenid]

Originally Posted by Stacia Kane

What I said was that I wouldn't have as big an issue with it as I have with outing him online in that fashion, to any random person who happens to take a look. What I said was that I could even accept him having done it (without the extreme disapproval I have for the action Goodkind actually took). Doesn't mean I think it's a good idea. It just means that if he'd taken that action I couldn't get as angry about it or condemn it as strongly. It means that if he felt the need to take this matter into his own hands and was committed to doing so in the harshest possible way--which he clearly was--he could have done it without making this man a target for thousands of random strangers. It means that even THAT would be preferable to what he did.

I've witnessed a few situations where someone found out where a person worked and called their employer over something like an argument online. So I'm really wary of people taking matters into their own hands like this, period.

Is it better than making him a target online? Maybe, maybe not. I think they're both really bad things to do. The only time I might be more okay with someone contacting a person's employer is if the person's screw-up was made while acting in an official capacity, or if they acted in a way that's definitely relevant to their job. This probably isn't a situation like that.

If Goodkind had called this guy's employer, he would have essentially been taking justice into his own hands and expecting the employer to alter their views of this man and his work performance based only on this tip-off. That isn't fair.

[Raventongue]

I honestly haven't thought about the ethics of publicly naming an internet pirate enough to say yea or nay, but considering this is Terry Goodkind we're talking about...

I'm inclined to say this is all about one notably unpleasant author's insatiable need for attention. That, and the rough equivalent of Smaug's tantrum when Bilbo made off with a cup from his horde.

I'm not saying it's okay to steal things you don't need even from those who can afford it, or that a writer can't act firmly if someone pirates their book. But Goodkind's previous actions are a pretty good indicator of his motives, and those motives have nothing to do with intellectual property (or, for that matter,the "truth and honour" he gets all worked up about).

Originally Posted by MttStrn

What if he's wrong?

This is a very, very good point.

[Stacia Kane]

Originally Posted by jjdebenedictis

But here's the thing I'm trying to get across--and based on your word choices above, I'm correct--you're already assuming this guy is guilty.

He might be, but you can't know that. You do not have all the facts; you have not heard both sides of the story; you may not have the expertise to judge the case according to the existing laws.

If the guy's visited by law enforcement, no, his employer won't hear about it. (Unless they need to talk to the employer about whether their computers were involved in a crime.)

If he's convicted, then yes, his employer will likely hear--but that's after he's been given opportunity to defend himself against the charges and been judged in a fair manner.

It is not fair to scare the employer with claims that his/her employee is a thief.

You're not really protecting the employer, after all, because the employer may indeed fire the employee on the basis of your claim, and thus open themselves up to a wrongful dismissal suit if it turns out the employee is not guilty.

You are not correct.

I am not assuming anything. I am also not incapable of understanding your concerns regarding this man's guilt or innocence. I do understand what you said. That's just not what I'm discussing.

All I said was that if Goodkind was so fired up that he felt the need to "out" this man and shame him it would have been at least less despicable--not NOT despicable, just a bit LESS despicable--to do so privately. That if he was that bloodthirsty and fired up for revenge--which he obviously WAS and IS--he could have had his little revenge without exposing this man and whatever family he may have to thousands of people on the internet who may be stalkers, who may get off on harassing people, who may for that matter (farfetched as it is) be serial killers looking for a new victim. I will repeat that I do not advocate such behavior and did not mention calling his employer as being gee, such a great idea!

This man's guilt or innocence does not and did not play a part in my comments at all. My comments were about whether or not people should be outed online. My feelings about that do not change depending on his guilt or innocence. From my understanding, this thread is not about this man's guilt or innocence. It is about whether or not it is right to "out" a pirate (or even a suspected/alleged pirate) on the internet, and my response was that it is not.


If you want to change the focus of the thread to talk about whether or not this man is guilty, let me know, and I'll comment accordingly. But I notice people have posted in this thread approving of this "outing," and yet you haven't lectured them on the principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty or the legal requirements of Due Process, just me. In fact, you haven't responded to them at all, just me. And they're actually approving of publicly outing this man, which I am not. So does that mean you believe calling his employer is a worse thing than posting his personal information on a website with the implicit purpose of encouraging people to shame and/or harass him? It's better to tell the entire world about him than one person who knows him personally?

[absitinvidia]

I keep thinking there must be something that enabled Goodkind to know who had pirated the book. My publisher has been able to track piracy in that way; the PDF went out to a proofreader, and lo and behold, that version was the one that made its way online. There was no doubt whatsoever who had leaked it.

I can't imagine Goodkind would have made that post without consulting an attorney; I'd assume he wouldn't want to risk a civil suit for libel.

[thothguard51]

Originally Posted by Jake.C
Perhaps it's naive of me, but if I'm buying a book I want to pay for the paper it's printed on, not for the right to read words that are owned by somebody else. There's something ugly and totalitarian about the way that phrase comes together, isn't there?

I think I would say the same about I book I was selling. But perhaps it's because I don't rely on royalties to pay bills, and I can afford to be idealistic and naive.

Paper without words, pictures, drawings or anything else on it is just that, paper...

[icerose]

I personally have no problems with him outing a pirate publicly. Our newspapers do it ALL THE TIME. They list every arrest, the person by name, what they were arrested for. Same for the convictions. But the arrest are listed publically. Whether or not the person ends up being innocent doesn't matter. They become public record.

To me this is really no different. If they guy isn't a pirate he can always sue for defamation.

[blacbird]

Originally Posted by Jake.C

Perhaps it's naive of me, but if I'm buying a book I want to pay for the paper it's printed on, not for the right to read words that are owned by somebody else.

In regard to the bolded above, you are correct.

Originally Posted by Jake.C

There's something ugly and totalitarian about the way that phrase comes together, isn't there?

No.

Originally Posted by Jake.C

I think I would say the same about I book I was selling.

No you wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Jake.C

But perhaps it's because I don't rely on royalties to pay bills, and I can afford to be idealistic and naive.

Perhaps . . . . .

So . . . you only want to pay for the paper a book is printed on? You'd get the same charge out of going to sit in a dark movie theater for free that you would by spending $10 to watch a movie that is the intellectual property of somebody else, produced for your entertainment? You'd get the same charge out of listening to the silence on a blank CD that you'd get from paying for a musical recording that is the intellectual property of someone else, produced for your entertainment?

Must be some interesting entertainment available on your planet.

[bettielee]

Originally Posted by MarkEsq

Weirdo.

I've not done this, but I have discovered new authors thanks to the library, and gone on to buy their books. Alan Furst, for example. First one from the library, bought every single one since.

THis!

And I have no problem with a pirate being outed.The reason being, that once a pirate site gets taken down, they just move their illegal operation to another one.

[jjdebenedictis]

Originally Posted by Stacia Kane

If you want to change the focus of the thread to talk about whether or not this man is guilty, let me know, and I'll comment accordingly. But I notice people have posted in this thread approving of this "outing," and yet you haven't lectured them on the principle of Innocent Until Proven Guilty or the legal requirements of Due Process, just me. In fact, you haven't responded to them at all, just me.

Why do you always assume I'm out to get you?

I replied to you because you said something I wanted to reply to. You're right that other people voiced the same sentiment in other ways, and I could have replied to any one of them equally well.

I'm not persecuting you. I'm taking part in a discussion. Take off the outrage goggles.

Originally Posted by Stacia Kane

So does that mean you believe calling his employer is a worse thing than posting his personal information on a website with the implicit purpose of encouraging people to shame and/or harass him? It's better to tell the entire world about him than one person who knows him personally?

And don't spin some fiction in your head and then ascribe it to me. You've done that to me before also.

For the record, I think it's scummy to out someone on the internet and I think it's worse to contact their boss with unproven claims. Either way, it's vigilante justice, which is vile.

[LindaJeanne]

Originally Posted by Jake.C

Perhaps it's naive of me, but if I'm buying a book I want to pay for the paper it's printed on, not for the right to read words that are owned by somebody else.

That's easy enough -- just limit your book-buying to blank books.

[LindaJeanne]

Originally Posted by jjdebenedictis

For the record, I think it's scummy to out someone on the internet and I think it's worse to contact their boss with unproven claims. Either way, it's vigilante justice, which is vile.

This too.