TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Major Book Publisher Files Mass-BitTorrent Lawsuit

John Wiley and Sons, one of the world’s largest book publishers, have sued 27 BitTorrent users at a federal court in New York. The publisher claims that the defendants have shared copies of its “For Dummies” books without permission, and demands compensation. After several movie studios started filing lawsuits against BitTorrent users last year, Wiley is the first book publisher to take this kind of action.

dummiesSince early 2010 more than 200,000 people have been sued in the U.S. for sharing copyrighted works via BitTorrent. Thus far these lawsuits have been the exclusive territory of independent and adult film studios, but today they are joined by one of the world’s largest book publishers.

John Wiley and Sons have sued 27 Does at a federal court in New York for downloading and sharing copies of its “For Dummies” books using BitTorrent. The complaint (pdf), obtained by TorrentFreak, shows that all defendants allegedly shared the books on October 18 and 19 of this year.

Wiley argues that through the massive piracy that occurs on BitTorrent, their company is suffering severe losses that might cost several authors their jobs.

“Defendants are contributing to a problem that threatens the profitability of Wiley. Although Wiley cannot determine at this time the precise amount of revenue that it has lost as a result of peer-to-peer file sharing of its copyrighted works though BitTorrent software, the amount of revenue that is lost is enormous,” Wiley’s attorney writes.

“For example, BitTorrent users on a single site, demonoid.me, have downloaded one of the works that is the subject of this suit, ‘Photoshop CS 5 All-In-One FOR DUMMIES,’ more than 74,000 times since June 6, 2010,” the complaint adds.

Other pirated books listed in the complaint include familiar titles such as “AutoCAD 2011 for Dummies,” “Day Trading for Dummies”, “Calculus Essential for Dummies” and “Word Press For Dummies”. Interestingly, the popular “BitTorrent for Dummies” is not included.

Aside form the direct financial damage through copyright infringement, Wiley also claims that “counterfeit” copies of their books may result in damage to the company’s image.

“The damage to Wiley includes hark to its goodwill and reputation in the marketplace for which money cannot compensate. Wiley is particularly concerned that its trademarks are used in connection with unauthorized electronic products, which could contain malicious viruses.”

“Wiley is also concerned that these unauthorized electronic editions of its works may be of inferior quality to the original versions,” the complaint reads.

The 27 defendants are all accused of copyright infringement, trademark infringement and trademark counterfeiting, and the publisher demands to be compensated for the damage they have caused.

The court papers end with an overview of the 27 IP-addresses through which these titles were shared. These are all located in the State of New York according to the attorney.

Although Wiley’s suit can be classified as a mass-BitTorrent lawsuit, the complaint is quite different from the ones we’ve seen thus far. Also, Wiley has hired the law firm Dunnegan LLC which has no track record of filing similar cases.

At this point it is not clear whether Wiley is determined to take the 27 defendants to trial, or whether it will offer them settlements as we’ve seen in nearly all other cases thus far. However, there is little doubt that Wiley’s move to make a stand against book piracy will be watched closely by other book publishers.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • politux

    Oh Joy another arena for the copyright trolls to play in.

    • Guest

      “Defendants are contributing to a problem that threatens the profitability of Wiley.”

      No – times are a changing, technology is changing and the old models are no long profitable. Find a new way of doing business or die.

      Suing people is the last resort of the already-failed.

      • Floppy Copy

        “Suing people is the last resort of the already-failed.”

        I whole-heartily agree. For every book I’ve downloaded, I’ve purchased at least two or three more despite the fact that there is a good library in my area. You should see how my bookshelf is bending from the weight of them all. This used to be true for my music habits as well, until the RIAA came along and I began boycotting those they claim to represent. Downloading helped me find tons of artists I never knew about, and avoid just as many that sucked. I feel it is even more important to sample a book before purchasing, and I do like where some online stores have gone with this lately. When it comes to books, especially informational texts on how to do stuff, no two are ever created equal. Some can be truly lackluster, while others nearly perfect, and you won’t know which is which unless you can look through them both. Compare books on 3D modeling for example and you’ll quickly see what I mean. Despite the fact that I live in a city, we don’t have any major book outlets where you can go in, sit down, and flip through the pages until you find one you feel is worth buying. Guess I’ll have to start boycotting the publishing industry, if suing their own customers becomes a filthy habit. Its not working for the other industries, so I don’t know why they’d ever want to copy them. Sigh…

  • Cosmin Sarlau

    And reading this made me go directly to Demonoid to see their collection of “for dummies”. Never read one of those books.. are they any good? We shall see.. I wonder if they have something that interests me.

    • Floppy Copy

      Some are quite good, others not so much. You really have to check a given topic over before buying in order to be sure your not paying for something useless.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

        Financials for Dummies would have helped greatly with Wall Street as well as Main Street.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          Only problem being that there is no target audience sufficiently advanced to get any use out of a “for dummies” guide to finance on Wall Street.

          On “Finagling the system” however, those worthy wall street saprophytes could write the 101 course.

      • Cosmin Sarlau

        Grilling for dummies… really now? OK.. off to different adventures.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Don-Dilly/1624894683 Don Dilly

    This is what happens when online ebook stores put these books in a section labelled ‘Downloads For Dummies’

  • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

    Considering it’s been tried and failed it’s amusing they are even trying. Still I can see the irony in this lawswit. And I lol’d ;)

  • http://ompldr.org/vYXc2MA/see-what-i-thought-id-do-was-id-pretend-i-was-one-of-those-slut-whores.html w3ts1ut

    Looks like we need to make a book for them to read called “Sharing for dummies” (yeah, stuff commonly learned in kindergarten)

  • Kr0nZ

    Haha after reading this I went and downloaded all the ‘For Dummies’ books I could find

    Just because I can, Ill probably never get to reading any of them, but maybe some of my friends or family will be interested

  • Anonymous

    I guess they need “Customer Relations For Dummies”. Or perhaps “How to read the internet to see that this doesn’t work For Dummies”.

  • Anonymous

    Need to troll their books and trash their online reviews. That would be a good place to start. Twitter / Facebook attacks would be fun too. Sigh.

  • Anonymous

    Need to troll their books and trash their online reviews. That would be a good place to start. Twitter / Facebook attacks would be fun too. Sigh.

  • Guest

    its not worth getting sued for a book

    • Dwpbike

      what are you willing to do to get sued for?

      • Anonymous

        World Domination.

  • Guest

    its not worth getting sued for a book

  • Anonymous

    Sigh. World Domination for Dummies. Annoyance for Dummies. Suing innocent people for Dummies…

  • Anonymous

    Sigh. World Domination for Dummies. Annoyance for Dummies. Suing innocent people for Dummies…

  • Anon

    “Copyright for Societal Misfit Pirate Dummies.”

    • Fredrika

      Close to a billion people filesharing in the world, and you call them misfits?

      Might i suggest maybe it’s you who should read a book, and possibly learn something about such fundamentals as that it’s the law that should follow the people’s conscience regarding what’s just, and not the other way around.

      When close to a billion people disregard the copyright monopoly’s intrusion into their physical property, on a regular basis, only an idiot would point out what the law says, and advocate harder repression to try to get people to follow the law, completely missing the point that maybe it’s time to look at if it’s possible that maybe it’s the laws that are flawed, and not the peoples actions.

      • Anon

        Tell it to the judge, Fredrika. With so-called “leaders” like Falkvinge urging willfull disobedience, you’ll likely have your chance and we’ll have our ringside seat on the festivities.

        Maybe something like “I have the right to ignore whatever laws get in my way of taking free stuff while I hide online and I don’t respect your position of judging me on it, either.”

        Stick with your principles. That’ll go over big.

        • Jogon

          Don’t worry. As with all disobedience against unjust civil laws, such as the mass trespass movements, the people will prevail against your fascist ilk.

          Fascism can only survive whilst fear exist. Now that the majority have lost their fear of your oppressive copyright cartel your monopoly is dead.

        • Fredrika

          > “..you’ll likely have your chance and we’ll have our ringside seat on the festivities.”

          Again you seem to forget the fact that it is fully possible to become completely untouchable for copyright infringement, with available unstoppable technologies? Maybe you should learn a little first about the topic you comment on? Is that to much to ask?

          > “..of taking free stuff..”

          Since people aren’t taking anything, when they manufacture copies with their own physical property that they own, and since no owner of anything is permanently deprived of any item that he previously had in his possession, should i interpret you as that you are ok with filesharing?

          > “Stick with your principles.”

          I have not disclosed any of my personal principles, so you really shouldn’t try to comment on them.

          > “That’ll go over big.”

          Hhmm, copying has been growing for every year now over the last 40 years. Every doomsday claim put forward by the monopoly holders over the last 200 years have been proven wrong, filesharing grows for every day, and already available F2F-technologies are technically impossible to stop with any countermeasures or legislation.

          It really doesn’t look as if anything is about to “go over”.

          But you don’t care about facts, now do you?

        • Anon

          Copyrightist scum are the thieves here, you doofus.

        • DTS

          >Maybe something like “I have the right to ignore whatever laws get in my way of taking free stuff while I hide online and I don’t respect your position of judging me on it, either.”

          You mean like Disney and ASCAP?

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

          @Fredrika

          It seems that Anon can’t do anything more than say “Nuh uh” to retorts that leave him speechless. Good show in explaining yet again to him that stealing and infringement are two separate legal concepts.

        • Bugs Bunny

          @DTS: Lol, ASCAP = A$$ Crap ;-)

          Wiley & Sons (of Byatches) vs. pirate runners is more like Wiley Coyote vs. Roadrunner (not the telecom co., lol). The old-school slowpokes keep chasing after the new-media folks and pulling all sorts of hoped-for quick fixes out of their catalog of Acme magic tricks to catch their supposed “enemy.”

          But they’re really just a bunch of “looney tunes” who deserve more than a few sticks of Acme dynamite blown up their “a$$cots.” XD

        • Bugs Bunny

          @DTS: Lol, ASCAP = A$$ Crap ;-)

          Wiley & Sons (of Byatches) vs. pirate runners is more like Wiley Coyote vs. Roadrunner (not the telecom co., lol). The old-school slowpokes keep chasing after the new-media folks and pulling all sorts of hoped-for quick fixes out of their catalog of Acme magic tricks to catch their supposed “enemy.”

          But they’re really just a bunch of “looney tunes” who deserve more than a few sticks of Acme dynamite blown up their “a$$cots.” XD

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          “Stick with your principles. That’ll go over big. “

          As it did for the Lutheran reform, the suffragette movement, the labor unions, the automobile industry, the fall of the british empire and the emancipation of the coloured people in the US and South Africa. Whatever the movement is about, once enough people are involved, change is inevitable.

          Filesharing has become a people’s movement. It’s survived through the last fifty years when times were harder for filesharers by an order of magnitude or two than they are now. Every introduction of new media we’ve won completely in the end. As we will now.

          But keep on trolling if it makes you feel any better. It won’t alter reality for you.

      • Guest

        Citation for “close to a billion” requested please.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_MD76IWR6B74TOXRF2QOZPNIAVE Oland

          A Citation request is rather Cavalier of you ;-)

      • Gene_Poole

        This.

        I’ve been saying this for a long time.

        When the law makes the masses criminals, it’s time to change the law.

  • Levelstar

    really for dummies

  • Amanda Cholos

    Thank you, John Wiley. Do DragOnflamez et al feel that whatever work they do should be used by others without their getting paid for it? Or are they still living with their mothers?

    • http://ompldr.org/vYXc2MA/see-what-i-thought-id-do-was-id-pretend-i-was-one-of-those-slut-whores.html w3ts1ut

      Ah I see you make great use of time with reading the most prestigious, Trolling for Dummies.

      • Guest

        Trolling for Electronic MAFIAA PARASITEs.

      • Guest

        Trolling for Electronic MAFIAA PARASITEs.

      • Mike Hunt

        Cholos the chulo is probably a MAFIAA mofo looking for Amanda Hugginkiss.

      • Mike Hunt

        Cholos the chulo is probably a MAFIAA mofo looking for Amanda Hugginkiss.

    • Plncmuix

      Well, you could add a nice Paypal (or whatever you like) button on the site, and I assure you people who DL and liked the books will also donate (some are pretty generous)

      But no-no-no. Let’s sue them instead, yes?

      ps: pressed “like” instead of “reply” meh

    • Scary Devil Monastery

      You mean like Linus Thorvald, the creator of Linux? Used in mobile phones and computers all over the world from which he doesn’t get a red cent?
      Today he writes his own paycheck due to proven competence.

      Or do you mean like Paulo Coelho whose work after being published on The Pirate Bay became a bestseller on three continents? And who turned into quite the happy pirate after that success?

      Or do you mean like Trent Reznor who gave away his album for free but managed to achieve the “Most sold” status on Amazon.com with a million sold copies of the same album?

      I’m not sure whether the above are living with their mothers, but if so it’s because of their own choice – and they can likely walk for half an hour in their mansions without running into the old bat anyway.

      I have two pieces of news for you, Amanda Cholos:

      1) If you publish information, preventing it from spreading uncontrollably is a no-go. Neither the Soviet Union nor China managed this. It’s in the very nature of humanity to disseminate information and for the forseeable future this fact will not change. It’s not a matter of whether anyone is OK with that. If you don’t want the information you’ve created to spread, then keep it a secret. That’s it.

      2) If your work is met with popular acclaim then earning money from it is obviously no problem. Given that even Rebecca Black managed to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars for a 2000$ production-cost video (despite the damn thing already existing on youtube) then the verdict is that if you create something and cannot make money from it then what you made is probably crap.

      Had you posed this question in a serious and thoughtful manner instead of just spouting it out as nonsensical and irrelevant rhethoric you might have been shown some actual respect as well.

      Since you’ve chosen to rely on ad hoc drivel instead, my only recommendation is that you don’t quit your day job if infinite marketing for free still won’t enable you to sell your products to the appreciative consumers. With all due respect.

  • alex

    I’m kind of surprised at the comments on here. Does everybody forget that this is stealing and illegal? If you want to debate about whether it’s *right* for it to be illegal, then debate all you want. But the fact remains that it is illegal. As in, breaking that law. People are allowed to break the law and get away with it now?

    I’m not pretending to be a saint (I download things too), but if I ever got sued, I’d have to pony up the cash, because I broke the law. I wouldn’t blame it on anyone but myself.

    • http://ompldr.org/vYXc2MA/see-what-i-thought-id-do-was-id-pretend-i-was-one-of-those-slut-whores.html w3ts1ut

      People are allowed to break the law and get away with it now?

      If the law is bypassed by common people because both the justice system and publishers are out of touch with reality and incredibly irrational – then yes, it’s perfectly okay to break the law as in this case it is harmful to the progress and development of a healthy society. Said laws should be changed by now, the fact that they are not is, in my opinion, a great crime against technological and social progress.

      You have absolutely no sense of justice if you think that a handful of people sharing data should be scammed into a settlement or taken to trial compared to tens of thousands of people performing the exact same harmless activity and getting absolutely no punishment for it, the imbalance there is pathetically unjust. I’ve not forgot that this is illegal, I never noticed it as ‘stealing’ and if you do then you are clearly out of touch right alongside corrupted justice systems.

    • http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com S.J. Doe

      Your position is understandable, but what what about those who are “saint” and being falsely accused? The collection methods are inherently flawed, so it is not a hypothetical question.

      I never advocated breaking the law, but capitalizing on illegal activities using sleazy methods is even worse.

      I’ll watch this case and see how it progresses. If threatening letters are sent at some point, than I will declare that we have just another greedy copyright troll.

      If their goal is to move to actual trial, that would be better, though I have some concerns about the disproportionality of the punishment in copyright infringement cases. In the latter case I have a hope that litigating on merits will ultimately destroy the very foundation of copyright trolling by exposing the flaws in IP-gathering methods and linking IP to a person.

    • Fredrika

      > “Does everybody forget that this is stealing..”

      If you honestly believe that it’s “stealing”, then you obviously don’t understand the most fundamental basics about the topic, such as the indisputable fact that it’s isn’t stealing, neither according to the law, or a dictionary.

      The only theft that takes place is that of the copyright monopoly, which actually does perform an intrusion into peoples own physical property. Not accepting an intrusion into your own property, that you own, can obviously never be anything close to theft, only the opposite.

      > “I’m not pretending to be a saint (I download things too), but if I ever got sued, I’d have to pony up the cash, because I broke the law. I wouldn’t blame it on anyone but myself.”

      There’s a huge difference between being sued in a civil court by an equal opponent, from being extorted by an superior opponent, that has unlimited resources to make your life a living hell, an opponent that doesn’t care one bit about if you’re even actually guilty of the claimed civil infringement.

      These lawsuits that the article is about never lead to anyone being sued in an actual court, they only lead to extortion. “Pay up now, or we will give much more problems, that will ruin your life”.

      It is estimated that over 30% of all extortion victims in these cases actually are completely wrongfully identified, but how does that help when some big law firm threatens you with ruining your life?

      Is such extortion and clear misuse of the judicial system really something you stand behind?

      • FreeCitizen

        Filesharing books is theft. Never mind the government, publishers and the lawyers… it’s the writers who get bit. Every book you download without paying for means that money doesn’t reach the writers. They get paid royalties on each copy sold once the advance they’ve received is paid back through sales, and the publisher keeps track, with accounts paid up on a regular basis. Each illegally downloaded or shared book costs the writer money, whether it’s measured in hundreds, thousands, or millions. All these arguments about users’ “rights” to download copyrighted material are nonsense, and frankly, discouraging. Proscriptions against stealing are the very backbone of a strong society, and citizens who routinely steal from each other erode trust, honor, and integrity. You have no more right to download and make copies of copyrighted material for sharing or sale to others than I have the right to tap into your bank account without you knowing about it, withdraw money, and share it with my friends and strangers on the street.

        The reason libraries can lend books is because they pay for that privilege. Although the per read fee is less than retail, it’s still accounted for. Haven’t you ever wondered why libraries charge more than the retail price for lost books? It’s because they’re paying a premium for those books having multiple readers. There’s even a huge debate going on now over how many times a digital book may be checked out before needing to re-load the reading licenses.

        Writers don’t work for free. They’re not “volunteers.” They have families, bills, cars, and all the other needs of normal life. Filesharing books deprives them of their livelihood, especially in this dicey economic environment, and ensures they’ll have to find other ways to live. In time, if the filesharing continues, I suppose there won’t be a problem, because there won’t be anything worth reading, anyway, and nobody to produce the books, digital or otherwise.

        • Fredrika

          > “Filesharing books is theft.”

          Not according to the law, a dictionary, logic or physics. What remains is your personal subjective and confused opinion, which has no relevance to what constitutes theft

          > “Every book you download without paying for..”

          There’s nothing to pay for when you download a book. The price is free. The price is not up for discussion. You pay when you buy something. When you manufacture something yourself with your own physical property, like filesharers do, the price can obviously never be anything else than free.

          > “means that money doesn’t reach the writers.”

          Since they haven’t sold anything in your example, they obviously are not entitled to any monetary reward.

          > “Each illegally downloaded or shared book costs the writer money, whether it’s measured in hundreds, thousands, or millions.”

          The writer has the exact same amount of money in his pocket before someone manufactures a copy, as afterwards. No cost arises from people filesharing.

          > “All these arguments about users’ “rights” to download copyrighted material are nonsense, and frankly, discouraging.”

          I have not put forward any such arguments.

          > “Proscriptions against stealing are the very backbone of a strong society, and citizens who routinely steal from each other erode trust, honor, and integrity.”

          Possibly, but that has nothing to do with this discussion, since no item is permanently deprived from its owner, so that he no longer has access to that item, i.e. stolen, when someone chooses to manufacture a copy with their own physical property, that they own.

          > “You have no more right to download and make copies of copyrighted material for sharing or sale to others than I have the right to tap into your bank account without you knowing about it, withdraw money, and share it with my friends and strangers on the street.”

          Referencing what the current law says is in no way a relevant argument for why something should be in a certain way, it only constitutes circular reasoning.

          > “The reason libraries can lend books is because they pay for that privilege.”

          The reason libraries can lend out books is because the author or copyright holder has been privileged with no right to forbid such use of his works.

          > “Although the per read fee is less than retail, it’s still accounted for.”

          There is no per read fee.

          > “Writers don’t work for free.”

          Unless they are paid in advance, they do. All entrepreneurs do.

          > “They’re not “volunteers.”"

          They are. Of their own free will they choose to do what they do. Nobody forces them.

          > “They have families, bills, cars, and all the other needs of normal life.”

          All people have, that’s nothing unique for writers, and therefore not a copyright related issue. It’s a social welfare issue.

          > “Filesharing books deprives them of their livelihood..”

          That’s your personal belief, not a scientific or physical fact.

          > “In time, if the filesharing continues, I suppose there won’t be a problem, because there won’t be anything worth reading, anyway, and nobody to produce the books, digital or otherwise.”

          That exact argument has been put forward for over 200 years by people advocating pro-copyright monopoly. Again and again that claim has been proven completely incorrect. There’s nothing to support the thesis that it will come true this time either, so you can remain calm. =)

        • http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com S.J. Doe

          > Every book you download without paying for means that money doesn’t reach the writers.

          Thank you for putting this argument to the top of your comment. Once I see a modification of the statement “one pirated copy == one lost sale”, I stop reading further.

          Thank you for saving my time.

    • RIAAtarded

      Most countries downloading or sharing isn’t illegal despite all the political push to make it so. What’s more the legal definition of theft from a criminal standpoint at least in my country states ” a person steals a thing if he or she takes or converts it fraudulently, without colour of right and with intent to deprive the owner of it, either permanently or temporarily.” Key emphasis on intent to deprive. That is a physical act, you have something I take it from you and now you no longer have it to enjoy. A copy doesn’t meet the criteria for theft.

      Always strikes me funny how fast people forget or maybe I’m just from a different generation. My mom taught me to share my things so someone wants to borrow something I have by all means. I remember doing a science fair projects on volcanoes as a kid and had pictures photocopied from the Mount St Helen’s eruption. Now does that photocopy make me a thief that should be locked up or was it an educational tool to teach others? Should the teacher be charged as an accessory as the project was a course requirement? Anything thing I’ve lent or borrowed over the years should I now be held liable for it’s use? Of course not.

      You want to pay them off you’re just falling into their stupidity. What they claim as losses based on what you did aren’t accurate or realistic. I’d also want to read closely the law they are enforcing most actions are civil and as nothing is on the books to cover this their is a lot of loose interpretation being used to scare you into submission. These thing actually hit a court room they are getting thrown out before the ink dries.

    • Yutute

      fuck off troll, you are your same argument has been defeated numerous times here, if you want the answer, just search back on articles in the comment section, stop presenting the same argument which has been defeated. If I steal 3 cartons of cigarettes, the person or place I stold them from has 3 less packs of cigarettes. If I see the cigarettes, copy them, and leave them on the shelf, I have taken nothing as the three cartons are still there, & I have some too. Stealing is the physical removal (as in its not there anymore). Copying is not stealing….

    • Scary Devil Monastery

      There was a law regarding where black people were allowed to be seated on a bus in the 50′s.

      There were laws stating that automobiles had to be manned by no less than three people, one of whom had to walk in front carrying a red flag – and that the car was allowed to go no faster than a walking pace.

      There was a law saying that women were not allowed to vote.

      There is, today, laws in US states against hanging male and female underwear to dry on the same string. And that it’s forbidden to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket.

      There is a law in Alabama allowing incestuous marriages.

      In California, animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship.

      There is a similar law in New York outlawing the “69″ sexual position.

      The new revision of “child porn” laws in some countries means you can be arrested as a pedophile if someone else has jacked off to a picture of a fully clothed 17-year old of yourself if you are in possession of said picture as well (that image, as innocent as it can be, now classified as “child porn”).

      First of all, copyright infringement is not stealing. Theft is when i take a property from you by depriving you of said property. I can not deprive you of information easily. And especially not by copying. This has been hashed out by every court up to and including the supreme court…so if you have any respect for the law yourself, realize that you are in error.

      Secondly, the examples above should show clearly that there are a great many laws which neither deserve respect, nor should, in any sane society, command obedience.

      Yes, copyright infringement is illegal. Absolutely no one cares as that law deserves as much respect today as the Alabama law allowing incestuous marriage.

  • Pingback: Rob’s Radar 10/31 | Robert Croak

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PFCI5VRUCYT6AVBT3P6ILV3COI Ophelia Millais

    It’s interesting that they’re going for not just copyright infringement, but trademark infringement, trademark counterfeiting, and unfair competition as well. This is a classic example of throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.

    IANAL, but I would think that the idea behind the trademark law is that the primary harm to Wiley occurs when consumers mistakenly believe that inferior, counterfeit items with Wiley/Dummies trademarks are official products of Wiley. I feel the court and/or the defense should require some evidence that the typical person who obtains For Dummies books via BitTorrent believes that they’re getting official product. I mean, people know they’re getting a “rip” of the book and that it could well be inferior, so this IMHO should mitigate, to some degree, the speculative harm to Wiley’s brands.

    And as usual, the complaint fails to demonstrate that any actual distribution occurred, or that the ISP customers to whom the IP addresses were assigned are the people responsible for the suspicious network activity. Paragraph 17 implicitly makes the dubious claim that people who obtain copyrighted works via BitTorrent would have purchased them otherwise, and it explicitly claims that the defendants have contributed to unknowable but “enormous” lost revenue. It frivolously blames the defendants for the actions of other BitTorrent users, such as whoever was responsible for the 74000+ downloads of torrent files for one of the eight titles at issue in the suit. Even that example is flawed, since torrent downloads do not equal distributions; some torrents get downloaded by crawlers for indexing elsewhere, and many of the people who downloaded the torrents didn’t even use them to get a copy of the book, and many of those who did get a copy didn’t keep or seed it, let alone successfully distribute it. I hope the court notices these flaws and rejects those aspects of the suit.

  • Anonymous

    Sounds like a pretty good idea to me dude. Wow.
    complete-privacy.no.tc

  • Anonymous

    Okay, so all of you who feel that supporting Wiley in this is somehow trolling…explain that to me, please, because I’m a novelist who has seen decreasing royalties and increasing piracy, just like all my novelist friends, and it is a real threat to my livelihood. I count on book royalties to pay for things like food and electricity. If you steal my work instead of paying for it, I can’t continue to produce it. But it’s not just the simple math of that, that really gets to me – it’s the dismissiveness on the part of people who obviously think this is an unreasonable attitude on the part of writers who apparently are supposed to survive on thin air and the sheer force of their own creativity.

    I’d like to see some of you at least acknowledge the possibility that when you get this product – something you would once have had to walk into a store and pay for – for free by downloading it illegally, in violation of the law, you are not in fact innocent of anything. You are making a conscious choice to break the law, and in doing so are making a decision to deprive a specific writer (not some nameless, faceless corporation but a specific human being) of a specific amount of money they would have gotten from the sale of that book if you’d purchased it. Because that’s how royalties work. Each book generates a specific amount in royalties, as a percentage, and that is the amount the author receives for his or her work. It’s not averaged in some nebulous way, your download doesn’t just get mixed into some sort of mix and it never really makes a different in the grand scheme of things…it makes a very specific and quantifiable difference, and you may think it’s negligible but when you multiply that small amount by tens of thousands of downloads a year, that’s tens of thousands of dollars in lost sales and royalties. If it’s just that you’d rather pay the producer of something directly than some faceless publisher, fine – then explain to me why even my self-published book gets pirated, because I’m still trying to figure out how people justify that to themselves.

    I don’t write for, or have any affiliation with, Wiley, incidentally. But good for them, and shame on all of you who think you have some sort of moral high ground when you illegally download books. You don’t. You’re just stealing.

    • http://ompldr.org/vYXc2MA/see-what-i-thought-id-do-was-id-pretend-i-was-one-of-those-slut-whores.html w3ts1ut

      shame on all of you who think you have some sort of moral high ground when you illegally download books. You don’t. You’re just stealing.

      I say, shame on those who still equate digital copying to stealing – it is absolutely untrue.

      I recognize the struggle that artists (including writers) have, especially today when technologies allow for massive public transparent flow of all types of media, especially today when more people are struggling to even live than they are able to sit down and experience some form of art or another, where even disdain for art and creators in general exists within all domains that aren’t festered with mass advertising.

      I frequently try to contact artists which created content that I enjoy (mostly unpopular jazz bands or fringe writers off in unpopular corners of the net), summarizing that I’d like to send in a reasonable direct donation considering I freely downloaded their content and do not have nor want a hardcopy. For big names this is next to impossible since their publishers, distributors, labels and what-have-you, all tend to mediate their cash flow – rarely will someone fairly popular respond. I do not speak for all file sharers and I imagine many just find freely sharing easier and quicker for them compared to legit purchasing, there’s a larger perspective to see with respect to file sharing, it’s simply beyond the status quo of business for them.

      The moral high ground to share freely is commonly created by, among other reasons, the ongoing exploitation of the legal system by lawyers, artists who value profit far more than their fans’ choice to share ideas with others; It is actively created by the mentalities of MAFIAA, greed, lobbyists and any party whatsoever engaged in pursuing indecent goals like punishing consumers – This behavior, that ignoble gangster type of activity is why I, speaking for myself, download and share, mix and share, change and spread ideas. If you want to place blame on your own fans for wanting to read your material, be my guest – but I should think you’d get far more respect to notice on the one hand, a very large portion of blame must go towards the absolutely corrupt copyright monopoly existing today, and on the other hand technology which has only made available more content to greater amounts of people.

    • Zig

      Once again, you’re misunderstanding the clear distinction between illegality and unlawfulness. If this were stealing then yes it could be covered by criminal law (as with theft of physical property) along with the much lower associated fines for such activity, but it’s merely copyright infringement, covered by civil law, which leaves the owners of the copyrights open to sue for massively inflated damages. So it’s up to you really – do you WANT it to be illegal and make no money from suing, or do you want it to merely be unlawful (as it currently is) and have a chance at making more money from copyright trolling than you’d ever make selling copies of your work?

      Also, you’re assuming that because you choose to write then you should have the inalienable rights to make money from it.

      And tell me, if I borrow a book from a library does that somehow equate to one lost sale for you? It certainly means fewer royalties. Or how about if a friend lends me a copy of a book that they borrowed from a friend who borrowed it from a friend who borrowed it from a friend… and on and on and on… ? Because that’s what you’re ultimately saying that sharing is doing to you. So are you also advocating that it should become illegal to lend someone a book? Sounds like it.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PFCI5VRUCYT6AVBT3P6ILV3COI Ophelia Millais

        Small correction: copyright infringement, in the U.S., is covered by both civil and criminal law. However, it is normally only pursued in cases like these within the civil court system, in an attempt to get money for damages. The FBI and the local police & DAs have much more important things to do than investigate and prosecute, and waste jail & prison space on small-time BitTorrent users.

        Regarding borrowing, you’d better believe the publishers and quite a few underpaid authors would like very much to see libraries, private lending (be it digital or physical), and the First Sale doctrine in copyright law all be outlawed. I believe the litigation they are engaging in right now is a step on the way toward that eventual goal. The publishing world is also watching to see what happens with HarperCollins, who is limiting the number of times libraries can lend its e-books; if “successful” (for the publisher, not the libraries or the readers), it will be the new standard, and they’ll all scramble to figure out just how low they can push the number of checkouts and get away with it.

      • writer

        “Also, you’re assuming that because you choose to write then you should have the inalienable rights to make money from it.”

        That’s unfair. No one suggests that there is any right or obligation to make money from writing; in fact, every writer knows that it’s hit or miss. We either write for advances (generally low), or take a chance self-publishing; essentially, we write on spec, and hope that sales will be enough to pay the rent.

        There is this misguided belief that all writers are rich; that all musicians are rich. My guess is that the number of writers who make more than a middle-class living is in the 2-5% range, if even that much. (Heck, let’s call it 1%; so I’m the 99%.)

        What DelDryden says is a slap in the face to all those who claim that they’d really like to pay the content producers rather than the corporations:

        “explain to me why even my self-published book gets pirated, because I’m still trying to figure out how people justify that to themselves.”

        In short, freeloaders.

        So what’s the solution? As I suggest in a comment below, is it to give up writing books altogether (as I have done with print books)? Does that make the world a better place?

        • Zig

          It doesn’t matter what you do, you’ll always get freeloaders. But I think you’ll find that there are a hell of a lot of filesharers who would gladly pay the author (or artist in the case of music) direct.

          You’re never going to stop piracy, but my suggestion would be to allow an ‘honesty box’ kind of download system – let downloaders give you a donation.

          Perhaps suggest how much you feel is a fair amount, but leave it ultimately up to them. Some won’t pay, but some will and of those that do I can bet a fair number will pay the amount you suggest if it’s reasonable.

          In the downloaded copy include a readme file (maybe even distribute as a torrent to ensure it’s your own version that is most likely to be seeded/shared so that it definitely includes the readme file). In that readme file, state the terms of your distribution, that it’s, that you’re self-publishing etc etc and ask people politely to consider supporting you as an author.

          I’ve bought a fair amount of music this way from independent artists and not only do I feel better knowing that the money goes direct to the creative individual concerned, but I’m getting some great music that most labels would pass up because it’s not seen as commercially viable and I know the artists really appreciate it – AND you get to speak to the artists direct so they can get feedback about what they’re doing and let you know of any other stuff that may interest you.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          Paulo Coelho may arguably be one of the most pirated people on the planet.

          He also sells millions of his works.

          The internet has given you a marvellous instrument allowing a good author to become a global household name in weeks and all you can say is “Oh, damn, my books are unpopular, it must be the pirates fault”.

          Pirates, in every study ever commissioned, spend between two and four times as much on legal media than the average joe. Naturally, since they are afficionados. If you write three books, a million people download them and ten thousand of these buy a single copy each of one of these at 10$ then you’ve just earned 100k for those books.

          Which is exactly what happens with any sufficiently popular piece of media. To top that off that million downloaders then recommend the books to their friends who might not pirate but certainly might buy books.

          You might want to read up on long-tail effects.

      • Ven

        —–
        “Also, you’re assuming that because you choose to write then you should have the inalienable rights to make money from it.”
        —–
        Slight correction: the assumption is that the content creator should have the inalienable rights to choose how that work is distributed.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          That assumption isn’t much better. It assumes that information control is possible to implement in the human race, especially when we’ve found something we consider interesting or important enough to share.

          That’s only possible when the subject bores everyone to tears or is considered generally unpalatable.

        • Ven

          @S.D.M.

          Don’t think of it as information control, think of it as society-at-large deciding that human beings should choose of their own volition to respect the rights others even in the absence of viable enforcement of those rights.

    • Jon7272

      if you cant make a living anymore from your work. in the real world people change jobs its not hard just because you make or write something there is no certainty for people to make money from it. or right to. if you do make money then good for you. ill just go and find that little violin. ill go and paint your house and i expect to be paid for it for life lol

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PFCI5VRUCYT6AVBT3P6ILV3COI Ophelia Millais

      Your royalties are between you, your agent, and your publisher. It is not my job as a consumer to ensure that you receive enough money to buy groceries, pay a mortgage, support 9 kids, save for retirement, and never work a day job ever again. What’s more, only the most fortunate authors enjoy sustained popularity and perpetually strong sales. The rest, if they want to sustain a given level of income, must continue to create and bring new, desirable works into the market in order to offset what are very normal and natural declines in sales and royalties of past works that have exhausted their 15 minutes.

      This is basic economics. You apparently think your work is nearly priceless and that your publisher should get whatever ransom they’re holding it for. The marketplace, however, thinks your content is worth somewhere between nothing and the price of admission to a sporting event, with the number of people willing to pay for it being much smaller than the number who will only read it if they can get it for free. You ought to concede that your work isn’t really as valuable as you think it is or as valuable as it once was, and you ought to recognize that there are many reasons why your royalties are declining, yet you simplistically assume a causal, total relationship between increasing piracy and your decreasing royalties: “tens of thousands of downloads a year, that’s tens of thousands of dollars in lost sales in royalties.” I call BS. Only some small percentage of downloaders would’ve resorted to buying it, if there were no other choice.

      Piracy may be a factor in your decreasing royalties, but it’s not the only one, and I doubt it’s even a significant one. The publishing industry has many big problems of which you’re probably well aware. It’s fun to blame piracy for all of the industry’s woes, but you just don’t have any hard evidence and numbers to back it up.

    • Anonymous

      I went to your page and even though I dont like erotic romace, I like steampunk so I want to buy a book off you just for to show you that pirates usually spend more money on culture than any other single group. Which one do you recommend for me and where does my GF start? Will buy it of kindle since its my reader of choice. (You see they made it easy for me to buy books, and dont treat me as a potential criminal to boot)

      I dont know you or your work, you might be good or you might be shite, but never for one minute believe that your the amount of DL=sales. You are not that good I dare say.

      I know something of the ebook piracy scene, and people use them partially to avoid paying, partially to enjoy a book on a reader (if its not available in the correct format and such)
      Others use piracy because some books are not available in all countries for various reasons (censorship), and if they are they might be out of the price range for the average citizen. (This is usually only true for text books)

    • ZiggySig

      First of all, I am too quite concerned about the people being all guns blazing “I don’t care, if I get it for free”… Still, some replies were quite good about the issue.

      I am a heavy music downloader, since I am heavy listener. I want to discover. Continuously expand my horizons, discover new bands, different genres. Here we come to one of your arguments – download count doesn’t actually show lost sales. There is no accurate way to distinguish, how many downloads actually convert into lost sales, at least none that I know of. Since it’s relatively easy to download, people download more. Some download, because they don’t want to buy. Some download, because they want to evaluate the product, and consider buying it. Some just download, and never even look at it. Now how do the latter effect you? Answer: in no way at all, even if that adds to the downloads.

      I actually buy music. I LOVE music. Some of the things I bought, I bought only because I have downloaded full albums first, and listened to them multiple times, till I realized, how much I love them. Now that really can’t be titled as a “lost sale”. Because “illegal download” resulted in me buying the product.

      And I even buy physical copies, CDs. And I don’t mind, that the percentage of the money goes to a local book/music store, label, and then only reaches the artist. If artist signs up to this distribution model, so be it. The only thing I see, is myself shifting from big labels, and (sadly) artists, since they are hunting down people like me. For loving music. For sharing it with friends. People aren’t even allowed to create some Youtube video for a song, that they love. We are labeled “criminals”, because we love music. Because some of us spend hours crafting some artistic photo video, and wanting to share it. And no one bothers to take into account, that these “criminals” tend to buy more, or that they will visit more live shows.

      Going back to your situation… I really see the problem from your perspective. And I have looked up, what you write… To be honest, erotic romance isn’t really my thing… I am more interested in conflict between main character and the world, or romantic, maybe unhappy love. I am more interested in works, that bring some moral values to them, maybe with some hopes, maybe with some changes. I don’t really see, that vampire sex scenes could deliver anything like that to me..

      And here we come to the actual problem: is there really a market for your works? I see tons of ‘erotic romance’ books, that I, personally, don’t give a crap about. I understand, that there will be people, who read it, but maybe the offer exceeds the demand? Do you really offer anything special, that would make you stand out in this market?

      I really wish you all the best. I hope you will find the best way out of this sticky situation, but please, don’t criminalize your potential readers. Heck, since you posted here, I might even go, and download a copy of your book, just to get a feel for it. Maybe you’ll even get me into this genre of books, but don’t count on it :].

      Take care!

    • Ven

      I will never truly understand why folks who want nothing more than the supposedly self-entitled, old business-model artists like us to go extinct would choose to pirate our goods instead of moving to creative commons and other royalty-free alternatives.

      I get that some file-sharers don’t want to pay for stuff, some want to try before they buy, and some do it for other reasons. I get that some people think that digital information can’t/shouldn’t be regulated in distribution.

      What I don’t understand is why they feel the need to fight a war of words or actions or lobbying when the one sure-fire method of toppling the old mindset is to simply turn their attention (and not just their money) elsewhere.

      • ZiggySig

        Because old business-model is trying to take unprecedented control of the internet? Selected groups of people, commercial entities having the ability to decide, what is wrong, and what is right. Going all the way to the ability to write laws.

        Trying to reach a status, where creative people can be put into jail for simply making music videos for the music they did not create, yet (possibly legally) own, love, and want to share.

        In my point of view, such aggression against legitimate content users, and the inproportionally violent strategies to change the global mindset cannot really be tolerated.

        Not to talk about the actual damage your old-business model is causing itself, and potentially to the whole industry. Since alienating your content lovers only makes me see pirating as more justifiable, then before.

        • Ven

          So stop buying their products. Stop pirating their products.

          There are people here who think that the industries are lobbying to have these laws enacted because their content is no longer desired, but this is false. Their content is still in the highest demand as reflect by both their sales and most-downloaded lists like we have here on TF.

          These industries have billions in the bank and will spend most of it to protect their way of business. Pirating instead of buying will not finish them off, it just gives them political ammo they can use to undermine internet freedoms. The only way they will disappear is if their content no longer interests the public at large.

          ——-
          “Trying to reach a status, where creative people can be put into jail for simply making music videos for the music they did not create, yet (possibly legally) own, love, and want to share.”
          ——-

          Absolutely, and the best way to fight that is to make music videos for royalty-free music.Have those artists make their own art, original from top to bottom. There is no good reason not to. But the mindset that the public can love, adore, and use/abuse the industry content while at the same time making the industry a non-entity is foolish.

          ——-
          “In my point of view, such aggression against legitimate content users, and the inproportionally violent strategies to change the global mindset cannot really be tolerated.”
          ——-

          It can’t, and breaking free from it begins with breaking free from the need for their content. Notice it has nothing to do with whether or not you spend money, but whether or not you want what they have. Their leverage is not their revenue stream, its the content they produce that everybody still wants.

        • ZiggySig

          Ven, are you crazy? Or just horribly out of touch?

          How on Earth can you even come up with this? Did I ever said, that I do not like the industry, or what it can produce? Why would you even bring something like that up into the discussion?

          I have no problems to pay for music. As I mentioned, I buy CDs. I don’t mind, that some percentage of the money goes to the label, store, and only then the artist. He chose that, so be it. Maybe he saw it as good means to achieve his goals, so be it. And I will GLADLY PAY for music, that I love. So there could be MORE of it.

          What I cannot tolerate, is the aggression, that is being shown towards people like me. Hell yeah, I download craploads of stuff. I can’t even listen to all of it. But that’s just the way I discover things. I have discovered numerous bands/artists, that I wouldn’t have payed enough attention to, to buy anything from them. But here they were, whole albums of said artists on my HDD. And they were played. And only upon several playthroughs it became obvious, how significant these artists are in my live, and how much I want to BUY their stuff. I want to support them, I want to visit live shows. I want more of it.

          Without piracy, sadly, this would never have happened…

          So here, what I deem to be wrong. Putting all the higher “internet freedoms, minority writing laws” subjects aside… Criminalizing your heavy content users? Alienating people from the industry? Pushing them away, with their money? Look around you. Read comments here. What used to be a hush-hush slightly bad activity, now is hitting mainstream media. Huge crackdowns on people, teens are being pulled into trials, random people being bullied to ‘pay up’. Do not sing this. Do not share that. ‘Fair use’ my ass. What used to be hush-hush, slap on a wrist, now becomes into some strange (heck, maybe ill?) ‘rebellion’. Where it seems OK not to buy, even if you like it. Where it is OK not to support the artist, and the industry behind it, that made it possible. The longer it lasts, the more long-term damage it will cause, since I assume this alienation will only further.

          Just because buying music that you love helps the same people, who want to put you into jail. People, who want to handcuff you, because you sang something at your workplace. Or had a live band at your bar. Why on Earth are you doing this? Is this, how you see music flourishing in the future?

          Reading, what you wrote, I really don’t know, if you’ll understand me. And you are entitled not to, everyone is different. It seems, I just might love music way more, than you… Haven’t you said you were a musician?

          As this is an articles about books, I’ll share this video, I just came across: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI

        • Ven

          ZiggySig, I understand what you are saying. But the old business models do not. You (like many others) are trying to convince them that your piracy leads to sales for them that otherwise would not have happened. They don’t want to hear it though.

          They refuse to hear it. Instead, they are choosing to as you say “Criminalizing your heavy content users, alienating people from the industry pushing them away, with their money” everywhere they can. They won’t wake up, they won’t listen until their content is no longer in demand.

          Until then, they will fight tooth and nail to punish file-sharers, to limit freedoms, and anything else they can do to prevent anyone anywhere from distributing any bits or pieces of their content without paying them for permission.

          I love many labeled artists, but I no longer buy music first-hand because it supports an industry I don’t want anything to do with. Some I get to talk to, and when I do I make sure to tell them how I wish they would do something different. But I’m not going to pump money into that machine if I can help it. Instead, I look forward to the day that label sales, Youtube views, and piracy drop far enough for execs to realize that their business model is undermining any level of talented content being produced.

          The difference for me is that, at some point, I won’t support an artist for the allegiances they have made.

      • Scary Devil Monastery

        “What I don’t understand is why they feel the need to fight a war of words or actions or lobbying when the one sure-fire method of toppling the old mindset is to simply turn their attention (and not just their money) elsewhere.”

        Because pirates who pirate media are above all afficionados. A blockade delivers results, and has broken a few artists (take, for example, Metallica, after their fans started burning their albums in the streets after the Napster case). And afficionados abhor waste of talent. Which is why many pirates still purchase goods they do consider properly priced or good enough to merit a physical copy in a shelf.

        • Ven

          At some point those aficionados need to decide that they simply cannot tolerate any level of talent pushed through a broken system, and black-ball the industry content.

          Similar to the way we could collect shoes, but pass on sweatshop shoes regardless of their quality.

    • Scary Devil Monastery

      First of all, every court in the land has drawn the line. Copyright infringement is not theft.

      Secondly, there are numerous examples of authors and artists who aren’t the least bit worried about non-commercial infringement since that’s turned out to actually boost their sales.

      Paulo Coelho’s sales literally exploded when his work ended up on the pirate bay. Simply because if I download something and like it enough, i buy it. A good book is an adornment to my bookshelf and a statement about who i am and what interests i have. Which is why I, despite being a “pirate” own about three times as many books and DVD’s as any of my non-pirate friends.

      The same holds true for any other pirate. If your book is good enough then either the downloader himself will buy it – or recommend it to someone who does.

      Go google “Paulo Coelho pirate” for a successful example of this.

      However, whatever your reasoning might be, you should consider the fact that information, once published, will spread. It’s in our very nature as human beings and a social species. You either learn to profit from this and make use of the infinite marketing potential…or you do like almost everyone else does: Realize that you may not necessarily end up with the job you might like to earn an income.

      I know of a few doctorates who’ve ended up taxi drivers and burger flippers because there was no call for their specific competence. The idea that being an “author/artist” should somehow mean a guaranteed job doesn’t inspire much sympathy.

      If your books aren’t good enough to stand on their own merits, then do like every other joe. Get an ordinary job and start writing in your spare time until they do make a splash.

  • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

    Copyright holders face a daunting contradiction.

    They tell their customers that all is well with the current copyright regime: That they produce and distribute the quality products needed by a free society efficiently and at a fair price; that their commitment to the maximum of individual personal choice in the marketplace and in society is unblemished and unsurpassed; that they are good corporate citizens whose interests in human rights and freedoms are a unity of one with those of every living breathing human being who suffers daily for a more humane future.

    I have yet to express the daunting contradiction; but, even apriori, are we deeply skeptical? Where was the moral insight born that first drew the conclusion that human beings could be most free within a political system wherein they would share state power co-equally with corporations? Is your first thought, Oh God for a spontaneous abortion! Under such a publick delusion, how can we be surprtsed to see our human rights being flushed further and further down the toilet?

    And, so we come to the daunting contradiction faced by copyright holders: We tell them, “You could be considered good publick citizens only in a nation populated exclusively by corporations.” We say, ‘”You distribute the lowest possible quality at the highest possible price.” We complain, “You currupt our politicians into producing legalities for your convenience which criminalize us everywhere we live.” Above all, we cry out, “There is no unity of interest whatsoever between your interests an ours.”

    And the daunting contradiction for copyright holders lives right here: It is what you fire up when you start windows. It’s in every image that passes before your eyes reminding you that you are only renting briefly what you thought you had every right to purchase once and own outright and permanently. It is in every microscopic bit of fine print that you accept or decline without ever having had the time or opportunity to actually accept or decline. So today, a new first: A bookseller has for the first time dusted off the copyright laws in defence of fourty dollar books and sued twenty seven people. Movie companies were there before them. Many more copyright holders will follow. But, can it be reasonable to expect that six billion people will continue to sleep soundly while they are slowly goughed of their humanity?

    • writer

      Human rights flushed further and further down the toilet…

      Impressive way to defend the non-payment for intellectual property. Remember, the people creating this intellectual property are human beings with rights just like you, not corporations.

      • Fredrika

        You are using some terms in an incorrect manner.

        > “..the people creating this intellectual property..”

        The intellectual work, which is what authors create, does not constitute any kind of property. The unfortunately misleading term “intellectual property” does not refer to the intellectual work in itself, it refers to the copyright monopoly over an intellectual work, which is indeed a piece of intangible property, that can be owned, sold, and bought.

        An intellectual work is not property. It can not be owned, sold, or bought. It can however be controlled how an piece of intellectual work is allowed to be used in conjunction with physical products or services. Such control is realized through the copyright monopoly, which only exist as an intrusion into other peoples physical property, stealing away from them the possibility to do with their property as they can or wish, such as manufacturing physical copies, or telling others what physical patterns their physical property contains.

        > “Human rights flushed further and further down the toilet…”

        I’m not sure what you refer to, but it is not a human right to be privileged with a copyright monopoly, that performs an intrusion into other peoples property. That is a privilege that society might grant an author with, if they deem it necessary, and something that benefits society culturally, which is the only thing that copyright is suppose to further on a conceptual level.

        It is however a human right to be given protection from society’s judicial system, of such monopoly, if you were ever granted it in the first place. That is what is stated in §27.2 of the human rights.

        But what protection equals up to, is up to society to decide.

        Secondly, such protection may not, according to the rules of the human rights, interfere with another human right, such as the right to anonymously and unregistered communicate with other people, or free speech. Therefore it is impossible to censor filesharing sites, or interfere with peoples filesharing, if it takes place in private communication, in advance, trying to stop it, without violating the human rights.

        Thirdly, §27.2 clearly only refers to the author. He has the right to protection of his rights, as long as they are in his possession. If he sells his copyright monopoly to a publisher, there is no longer any right to protection of that copyright monopoly.

        > “Impressive way to defend the non-payment for intellectual property..”

        If we for a second disregard your incorrect use of terminology, people have never paid for the intellectual work. They pay for the goods of the physical copy. If you acquire the physical copy in another way, through a library, borrowing from a friend, copying from a friend, of filesharing, there’s nothing to pay for. The price is free and can never be anything else.

        Secondly, people filesharing don’t have to defend anything, since society doesn’t work in that order. The only thing that should be defended is the prohibition in the law, and in this case the copyright monopoly’s intrusion into peoples own property. The parts of the copyright monopoly that regulate non-profit use, has never in modern time been properly defended, with any kind of scientific evidence, that proves that it is needed, to further the goal of the conceptual copyright.

        Since no defence exist, it constitutes illegitimate legislation, and people can fileshare as much as they want, for whatever reason they see fit, and they do not have to justify their actions, manufacturing copies with their own physical property.

        Demanding justification from people filesharing reverses the order of society, and does therefore constitute dishonest and backwards rhetoric’s.

      • ThumbsUpThumbsDown

        The idea that the current copyright laws are “equitable” for
        artists (those responsible for the original act of production) within the same meaning in which they are beneficial to distributers (those whose business it is to aggregate ownership of copyright advantaged work for redistribution at a premium) does not stand up to even superficial historical examination. Perhaps no other segment of society has been as abused and defrauded under existing copyright regimes as artists; and, perhaps, no other segment of society has benefited from plunder on a scale comparable to digital distributors of intellectual property under the legislated monopoly and perpetuity we know as copyright law.

        But beyond the sacred value that we place on art and artists; and, beyond the strictly mercantile importance that distributors of intellectual property ascribe to their profits, there is yet the too often ignored victim whose losses under the copyright laws are
        incalculable and irreprable. That victim is every living breathing member of society who is made to know under the copyright laws that there is no such thing as a publick domain to which intellectual property is destined to return as the cultural freehold of all citizens. That loss to us all is beyond imagination.

        My sympathies to any artist who must adapt, but no product of evolution, human or otherwise, has been better at darwinian adaptation than the artist. They were here long before copyright. They will be here long after.

        • Ven

          Since the inception of copyright, I don’t think there has been a better time for artists to exercise their copyright. Thanks to the internet, distribution costs are almost zero, and there are countless methods of viral marketing that do the same.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          @Ven

          “Since the inception of copyright, I don’t think there has been a better time for artists to exercise their copyright.”

          Too true. Marketing possibility like nothing which ever existed. If even Rebecca Black can earn big wads of money on her music, the possibilities are endless. Money literally falling from the sky – if you have hands to catch it with.

  • Pingback: Major Book Publisher Files Mass-BitTorrent Lawsuit | My Blog

  • Jimbo

    just read into this what you will!

  • GoodIdea

    Can someone quickly upload bit-torrent for dummies and can we all quickly just download and seed it for the sheer hell of it?

    • Mesrer

      i did a search for it and its been on the internet for at least 3 years (since 2008)

      • http://twitter.com/BjornHudson Bjorn Hudson

        There’s been a fake around for a while that’s a 16 page tutorial with a photoshopped cover. It’s around 700kb in size (sometimes listed as 1mb) and is usually in a zip or rar file. Watch out for it, as it’s a waste of time.

  • Pingback: Major Book Publisher Files Mass-BitTorrent Lawsuit | TorrentForce Blog

  • Pingback: P2PTalk » Major Book Publisher Files Mass-BitTorrent Lawsuit

  • Jojo

    lets all go smear buggers on the “dummies” books at the book store

  • http://twitter.com/BjornHudson Bjorn Hudson

    Library Pirate is happy to provide Bittorrent for Dummies.
    http://librarypirate.me/BitTorrent_For_Dummies_by_Kris_Krug_Susannah_Gardner-s-3507.ts

    This is the real deal, there is a 16 page fake floating around that’s just an old tutorial so watch out for that.

    Please download, seed, and enjoy!

    • http://twitter.com/LibraryPirate1 Library Pirate

      “This book not only shows you how to acquire BitTorrent, but also how to use it without picking up worms, viruses, and lawsuits.”

      They must have left out the part where they sue you for learning how to download their book with bittorrent.

  • RIAAtarded

    Surprises me they don’t take this as a sign. All these “for dummies” books although extremely rudimentary are a text book and as such it is much easier to reference them in a PDF format. From an educational standpoint a simple search is more desirable and turns it into a better reference tool. Making both formats available would increase sales.

  • Pingback: Next Up to Sue BitTorrent Users: Book Publishers - Social Media

  • Pingback: Next Up to Sue BitTorrent Users: Book Publishers at Ectimes

  • Pingback: Book Publisher Files Mass P2P Lawsuit | PCE Groups, LLC

  • http://profiles.google.com/scootah Sean .
    • Borderliner

      I beg to differ. People are very well searching for “Photoshop for Dummies”, unless they’re searching for “Advanced Photoshop” (or similar) whose content most likely isn’t present in a “Dummies” book.
      Having clear instructions without assuming that you already know the (unspecified) basics is a good thing to have.

      • Scary Devil Monastery

        Personally I’d use GIMP instead – open source for which there is extensive online documentation. But that’s just me.

  • Pingback: Next Up to Sue BitTorrent Users: Book Publishers | TechDiem.com

  • http://www.5kcamera.com 5k camera

    i see soo many dummies books on torrent sites i thought the puiblisher was spreading them on purpos to encourage paper sales.

  • DRuNKeN MaSTeR

    “Although Wiley cannot determine at this time the precise amount of revenue that it has lost as a result of peer-to-peer file sharing of its copyrighted works though BitTorrent software, the amount of revenue that is lost is enormous.”

    Let me translate that “For Dummies”: “We don’t know if we even lost *any* money, but we say that we lost much.”

  • TorrentFreakTroll

    Next they are going to sue libraries… I hear you can walk away with a FREE copy of their book, keep it for weeks, read it, then return it! I wonder if the “defendants” in this lawsuit can claim “virtual library” if they provide proof that after they read it, they deleted it?

    • Ven

      They tried and lost in the United States attempting to fight the library system. Libraries function to organize and retain information. Our government places that priority higher than the potential lost sales borrowing books from a library presents.

      Check some public library websites, many of them offer E-book borrowing.

  • writer

    I’m a computer book author (though I’ve never done any Dummies books). I’ve published a dozen books on computers, and I’ve stopped writing print books. Sales have been going down, in part because there is so much information on the web, but I’m sure that piracy has contributed to that. As a result of that, advances have been going down as well, which means that, in the absence of effective promotion by the publishers, I have a much lower guarantee of payment for my time.

    Now, there is a “new model,” that of ebooks (as opposed to ebook versions of print books). I’ve published a half dozen, and, while sales are much lower than for print books, I make more money. However, as these books start showing up on torrent trackers and RapidShare, how long before I stop writing them? How long before it’s too easy to download copies of my books without paying for them? When it gets to that, I’ll stop writing books.

    Now, some of you may say, “well, that’s just the way of the world; things change,” and I wholeheartedly agree. I’ve changed careers several times in my life. But will the world not be poorer because experienced authors decide to give up writing books and turn to, in my case, business writing? I think it will. I think that in both print and ebooks, as well as magazines, we’re reaching a stage where so few people are willing to pay for content that the good writers will go elsewhere, contributing to a spiral of decreasing quality.

    I guess that’s life, but is that the life we want?

    • AnonymousReader

      Comedy Central doesn’t bitch because less shows are being watched because decent creators are frustrated with the overwhelming market for YouTube.

      Why should other content providers bitch because more people are interested in a new market than the old one?

      • Ven

        Not a big deal for entertainment genres, we are happily satisfied watching fat kids with lightsabres.

        However, it is extremely short-sighted to think that there exist no intellectual pursuits that do not require some form of financial investment BEFORE the work can be done. Convincing scholars to write 1000-page books on their post-doctorate work won’t do as well when society expects them all to do it out of their own pocket.

        Or do you think that the guy who discovers a formula for prime numbers (something that currently would probably make him a billionaire) shouldn’t be satisfied with his name in history? Some people might dig it, but most will ditch theoretical math (where the breakthroughs happen) and go applied where the money is.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          @Ven

          If a man comes up with a formula for prime numbers (or, say, a formula describing the connection between energy, mass or the velocity of light) that man will never want for work again, and will most likely be able to write his own paycheck for the rest of his professional career.

          Whereas if you buy into the idea that you can patent pure research then society as a whole loses out (as when massive numbers of research laboratories had to quit research into the gene BRC1 known to cause breast cancer as some companies had claimed patent on the Intellectual property of said linkage).

          Honestly, if you come up with a good idea and want to exploit it, by all means do. The expectation that others should not follow suit is both naive and smack of information control.

          And the current fallout of this is that companies like Apple are, instead of innovating and coming up with better ideas, suing other surf pad manufacturers for manufacturing “square flat communications devices with centered screens and rounded corners”.

    • Ven

      Who needs researched texts written by industry experts when we have Yahoo! Answers to solve our problems faster?

  • AnonymousReader

    “Aside form the direct financial damage through copyright infringement,”

    Strike One. Credibility is lessened, but I’m still reading.

    “Wiley is particularly concerned that its trademarks are used in connection with unauthorized electronic products, which could contain malicious viruses.”

    Strike Two. Credibility is gone, but still salvageable.

    “Wiley is also concerned that these unauthorized electronic editions of its works may be of inferior quality to the original versions,”

    Strike Three. Credibility is gone, and you have just proven you have no idea how digital copying works.

    • Scary Devil Monastery

      Look, Wiley just writes the damn dummy guides. They don’t read them.

      So give the poor guys a break already. :-)

  • Zan

    why are they sueing book downloaders and not second hand bookstores. Downloaders and 99.9999999% of uploaders make $0it in illicit ill gotten gains.

    Second hand book stores pay no royalities to authors but potencially can make a nice tidy profit.

    “But at least someone bought a new copy before it was sold so author made some pennies….” Same as downloaded books then, someone had to buy it to upload it.

    In summary you want to make more money sue second hand booksellers or their payment processors like amazon/ebay who are also profiting from the sale of second hand books.

    ps – feel free to replace the word books with dvds or games…….

  • Pingback: Editori, non aprite quella porta (ovvero gestione della pirateria for Dummies) — Simplicissimus

  • Pingback: Tips: How To Download BitTorrent Files | The Geek Post

  • http://saarvi.com SD

    Copyright issues are taking a toll….shouldn’t all text be free…???

  • Anonymous

    Basic Math

    If you take a pie and slice it 8 times, you then have 8 slices of pie…NOT 8 whole pies.
    Therefore, if you download one book, song, app, or movie and you seed to 1:1 ratio, you shared ONE… NOT “potentially thousands”!!!

    The defendants need mathematicians as their expert witness.

    • Twoleftsandaright

      Hi. I’m a wizard, similar to Merlin or Gandalf or any of those guys. I bought a pie from the store in my town. They have good pies, and sell a lot of them. I used a magical spell to make a thousand copies of the pie that I bought, and I own, and is my property. I then stood in front of the store, handing out free pies to everyone who was walking up to the store. Granted, not everyone going into the store was necessarily going to buy a pie, so it’s not a sale lost… but since the pies were free, they took one anyway, because why not? And those who were going to buy a pie, of course they took one… some of them donated money to the store, but others didn’t. The store no longer made nearly as much money as it does on pies, so it went out of business. But, that’s okay, because the baker should have adjusted to the new market, in which his pies are freely available, because I made copies. Furthermore, as I bought the first pie, he did not lose any inventory to stealing… so I was merely copying, and sharing, something I bought, without taking physical inventory from him. So, you know, it’s okay.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PFCI5VRUCYT6AVBT3P6ILV3COI Ophelia Millais

        Hi. I’m the chef who made the original pie. I’m afraid you left me out of your story, and I’m here to set the record straight. The baker you speak of was actually an irritatingly smug entrepreneur to whom I licensed my pie recipe. You see, although I knew he was a greedy scumbag, he had the ovens, the supplies, and the storefront, and I am not particularly business-savvy, so I contracted with him to make, sell, and distribute copies of my most popular pies. My contract with him, in hindsight, was far more favorable to him than to me, and I suspect he spent the majority of his profits on cocaine sex parties in tropical-island mansions. Nevertheless, once I had earned out my advance, and after my lawyer sent him a few gentle reminders, he did eventually begin sending me a small royalty for every one of my pies he sold (although come to think of it, he always seemed to have some excuse for why the royalties were so pitiful and slow in coming). Well, despite his shenanigans, with a small repertoire of recipes in circulation, I did manage to enjoy a long, lucrative period during which the cumulative royalties were more than enough for me to live on. I’m ashamed to admit that I, myself, became rather smug and greedy and accustomed to not having to work a day job. I was calling myself a full-time professional artisan, but I was living so comfortably off the royalties of my past creations for so long, I stopped creating new pie recipes altogether. Well, that’s not entirely true; I had him try out a few of my new ideas now and then, but it turns out my best and only consistently popular recipes were basically the ones that had been hits early on, back when I was motivated by something other than money. Anyway, I got married and had some kids, bought a new house and car, and then actually had the gall to go around saying that I was now entitled, no matter what, to keep getting paid at the same level as always, and that any reason why my income might drop was literally stealing food from my children’s mouths. I wasn’t living a life of luxury, but I was definitely getting by. But then you, Mr. Magician, you came along and made the baker obsolete. I was mad at you, but then I realized that the baker isn’t necessary anymore, and I can now contract with some of your fellow magicians directly. Somehow they’re successfully selling and delivering my classic pies through a variety of integrated magic-carpet services that people find much more convenient than the old storefront. Not only that, but with the massive increase in distribution, I’m finding my favorite old pies are no longer just locally appreciated, but are now enjoyed by new generations of fans the world ’round. The fact that I’m not making gobs of money off of them like I used to doesn’t bother me, because I realized that my baker’s pie-distribution monopoly, as well as my right to determine who is authorized to make copies, was supposed to be temporary all along. I realized that society benefits more from the eventual release of my work into the public domain than from the stagnation of art in an industry built on exploiting it for profit. What’s more, now I have an incentive to stop recycling and living off my old works, and instead to continue developing new and ever-more creative and higher-quality recipes in order to continue deriving income from my art. My kids have taken inspiration from my experience and have learned to never take their artistic income streams for granted. The baker has parlayed his extensive business experience into successful ventures that aren’t based on exploitation. And the best part is that everybody has a delicious pie now.

        • IHeartOphelia

          I think I’m in love… *sigh*

          Now get back in the kitchen & make me a sammidge!

      • Anonymous

        …but then in your scenario, the seed ratio would be 1000:1 (not 1:1).

        My point was the exorbitant amount of money the MPAA, RIAA and now the publishing industry are demanding from people. Yes, they may be guilty of sharing a “Dummies” book, but if they only shared the same amount of what they originally downloaded (ex. 1:1 ratio for a single book), then they should be fined $5-8 US. But NO, I’m sure they will be fined thousands (if not tens of thousands) of dollars for perceived lost revenue based on bullsh** mathematics.

        Just my 2 cents.

      • Scary Devil Monastery

        If that’s the way it worked, then that’s the way it works.

        However, I call bullshit on the argument since you are using Locke’s madman as an argument.

        1) If the store now has several hundred million people consuming it’s product instead of a hundred thousand it will be a massive boost in sales even if only 1% of the consumers decide to pay for a pie. By a factor of 10.

        Please stop conveniently overlooking reality when making a comparison meant to demonstrate your personal point of view.

        2) Numerous independent studies made by governments and universities have already disproven your hypothesis. If anything the media market hit by filesharing of products is shown to actually grow.

        However, those same studies also state that there is a shift in what format the media is being purchased. What you are actually whinging about in the example is that the store is finding itself unable to sell any pies wrapped in it’s expensive gift boxes and has to settle for just selling a LOT more pies on mailorder instead.

        So yes, it’s ok. Thank you for trolling.

  • Person

    You can use whatever argument you want to justify why you feel its your right not have to pay for a book. For me its a moral issue. Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should. I think its a basic breakdown between two types of people, those who see a bigger picture and those who use a concept of a bigger picture to justify something for them self. Meaning, “well, if i download this book for free and then share it with anyone and everyone, why, I’ll be doing a service for society! I’ll be spreading literature to the masses!” Nicca, please. What is sad to me is that people sometimes forget that it can take years for a writer to write just one book. When you download a band’s music without paying for it, from someone who is sharing their copy, at least the band has other revenue streams coming in. They can tour, they sell merch etc. Writers have one object, the book they produced. At the end of the day the majority of people will always choose free over paid if its an option. You don’t walk into best buy, take a flat screen and tell them you might hit up paypal when you get home. Its sad then, that it is art (writing, music, films) that takes the biggest hit here and is amazing to me that it is something which people feel justified paying nothing or so little for. (and i know, Dummies books are not art)…

    • Anonymous

      Assuming that everyone lives in areas where libraries/book stores, movie theaters and music outlets are available; I see your point, but of course you are assuming.

      Where I live, we just got a movie theater 3 yrs ago. We still don’t have a library (although they have been trying to build one for the past 10 yrs). As far as music, bootleggers are selling music on several street corners in town, but still no music outlets. Hell the government couldn’t even be bothered to give primary school students the books that they had promised for the school year. —End rant. LOL

      Just some food for thought.

    • Anonymous

      Assuming that everyone lives in areas where libraries/book stores, movie theaters and music outlets are available; I see your point, but of course you are assuming.

      Where I live, we just got a movie theater 3 yrs ago. We still don’t have a library (although they have been trying to build one for the past 10 yrs). As far as music, bootleggers are selling music on several street corners in town, but still no music outlets. Hell the government couldn’t even be bothered to give primary school students the books that they had promised for the school year. —End rant. LOL

      Just some food for thought.

    • Anonymous

      Assuming that everyone lives in areas where libraries/book stores, movie theaters and music outlets are available; I see your point, but of course you are assuming.

      Where I live, we just got a movie theater 3 yrs ago. We still don’t have a library (although they have been trying to build one for the past 10 yrs). As far as music, bootleggers are selling music on several street corners in town, but still no music outlets. Hell the government couldn’t even be bothered to give primary school students the books that they had promised for the school year. —End rant. LOL

      Just some food for thought.

    • Anonymous

      Assuming that everyone lives in areas where libraries/book stores, movie theaters and music outlets are available; I see your point, but of course you are assuming.

      Where I live, we just got a movie theater 3 yrs ago. We still don’t have a library (although they have been trying to build one for the past 10 yrs). As far as music, bootleggers are selling music on several street corners in town, but still no music outlets. Hell the government couldn’t even be bothered to give primary school students the books that they had promised for the school year. —End rant. LOL

      Just some food for thought.

    • Ven

      The people who know me here know I’m not pro-filesharing. However, I can’t stand it when people throw the moral argument around. People are immoral. We are. Religions have different names for it, as do the sciences, but the idea that we magically deep down inside wish to subscribe to truth and/or higher truth is folly.

      I don’t believe for a second that more than maybe 1-2% of the file-sharers who post here actually believe they are stealing and morally wrong. They may not be right, but they certainly don’t realize it deep down inside if they are wrong. This is their moral code, and appealing to each individual’s moral code is just going to further remove this subject from both logic and open discussion.

      So morality be damned, we need to focus on different levels of human rights that sit at odds against each other, and how LOGIC AND REASON dictates those rights awarded in law.

  • Pingback: John Wiley & Sons sues 27 BitTorrent sharers of ‘For Dummies’ books | Ebooks on Crack

  • http://twitter.com/AlyssaBlindy Alyssa Blindy

    Ah man, my friend Bob Doe got sued for downloading, “How to sue a dummy,” by MAFIAA. Damn, this is looking bad…
    *sigh* Wow.

  • http://twitter.com/AlyssaBlindy Alyssa Blindy

    Ah man, my friend Bob Doe got sued for downloading, “How to sue a dummy,” by MAFIAA. Damn, this is looking bad…
    *sigh* Wow.

  • Pingback: Our relationship with e-books: It’s too complicated — Tech News and Analysis

  • http://travismccrea.com Travis McCrea

    I highly encourage you guys to use http://tuebl.com let *US* take the legal risks. You just download direct http files for ebooks.

    Sharing books shouldn’t be a crime, reading is something that is a dying past time. It is important to get more people interested in reading, otherwise books will go away all together. By punishing people who read, even if they don’t get the book in a way that is legal… is hurting the industry as a whole.

    I run TUEBL because I *LOVE* books and I want everyone to be able to read and enjoy them as they are supposed to be. I encourage our users to buy the physical copies of books that they love, but usually they do anyway.

    I can also tell you that from all the statistics out there, plus my own personal talks with the users of my site… Book “pirates” are probably some of the biggest spenders on the media they consume than any other group. People usually “like” a movie, and once they pirate it… they just move on to the next movie. When it’s exceptionally good, they might buy the DVD, but in all honesty the DVD is going to be more problems than it’s worth.

    The actors and directors are great, but honestly most people don’t follow Stephen Spielberg’s blog and twitter page just to get a glimps at what he is working on next. Eventually there will be a movie by him and people will go to see it, but it’s not because it’s a Stephen Spielberg movie. The reading crowed actually feels an emotional connection to the authors and they want to support them.

    Books create emotional responses and the reader actually feels connected to what they read. They *WANT* to have a copy of the book to lend to a friend, they *WANT* to support the author.

    Sure, we wont buy the ebook after we buy the physical copy… but that’s not a lost sale. They still sold the book, they just didn’t double dip.

    Again please check out http://tuebl.com (if it’s really slow try http://doctorow.tuebl.com or http://falkvinge.tuebl.com those are unique servers which might be a little closer). We have built our system on a censor resistant cloud platform, built by us… It may be a bit clunky but it will be difficult to take us down.

    (Also some helpful links: mahsql.info has server status, tuebl.me and tuebl.info are also acceptable domains in case .com is seized)

  • http://travismccrea.com Travis McCrea

    Also, I know this will be a polarizing statement… but: writing is a past time. If people give you money for your work, awesome. If you want to control who reads your work, only give it to people you can trust.

    As soon as you release your writing into the public, They can/should share it as much as they want. It’s a reflection that the writer is a good writer. The enemy of authors isn’t piracy, it’s obscurity.

    If you need money to keep writing, tell your fans… if they want you to keep writing, they will make sure you get that money. That’s how my websites operate, I run them in my spare time… if people donate enough that I can quit my job to run them full time: Wonderful. If not, I will just keep working my day job.

    • Twoleftsandaright

      Putting something for sale isn’t releasing it freely to the public. It’s putting something for sale. There’s a difference.

      While I absolutely approve of the way you’re doing it, and I think all writers should do it like that, I don’t think that, just because an author doesn’t use this model, it means everyone has the right to just read the work for free.

      The way I see it… if you want access to content, be it a movie, music, book, whatever… get it in the way the artist set up for distribution. If you don’t want to support copyright monopolies, then watch independent films, listen to free music out there, and read things by people like Travis McCrea. Don’t just download stuff and act like you’re some kind of martyr of free speech and ideas.

    • Twoleftsandaright

      Putting something for sale isn’t releasing it freely to the public. It’s putting something for sale. There’s a difference.

      While I absolutely approve of the way you’re doing it, and I think all writers should do it like that, I don’t think that, just because an author doesn’t use this model, it means everyone has the right to just read the work for free.

      The way I see it… if you want access to content, be it a movie, music, book, whatever… get it in the way the artist set up for distribution. If you don’t want to support copyright monopolies, then watch independent films, listen to free music out there, and read things by people like Travis McCrea. Don’t just download stuff and act like you’re some kind of martyr of free speech and ideas.

      • http://travismccrea.com Travis McCrea

        but they do, even when they put it for sale. First sale doctrine says that I can give away my book to anyone I want. You could form a reading circle where everyone just buys one book and then pass them around. you could have 10 people reading one book and it was only purchased once…. completely legally.

        Nothing anyone can do (short of reversing the ruling), can change that right.

        • Person

          You’re so hell bent on showing how and why it’s legal with fun analogies that you are missing the point entirely. Yes, its incredibly interesting that your read (and i’m sure many many others read) of the law shows that you can do what you’re doing and why you should be able to share what you want. “Wow everybody! look at this loophole that hasn’t been addressed yet in the digital age because things move so rapidly.” Because the law is on the books well then it must good? I wont begin to list the myriad laws that have been repealed once times changed and people had a chance to learn, evaluate and change too. We get your point. Its interesting. But, You rant like a kid who figured out that its not illegal to take two cookies from the cookie jar. Congrats. Well done. Just try and have some empathy for people who are of a different mind and writers who are actually really affected by this. And by the way, i do not support what Wiley is doing. Change differently, don’t sue people.

        • Person

          You’re so hell bent on showing how and why it’s legal with fun analogies that you are missing the point entirely. Yes, its incredibly interesting that your read (and i’m sure many many others read) of the law shows that you can do what you’re doing and why you should be able to share what you want. “Wow everybody! look at this loophole that hasn’t been addressed yet in the digital age because things move so rapidly.” Because the law is on the books well then it must good? I wont begin to list the myriad laws that have been repealed once times changed and people had a chance to learn, evaluate and change too. We get your point. Its interesting. But, You rant like a kid who figured out that its not illegal to take two cookies from the cookie jar. Congrats. Well done. Just try and have some empathy for people who are of a different mind and writers who are actually really affected by this. And by the way, i do not support what Wiley is doing. Change differently, don’t sue people.

        • http://travismccrea.com Travis McCrea

          @Person
          Oh, no it’s not legal. TUEBL is pretty much breaking a law in every single country on earth but Vietnam and Iran. That being said, it *SHOULDN’T* be illegal, and I am doing what is MORALLY correct and I will face the consequences for that one day.

          I don’t *WANT* to be sued, I certainly don’t *WANT* to go to jail… the idea scares the hell out of me. I do, however, check the statistics of who is using my website every day, and the about 10 people who log in from various places in Africa every day… makes it worth it.

          Knowing that I might be able to get some kid to read a book he normally wouldn’t because he couldn’t be bothered going to the library to check it out… that is what makes it worth it.

          These authors would not have made the money in most situations anyway… the percentage of people who only download the book and don’t buy the physical copy, who WOULD have bought the book if it wasn’t for my site… is very small.

    • Ven

      That is good and well for entertainment and personal opinion works. But when it comes down to the written knowledge of field experts who drive all manner of intelligent progress, we should be willing to pay good money to make the advancement of our race more than a past time.

      • http://travismccrea.com Travis McCrea

        Your right… to a degree. However, I believe in tax funded science and believe that tax dollars should go to paying scientists instead of corporations. When an educational piece is released it should be public domain. :)

      • Scary Devil Monastery

        Here’s a problem, Ven. In research quite a lot of what is written in professional books is mainly re-packaging material which has been created in the form of already bought-and-paid-for studies.

        Doctorate studies, postdoctorates and publicly funded research in the case of the nordic countries for instance.

        Although I agree that the writer shouldn’t have to write the book for free, everything the book mentions or refers to is already in the public domain so why should copyright be applied to it at all?

        The situation more often than not comes very close to double-dipping. To boot, if copyright is applied at all the main shareholder is the public domain.

        • Ven

          I understand that, and by no means do I defend the big business that is publication and distribution. But let me take for example the last book I read: Collapse by Jared Diamond.

          It’s an interesting read. The book essentially boils down to one professor’s interpretation of history. But the book is convincing in it’s scope, so obviously his interpretation is far superior than conclusions I could draw on my own reading about Easter Island or Vinland/Markland or other failed societies mentioned in the book. The book is a very solid argument for careful management of land resources.

          If bought-and-paid-for research and double-dipping are problems, fix those when they come up. But those are not the only ways that new information is given to society, and we shouldn’t hamstring everyone because we don’t have a better way to keep a few from milking profit.

          It’s analogous to people who say that Youtube is a great way for all musicians to be discovered, when the reality is that outside of certain genres Youtube will be a failed marketing scheme. It’s great that it works so splendidly for some, but removing other systems will hurt others more often than not.

  • Pingback: Our relationship with e-books: It’s too complicated | TechDiem.com

  • Pingback: Editora da Série de Livros “For Dummies” Processa 27 Usuários do BitTorrent | WebHolic

  • Pingback: OnlineMagazine » Blog Archive » Our relationship with e-books: It’s too complicated

  • Zepher
  • Pingback: BitTorrent for Dummies readers follow directions, get sued | DailyBinaryNews.com

  • Anonymous
  • Pingback: Wiley Chases the BitTorrent Roadrunner « Agnostic, Maybe

  • I just said what?

    I agree that companies that are not profitable should be allowed to die (go out of business) so that other more fit companies can replace them. That is more than just the spirit of capitalism: It is the most important feature. Lawsuit money or settlement money from customers or potential customers should never be considered a source of revenue to keep the company afloat, period.

    If a company believes they are a victim of theft, get the police and arrest the criminal. Get them before a judge or jury that way. Don’t file a civil lawsuit or use extortion (by offering a settlement). Copyright laws are not worth the paper they’re written on because they are obsolete and it is impossible to uniformly apply those laws (without resorting to strategies communists use). By way of analogy: If a cop gives me a ticket for speeding when everyone else (going the same speed) doesn’t get one, you better believe I would consider it a personal attack and not a fair application of the law – and I would treat the situation the same way I would if someone reached into my pocket and stole $200. Unenforceable or unenforced laws are not laws (that is my legal opinion). Copyright and patent laws (to some extent) fall under this category. One other reason is the limitations of jurisdiction. Someone downloading Idiot Books (I mean, Dummy Books) in Cuba is outside the reach of the American government, for example (which might be why all the IPs were from NY).

    I don’t like Apple Company because they only offer jailed products (I own an iPad), but they are simply trying to create a money funnel (Apple Store). Others, like the Kindle, are also experimenting with modern business models. Despite my loathe of having to pay for something that I could get for free, I do applaud them for at least trying. That is an example of how companies can adapt.

    I know the lawsuit is about books, but authors could get money from sponsors the same what that some movie producers do: by placing “advertisements” directly in the product. The actor that is driving a Toyota in a movie can be paid by Toyota, for example. This way, when his low-quality 700MB 2-hour movie goes viral on bittorrent, it doesn’t matter, except that he can be flattered that people like to watch him act. If you write a book, have your main character drink coke or use a Chase credit card – in good ways that will leave a good impression on the reader. Then, get money from Coca Cola and Chase, sit back and enjoy the fact that everyone likes to read and share your book.

    Pirates steal ships and kill people. I neither steal ships nor kill people, therefore, I am not a pirate.

    disclaimer: I just said what?

  • Pingback: Ahora la Industria Editorial Comienza sus Demandas por Piratería | POWERPYMES

  • Anonymous

    tiny.cc/qcfnd

  • Pingback: Wiley declares war on pirates | Ebooks on Crack

  • Pingback: Will book publishers follow in the footsteps of the RIAA? : Consultancyassistants.com

  • Pingback: Our relationship with e-books: It’s too complicated | GameBooze – Bottoms up! Aggregated gaming news, guides, cheats and fixes to quench your gaming needs.

  • Anonymous

    tiny.cc/qcfnd

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    This is not an advertisement, this is just an FYI.

    Project Gutenberg has all the classics as free e-books on their site. All legally free. I was able to get several Jane Austin books from here and I see several other books, that were read in high school. http://www.gutenberg.org/

    **Disclaimer: I am in no way, shape, form or fashion affiliated with Project Gutenberg.

    • Ven

      Google books has most books that have fallen out of copyright (including many books that are no longer in print). It has a borrowing section that can help you find a place to borrow books as well.

      (I just ran a search on free books with the letter A and got about 718 million results… It’s a good place to play).

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    Yeah…so, you know, you might have just a smidge more credibility about your love of reading and how great the spread of information is and all that if you didn’t keep misspelling “pastime”.

    • Humbert Humbert

      Yeah…so

      Sure, there is no need to put a space after ellipsis.

    • Scary Devil Monastery

      And you’d have more credibility if you didn’t bring an irrelevant wordwall to the table merely to justify your use of the word “stealing” in previous posts when the topic is person A creating a copy of a work owned by person B.

      The moral issue is and remains whether or not I should be able to allow three people to take a copy of information in my possession. If i can, then that’s filesharing for you.

      That each of these three then in turn allows three other people to make a copy is what generates the exponential distribution.
      You cannot either enforce nor impose a moral judgment on the actions of either of the individual people involved as none of them are, in fact, spreading the information to thousands of others without going onto very shaky moral ground.

      And the fact remains that people who download also still purchase far more media. Of all kinds, even the venerable old CD and DVD.

      What you are basically saying then is “I’m not good enough an author to make people consider my work as something they’d like to have on their shelves once they’ve read it”. That’s a glaring condemnation not so much of the filesharing community as it is on your abilities as a writer.

      The artists and authors good enough to captivate their audience aren’t experiencing the problems you are bringing up which should tell you something.

      There are artists and authors publishing webcomics who manage to make a full-time decent living despite their work being freely available for everyone. Rebecca Black, for crying out loud, managed to sell a hundred thousand copies as soon as she received enough market penetration. Ironically enough by becoming the “most hated Youtube video” of the month.

      I usually never have a problem sponsoring an author when I find their works to my liking. Indeed, My living room shelves are stacked with books in double rows. I’ve got boxes of DVD’s. All carefully selected.

      But I, and I suspect very many others on this forum, are understandably shy of coming out in the defense of “Authors” whose talent isn’t enough to support them and are still suffering from the delusion that they should somehow still be able to avoid getting an ordinary job to make ends meet. For almost all of recorded history in which books even existed, “writing” was a hobby project where only the the select few were ever able to take it on as a full-time job.

      Which is as it should be.

  • Pingback: John Wiley & Sons Sues 27 BitTorrent Users - GalleyCat

  • Pingback: ????????????? ?????? ???????? ? ?????????? | ??????? ????????? ? ???????????? ??????????.

  • http://copyright-infringement-notice.com/ nctritech

    I wrote a site to try and help people who are concerned about being on the other end of a lawsuit or have received a copyright infringement notice and/or settlement demand. It’s located at http://copyright-infringement-notice.com/ and I’d appreciate any suggestions that anyone can come up with to improve the content. I didn’t know that major book publishers were getting in on the game as well, so I might need to change my wording a bit. I’m thinking of making a list of companies that engage in (or hire others on their behalf to engage in) these kinds of lawsuits, so that we can choose to give our money to other companies.

    • http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com S.J. Doe

      Anons Of Liberty has such a list: http://anonsofliberty.wordpress.com/.

      I’m also in the business of “spreading the word” since May (fightcopyrighttrolls.com), and I not without results. There are many others, all listed on my Resources page.

      You understand the problem correctly,and the first chapter of your page is excellent. Yet I disagree with the advice to scrap everything and never touch file sharing tools again. Maybe extremely risk averse people will find comfort in following this advice, but… seriously, how many systems were raided up to date? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the number is 0 (Zero). Out of 200,000+ targeted for extortion.

      As a computer business owner, you know that the expertise costs money, a lot of money if a household has many computers and external drives. What do you think a cynical, rational troll will do: spend money on expertise that has a low probability of a positive, or shake down a new unsuspecting victim? And what happens if they don’t find anything? It will be a serious blow to their rhetoric (hence, their “business model”). Sure they will threaten with forensics, fear is trolls’ main weapon, but I really doubt they will ever implement their threats.

      As I like to say, “unsubstantiated threats are immoral” :)

      And even if a single such case magically happens, any lawyer will tell you that it is better to be caught with copyrighted stuff on your hard drive that with the evidence of evidence spoiltation.

      I can’t say anything (at least publicly :) against your advice not to infringe again, though succumbing to fear is bad for one’s health and karma :) Be reasonable, not paranoid.

    • http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com S.J. Doe

      Anons Of Liberty has such a list: http://anonsofliberty.wordpress.com/.

      I’m also in the business of “spreading the word” since May (fightcopyrighttrolls.com), and I not without results. There are many others, all listed on my Resources page.

      You understand the problem correctly,and the first chapter of your page is excellent. Yet I disagree with the advice to scrap everything and never touch file sharing tools again. Maybe extremely risk averse people will find comfort in following this advice, but… seriously, how many systems were raided up to date? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the number is 0 (Zero). Out of 200,000+ targeted for extortion.

      As a computer business owner, you know that the expertise costs money, a lot of money if a household has many computers and external drives. What do you think a cynical, rational troll will do: spend money on expertise that has a low probability of a positive, or shake down a new unsuspecting victim? And what happens if they don’t find anything? It will be a serious blow to their rhetoric (hence, their “business model”). Sure they will threaten with forensics, fear is trolls’ main weapon, but I really doubt they will ever implement their threats.

      As I like to say, “unsubstantiated threats are immoral” :)

      And even if a single such case magically happens, any lawyer will tell you that it is better to be caught with copyrighted stuff on your hard drive that with the evidence of evidence spoiltation.

      I can’t say anything (at least publicly :) against your advice not to infringe again, though succumbing to fear is bad for one’s health and karma :) Be reasonable, not paranoid.

    • http://fightcopyrighttrolls.com S.J. Doe

      Anons Of Liberty has such a list: http://anonsofliberty.wordpress.com/.

      I’m also in the business of “spreading the word” since May (fightcopyrighttrolls.com), and I not without results. There are many others, all listed on my Resources page.

      You understand the problem correctly,and the first chapter of your page is excellent. Yet I disagree with the advice to scrap everything and never touch file sharing tools again. Maybe extremely risk averse people will find comfort in following this advice, but… seriously, how many systems were raided up to date? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the number is 0 (Zero). Out of 200,000+ targeted for extortion.

      As a computer business owner, you know that the expertise costs money, a lot of money if a household has many computers and external drives. What do you think a cynical, rational troll will do: spend money on expertise that has a low probability of a positive, or shake down a new unsuspecting victim? And what happens if they don’t find anything? It will be a serious blow to their rhetoric (hence, their “business model”). Sure they will threaten with forensics, fear is trolls’ main weapon, but I really doubt they will ever implement their threats.

      As I like to say, “unsubstantiated threats are immoral” :)

      And even if a single such case magically happens, any lawyer will tell you that it is better to be caught with copyrighted stuff on your hard drive that with the evidence of evidence spoiltation.

      I can’t say anything (at least publicly :) against your advice not to infringe again, though succumbing to fear is bad for one’s health and karma :) Be reasonable, not paranoid.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    tiny.cc/qcfnd

  • Pingback: John Wiley & Sons Sues BitTorrent Users | DailyBinaryNews.com

  • Anonymous

    tiny.cc/qcfnd

  • Pingback: Lakeshore Laments » Isn’t it Ironic?

  • Pingback: What It Takes: At What Price Control?

  • anon408

    Lol. SWIM torrented a collection of these books last year.

  • Pingback: Stories from the Week that Was – 10/30-11/5/11 « Oregon Intellectual Property Law

  • Pingback: Writing to Authors for Dummies « Cheap Ass Fiction

  • Pingback: Writing to Authors for Dummies: Photoshop CS5 All-In-One « Cheap Ass Fiction

  • Claus Stig Dk

    i think they should relax most of the things i dl i never have time to read/see/watch anyway

    • Claus Stig Dk

      and the things i dl i would never buy anyway and i cant afford them too

  • Pingback: Book Publisher Files Mass P2P Lawsuit | Lose Your Fear

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

  • Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

    Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation is a network mechanism through which many Internet subscribers can share the...

  • Feds Seize Cash from Major Bitcoin Exchange’s Dwolla Account

    The U.S. Government has taken a significant action against the web’s top Bitcoin exchange by seizing...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.