Copyright Trolling For Dummies; Publisher John Wiley Sues 27 For Sharing 'For Dummies' Books
from the getting-desperate dept
It looks like more and more "mainstream" companies are jumping on the copyright trolling/mass litigation bandwagon. The latest example is publishing giant John Wiley, suing 27 John Does for sharing various Dummies books via BitTorrent. Wiley insists that its book on Photoshop alone has been downloaded over 74,000 times. For what it's worth, Wiley's lawyers appear to have carefully tried to limit the IP addresses sued to just those in New York, where the case was filed. It's not clear if Wiley will follow the path of many other trolls to follow the lawsuit and subpoenas with shakedown threat letters. That would be unfortunate. Either way, this guarantees that I won't be buying any "Dummies" books going forward (and will try to avoid other Wiley books, if possible, as well). There's just no good reason to give support to companies who sue people like this, rather than learn to adapt.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: books, copyright, copyright trolling, dummies, mass lawsuits
Companies: john wiley
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Individuals
You can disagree with the joinder (I do), but at least they're trying to target the individuals sharing the work. Some may be innocent, and that would hopefully come out during a lawsuit. It's much better than targeting linking websites, or 3rd parties not sharing the content.
If he had filed 27 separate cases, would he still be called a troll?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Individuals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Individuals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Individuals
If they are looking for thousands of dollars or more, I'd be with Mike, avoid their product. But if they are pursuing a reasonable course with their suit (I know, pretty unlikely), I'd probably be more inclined to shake my head at their windmill tilting, but not lump them in with the evil of most such suits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Individuals
Is there any possible course they could have that's reasonable though? I'm not being snarky, it's a serious question. If they only ask for a tiny amount, it's useless. If they ask for a substantial but not ridiculous amount, they cause some hardship for some file sharers, but how does it help their business? And if they ask for enormous amounts, they can never collect it and it just gets them bad press. I just can't see how any lawsuit against individuals like this can ever make sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Individuals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The modern solution to all failing business models is to litigate a bit more profit from your former fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is the proper recourse?
Is the person legally wrong? If so, what is the correct legal recourse for pursuing redress?
If not, why? (Maybe I don't understand the law clearly, but it seems copying and redistributing is not exactly legal...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is the proper recourse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is the proper recourse?
life + infinite, with the ability to accuse anyone without repercussions and to continue to create silly rules to when, where and how people can do something all the while forcing others to pay you not once, not twice but everytime they think of you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is the proper recourse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What is the proper recourse?
If the authors want to create a partnership with publisher, that means selling rights. It's just how business works.
Yet Pirate Mike and his sponsors with Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy expect the creators to keep rolling over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What is the proper recourse?
BTW, very very few who pirate are making money, by turning the 'loot' into physical goods. The rest just aren't spending it, for a surprisingly large set of reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What is the proper recourse?
Anybody from the 80's will remember the tinfoil stories about the "New Order conspiracies" LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is the proper recourse?
The fact is that there's not as much innovation going on in Big Search, Big Hardware or Big Piracy these days. Search engines are old news. But Big Content is innovating because we still haven't found the right mixture of DRM that keeps people happy.
Yet Pirate Mike doesn't see all of the cryptography and clever mathematics behind DRM as innovation. Nope. That doesn't count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What is the proper recourse?
The moment you create DRM which hurts only the pirates and allows the customer to do what they are legally protected to do (including making incidental backup copies and using the software long after the author/content owner disowns the product,) then I'd consider it innovation. So far you screw the customer (I cannot install and use the product I legally purchased under WINE, or on a computer/OS you don't like, and I have no recourse once I paid for the product to use the product I paid for) and the pirate continues to walk away with the family jewels right out from under your nose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What is the proper recourse?
You be hard pressed to find any studio, label or publisher funding research in sciences, I double dog dare you find any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What is the proper recourse?
You don't know the details do you?
On several occasions the DRM industry has eschewed the "clever mathematics" that the could have used - and gone for something stupid instead. HDCP is the prime example.
Plus - any half decent crytographer who was being honest and not trying to con them out of some money would have told them that DRM is an unwinnable game. Of course they would call any such person a "pirate apologist" and ignore him.
On top of that the anti-circumvention rules in the DMCA and other similar laws across the world pretty much guarantee that DRM will never be technically effective - since the means of testing it are illegal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is the proper recourse?
All Mike wants them to do is to take to heart the serenity prayer.
"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference."
The point is that piracy definitely falls in the category of "accept the things I cannot change".
and yes, anyone who thinks otherwise IS stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is the proper recourse?
Do people not still good ideas from others all the time?
Would you have afforded to grow up if everything you learned you had to pay for it?
I mean how did you learn to use a fork and a knife? how did you learn what was cool or not?
Now to address specifically your point, what happens to restaurants that take the work of others and make it their own?
Nothing is the answer, because there is nothing there to be made out off of it, people can copy dishes from others and there is nothing others restaurant owners can do about it except compete in the market so the best guy, the one who was the one to come up or otherwise can implement his own tactics to try and sell something.
That don't happens only in restaurants, but with fashion, comedians and even musicians that in Brazil doing some popular remixes(techno-brega) give their work for free to street vendors so they can promote it and people go to the live gigs they organize(their rave version) where they sell things and get a return, and apparently is very lucrative since they are able to afford trucks of sound, lights and other equipment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecno_brega
No protections there, and still people can make not only a living but even profit.
So the right question is, why do people need granted monopolies to protect something that doesn't actually need protection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is the proper recourse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is the proper recourse?
I find your ideas interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Logic Bomb
I've published four books, my publisher spends a lot of time getting them removed from bit torrent sites because they people doing this aren't paying for the book and not only does the publisher lose money I do as well. But your logic is that I should be OK with this behavior?
The publisher offers ebooks of my work but the copyright is there to protect my work from being distributed and used by those who never paid the fair market price to have that kind of access?
How is what the publisher is doing trolling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Logic Bomb
Pirate Mike is really earning his pirate flag on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Logic Bomb
More importantly, flagging it only adds a curiosity factor to it and gives it more attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Logic Bomb
You need to adjust your mindset, change your thinking away from "people getting my work without paying for it" and realise that people sharing your work is actually good for you.
Just because the format is now global it is little different from people lending your work to their friends if they are excited about it. The internet however makes it possible for you to become known to the 2 billion people who can access the web rather than the 500(0?) people who might otherwise have heard about you.
It leads to people knowing your work and if you are any good, you can easily turn those people into paying customers.
You need your publisher to get his head right and work for you, taking the time and resources he is currently wasting and spend them on promoting your work, not preventing the free promotion of your work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Logic Bomb
Also these lawsuit tend to included innocent defendants who have open wi-fi or a commuter that they share with people who live them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Logic Bomb
Why copyright is life + 95 years?
Why derivative works are infringement?
Why copyright allows people who think they own something that cannot be owned by nobody the power to create rules that are just absurd like you need to jump 3 times and can only watch or read something in a full moon under a tree with only the light from the moon to be enforceable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Logic Bomb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Logic Bomb
That granted monopoly is not free it comes to a price to society, and that is the lower ranks are unable to enter the market, companies are harmed and you people keep trying to make others do your job.
So why really you should have any protections?
The answer is that you shouldn't just like restaurants have no protections against their competitors copying anything from them.
Grow up and learn to be something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Logic Bomb
People pirate for three major reasons: 1. They have no money to buy your product 2. They don't value your product enough to pay for it 3. They're freeloaders who won't pay for any digital goods.
If we could wave a wand and make piracy go away, none of the above-mentioned groups would suddenly start buying. Group 1 still has no money, Group 2 still doesn't value your products, and Group 3 is still a bunch of freeloaders.
It is *literally* a waste of time and money (aka, a bad business decision) to tilt at the windmill of piracy.
I hope that answers your questions. If not, please elaborate! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Logic Bomb
I agree with TAM that Wiley is not "wrong" for trying it.
I think Wiley are either naive or plain stupid for thinking they can make a difference. It's an issue of scale.
The rationale behind suing people who fileshare is the same as the rationale for prosecuting shoplifters. It doesn't scare away paying customers and noone's pretending it's to turn existing shoplifters into paying customers.
The flaw's with the current approach seem to me to be
- unless you stood a very good chance of being caught (and you don't) the fear of being sued is not a good disincentive to filesharing. The only way a very unlikely thing is scary is when the consequences are huge, which generally means "legally disproportionate".
- unlike shoplifting (where the person caught in possession is banged to rights), many of these file sharing cases are more like arresting everyone in a student house for shoplifting because stolen food is alleged to have been eaten on the premises. It's tenuous legal case and you can't always prove exactly who did it.
Now, the few people Wiley catch probably aren't going to pay for the legal costs and Wiley won't (by themselves) impact the world of filesharing. But to admit defeat for that reason would be like saying "why vote, I have so little effect". So of course they bravely soldier on.
Probably on the advice of a lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Logic Bomb
What we have is that there is a hypothetical potential loss, that people who didn't buy might otherwise have bought and it may even be true for a tiny percentage, or it might be utterly false, the stats suggest effects on sales overall are neutral while some individual cases have benefited massively in sales from the awareness generated by file sharing.
Fighting against file sharing is like fighting against free advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Logic Bomb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Logic Bomb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Logic Bomb
For an example, look at what happened with the HP TouchPad. I know, we're conflating digital and physical goods here but stay with me. HP offered TouchPads at $500. They didn't sell because people weren't going to pay Apple prices for HP products. When HP dropped the price to $99, they all sold out in a matter of hours. Many of those sold, thanks to first sale doctrine, reappeared on eBay and the average price was $350. So $350 is what the market was willing to pay for TouchPads. If you want to know the market price for something, auction a lot of it.
A lot of people valued a small, versatile tablet. They sold every one. They just didn't value it at $500; they valued it around $350.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Logic Bomb
4. They have money and they value your product but you've either not made it available to them or you've gone out of your way to make the available version unattractive with DRM, unskipable lead-in trailers, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Logic Bomb
I'd like to focus specifically on this piece. This is the "every pirate copy is a lost sale" idea.
The people who aren't paying for your book are not your customers. They never were your customers in the first place. By removing the book from bittorrent sites, you are not increasing sales. None of the downloaders were going to buy your book. They aren't going to say "oh, I can't download this book, so I guess I'll buy it". They'll either find some other material to download, or they'll keep searching for the mole you haven't whacked yet.
Instead of spending resources on people who were never going to give you money, you should instead focus those resources on releasing more products for your customers to buy. Devoting resources to people who are not your customers is going to cause you more losses than the downloads from people who would never buy your book anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Logic Bomb
they can get it from Big Search or Big Piracy, they will.
There's this idea that only the poor and homeless people are pirating. That's bogus. Some of the people I know who brag about "sharing" are perfectly capable of paying $20/month for Netflix. They certainly have $20 for 20 songs on iTunes.
But they love the game. Some people do it for kicks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Logic Bomb
I have a feeling, Big Bob, that Big Math is a Big Problem for you. If I have $20 in my budget to spend on entertainment, and I spent it all on music entertainment, but then I infringe on the copyrights of a movie producer and watch a movie for free, because I've already spent my $20, who is harmed?
Sharing culture is not a game, it's Big Human Nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Logic Bomb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Logic Bomb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Logic Bomb
It harms the market, it raises the bar to entry diminishing available work for people at the bottom, it harms people at the top too since the bottom is unable to make a living it slowly erodes the size of the market that can be achieved, since the ones that create the market are no longer able to do so and no, the original creator of anything is not alone the enabler of a healthy market, if the original idea is the seed the other people are the soil and fertilizer for that seed to grow into something else, nobody should be shielded from the elements it makes them ill prepared for the tough times that are not a question of if but when they will come.
You as a writer should compete for the attention and loyalty of your customers not having the power to force them to buy only from you, but from whomever is able or capable of understanding the needs of the market(aka people's needs) and delivering to them at the conditions the market will bare at which point that same person if intelligent enough will see fit to further incentiveze you to create new things.
Not this silly life + 95 years crazy talk, giving absolute power to harm others on a whim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Logic Bomb
Just because someone got it for free does not mean they would pay for it if that were the only option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Logic Bomb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Logic Bomb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Logic Bomb
So I do hope you write fiction: at least there, your obvious lack of basic knowledge and fundamental reasoning skills doesn't pose a danger to society.
So please, do us all a favor: get off OUR Internet. You're not good enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Logic Bomb
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Logic Bomb
Map out where the torrent leeches are connecting from. The cities with the most leeches are the cities with your biggest audiences. Your book tour needs to go through those cities. Ask the top torrent seeders if they'll help promote your book. Pay them with promo copies of this book, sneak peeks of the next book, cash, swag, whatever they find valuable.
That's just what I came up with as fast as I typed it. If I sat down to actually think about it I might come up with something better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Day after day all we get are more and more examples of Mike's piracy apology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Correct, because it is irrelevant.
If you want people to increase your earnings as an artist, it would be a very small niche market that you were aiming at if your response to fans is to call them thieves and criticise their morality.
Mike has said time and again that he doesn't approve of piracy, but he doesn't waste his time criticising the tide for coming in and demanding the waves retreat and he advises others to adapt and benefit from the opportunities opened up instead of crying about something that can actually be of benefit to someone trying to make a living in any kind of creative industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike has said time and again that he doesn't approve of piracy, but he doesn't waste his time criticising the tide for coming in and demanding the waves retreat and he advises others to adapt and benefit from the opportunities opened up instead of crying about something that can actually be of benefit to someone trying to make a living in any kind of creative industry.
Nonsense. This article is just another one in the long chain of Mike articles where Mike makes clear that he supports the pirates and not the rights holder. The rights holder is doing nothing wrong--only vindicating their rights which have been violated--and Mike ridicules them and criticizes them.
Mike is the biggest pirate apologist on the internet, hands down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think it's foolish to say stupid shit, but that doesn't mean I'm against a person's rights to say stupid shit, if they so desire. That being said, if a person keeps saying stupid shit, I'm going to criticize them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How much money is one supposed to get for astroturfing for Big Search, Big Hardware, or Big Piracy? Since many who voice an opinion contrary to "Big Content's" wishes are accused of doing so here by the IP maximalists, I figure I better get my invoices out. By the way, do you happen to have the address for Big Piracy...they don't appear in my phone-book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says the man in the tin foil hat who can't help but blame "Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy" in just about every comment.
And you need to look up astroturfing, it doesn't mean what you think it does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh and he knows what astroturfing is he has been doing it for a very long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let's make all those things illegal too, so we can save the "For Dummies" books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That claim is made but has not been demonstrated to be true, in fact, in certain circumstances the opposite has definitively been shown and acknowledged to be true e.g. "Go the F*&k to sleep"
If you look at the sensible(based on real figures) studies for effects overall it's hard to say there are any effects at all.
Outside of studies the only thing that really stands out is that on the whole, the movies, games, music that sells best is also the most likely to be shared and those that sell least are least likely to be shared or sought for, to the extent that if you have a digital product and you can't find it being shared online you can be certain that it has bombed and you won't make a penny from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you think he is pro-piracy you don't really understand what is happening, a lot of people just don't like you people and don't really care if you make it or not through the storm that its coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike has enough compassion he is still trying to warn and help them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you want to talk about right and wrong, go visit a church. Mike's opinion pieces are based around what's economically wise or unwise, and suing people who want to read your books falls firming unto the unwise category. As The Infamous Joe mentioned above, it is literally a waste of time and money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Pirate Mike, maybe Wiley should hire you to write the book on "Piracy for Dummies."
/sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chances are, if you're not buying because Wiley decided to only sue New York torrent downloaders, then chances are that you never intended to purchase his books anyway and that you probably haven't purchased any of his books anyway.
If someone is acting like a copyright troll, then the courts will step in and do to them what they have been doing recently. However, saying you won't purchase something that somebody created because they decided to sue someone for downloading a "pirated" version of their product is just wrong.
I do support the legitimate releases, although I have also downloaded some stuff. Always support the legal releases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I also won't buy from a company who sues customers / potential customers. Who are you to decide if my choice is right or "just wrong"?
Yes, even downloaders are potential customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People should get paid for work they did, the creation of a book is just part of that work is not the whole work, there is the production of something and the distribution which they obviously failed and others are stepping in to fill that void, also I don't believe anyone should be able to force others to buy something only from you or anybody.
Can a lemon stand sue another lemon stand because they copied the lemonade?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll note that this is not about getting access to electronic versions of the books either. A quick search of amazon turns up a number of "For Dummies" ebooks available. (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=photoshop+for+dumm ies+ebook).
Also, suing John Does is a pretty common strategy in order to get a subpoena for the actual identifying information.
Unlike the "troll" strategy, this is not a broad brush shakedown attempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Given the huge amount of stupidity currently in courts from various levels of troll, this case seems like a small confined test balloon.
The odds that 27 people in NY are the source of every Wiley book on the planet, except BitTorrent for Dummies, is not likely.
The ebook versions are nearly as expensive as the print copies. This could explain why some people get the ebook copy to go with their dead tree version. It could be some people are "browsing" the available books to see if they meet their needs then purchasing afterwards. We used to have these building where one could look at physical books before deciding they were worth the cost, they don't really exist anymore. Someone could own the dead tree copy and not feel like paying another $20 to get the ebook for their new ebook reader. While not the "right" thing to do, the costs of an ebook are no where near the costs of creating dead tree versions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"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."
Trademark claims on BitTorrent? seems odd.
However.. Wiley are claiming "Defendants are contributing to a problem that threatens the profitability of Wiley".. Interesting they should put it like that..
Wiley are one of the biggest Higher Education / Schools publishers in the world.. Some of the books cost $100's are are required by each student that enrolls.. Considering their profit margin on a lot of these titles is around 80% I don't think Wiley will be going bankrupt any time soon..
They're also a huge Journals publisher and gatekeepers of public knowledge from universities and colleges all over the world, with a massive back-catalog from the Blackwell purchase a few years back.. This is also a huge earner for them with no doubt huge margins..
I'm sure the global recession has hit them a lot harder than a few people downloading their titles from BitTorrent.. People who probably wouldn't have bought the titles anyways..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nobody seems to be creating anything new, just recycling the old stuff to get money out of it, which is a shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, more people should publish in open source journals, but that will have to wait for tenure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Have you looked at the student debt heaped on the backs of students? Big College is one of the biggest scam artists around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is a tenure of life + 95 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What you're alluring to is double standards, though even that's stretching it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Last week Wiley filed a complaint in U.S. Courts to stop users of BitTorrent software who are infringing our For Dummies content. This lawsuit is part of an ongoing larger global anti-piracy campaign intended to support authors, readers and Wiley by combining education, advocacy/lobbying and enforcement in equal measure. In this instance we are investigating and documenting the IP addresses of anonymous BitTorrent infringers, then filing "John Doe" against them so that we can subpoena their Internet Service Providers to learn their identities. Our next step will be to reach out to these infringers to ask them to stop their illegal activity and provide modest compensation for their past infringement. We will litigate only with those who are unwilling to cooperate. Please note, we will not be pursuing minors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I look forward to them charging full speed ahead into litigation against people who are just the name on the ISP account who might have no knowledge of this torrenting happening. I look forward to a lawyer demanding the methods used in IP capture be examined by experts, who are going to have to point out it is not like DNA it points you in a direction but does not in the end identify the infringer.
This is a shakedown, they use nicer terms but they are seeking payments from the name on the account which is not always the person responsible or even aware of whats happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Another thing that I disrespect about copy protection laws are the insane penalties. Perhaps another thing companies can do to curtail that is to release their books under a license that says that, if you are caught infringing, the most we will fine you is (insert maximum possible penalty here). They should also state in their license that this content is not to be protected by criminal copy protection laws. If you want to stop infringement, as much of the burden as possible should be placed on the privilege holder to stop the infringement and as little as possible should be placed on everyone else. You want special privileges then work to enforce them yourself.
At least demanding a license like the above can curtail some of the absurd copy protection laws that we have until we can get our copy protection laws fixed. and of course this shouldn't just apply to books, it should apply to movies and music and other content as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I know it costs me $43.8 in Australia, for any relatively new songs. But I guess we Australians also sometimes torrent things (such as TV shows, occasionally movies) because we don't like waiting for content released earlier in the US/UK.
Mind you, after I had torrented a few movies, we saw 2 of them with my family in the Cinemas, which happens quite often actually, I find a good movie, recommend it and we (5 people) go watch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1 - There is no statement of how the IP's were collected or by whom.
2 - The list of ISP's is magically missing the companies that have a history of delaying # per month or pushing back against the orders to protect customers.
3 - They seek treble the defendants profits. This shows an amazing lack of understanding how filesharing works.
4 - They are accusing them of counterfeiting. Trendy but not so much.
5 -
The IP for Doe 2 geolocates to Indiana.
The IP for Doe 4 geolocates to North Carolina.
The IP for Doe 6 geolocates to Michigan.
The IP for Doe 12 geolocates to New Jersey.
hit my limit of lookups on that site...
Not all of the cities listed are correct either for the ones in NY.
I have a hard time believing this isn't just the standard copyright troll mass suit. It contains even less detail than the other suits, it misleads the court about locations, one is left no idea how they picked the addresses and the methodology used.
This is give us their names so we can get paid at its finest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070301193544/uncyclopedia/images/f/fb/Extortion_for_Du mmies.png
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Learn to Adapt?
I also find it really ironic that your assinine article itself is copyrighted... nice touch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Learn to Adapt?
Mike has repeatedly declared everything on Techdirt to be in the public domain so people can do what they want with it.
Just two examples: Reference 1 -- Reference 2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Learn to Adapt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Learn to Adapt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Learn to Adapt?
Really?
Really... "Learn to adapt"?
Yes.
To what, letting people blatantly ripoff your hard work?
To the fact that people would like to share and spread your work. If you can't figure out how to profit from that, well, I feel sorry for you. But give us a call, we can help.
Do you earn a living with your writing (I hope not).
Yes, sir. I most certainly do.
I don't see protecting the copyright of your work as patent trolling
No one said it was.
That's a hell of a stretch.
Yes, because no one said it was patent trolling. Copyright trolling, yes, but not patent trolling. So patent trolling would be a stretch.
Copyright trolling is what this A-hole's down in texas do with other people's work.
You have a different definition than I do. I think that if you're using the legal system to threaten someone to pay up or avoid a lawsuit... you're trolling.
I also find it really ironic that your assinine article itself is copyrighted... nice touch.
It's not. So there's that. Feel better?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Learn to Adapt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Learn to Adapt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What were you expecting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Never registered for a name.
Do not cite a single possible item showing bias and refuting it.
Please take your astroturf stand and try someplace else :)
1/10
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Wiley sucks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: John Wiley sucks...
It's become all too obvious that they aren't "stealing" from authors, movie makers or artists at all. They are just preventing publishers and record labels from getting an unfair cut and how many people see it as "Well, those are the real thieves. I wanted my money to go to X person, but instead this dumb company is talking most if not all my money I was sending to X person!"
Now this logic isn't exactly water tight. But all these companies do is keep making themselves to be the super villains and the rest of normal Joe society as robin hoods. And in the end of the day it matters more how people perceive your relation to you than what it is in reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I pirate books and then pay for hard copies??? Who would have thunk it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And sorry that Wiley and ICE will soon be raiding your home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's take this logic to the extreme. It isn't that I don't somewhat agree with Mike's theory of copyright, but c'mon, there has to be some limits to what an author can endure here...until Mike's idea that free makes copyright holder rich becomes a cut-and-dry fact.
Should you allow someone to rape you at any point that they want...yes, like actual physical rape, penetration? Are you using your vagina or bum right now? No? Why not allow someone to stick something in there for their own enjoyment and so they don't have to pay someone for the service? No, the rapist isn't going to pay you, but maybe down the road they will decide that they want to rape another of your holes and will pay for that one. Or maybe out of gratitude for your willingness to be raped, they will give you some cash or buy you a case of beer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The use of the word 'allow' would mean it's not rape.
"but maybe down the road they will decide that they want to rape another of your holes and will pay for that one"
As discussed, not rape because you've allowed it, also I believe what you're describing is prostitution.
"Or maybe out of gratitude for your willingness to be raped"
Willingness also means it's not rape, unless you're talking about role playing, kinda kinky, if you're into that sort of thing...
"they will give you some cash or buy you a case of beer."
I think, again, we're back to prostitution, that's quites the obsession you have there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The use of the word 'allow' would mean it's not rape.
It's almost as though he doesn't understand the analogy he tried to create...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On the off chance you're actually serious, and the also slim chance you're still paying attention, it's different because in one case the book is still there, and in the other it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In one case, something is lost, in the other the potential for something might or might not be lost. So it's still different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I beleive many of the "For Dummies" books are available in legal electronic format. So your claim that they need to adapt seems dubious.
Although, Perhaps they have adapted, the new business model:
1. Find someone to illegally share your content
2. Sue this person for their entire net worth.
3. Profit.
This business model works quite well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libraries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Libraries
"In this environment, the criminal prosecution of a library for copyright infringement is no longer beyond the realm of possibility."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hurray for the law suit
Hey, John Wiley, kick butt and take names.
Have Fun,
Jeff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hurray for the law suit
Do you think that would make people more likely to buy books? How well did it work for the music industry?
I've been a writer for over 45 years, and in the past several years alone I've had over $1,000,000 worth of my ebooks illegally downloaded. I really wish that money was in my pocket.
Of course you do. And I wish it was in my pocket. By the way, your claim that you "lost lots of money" is incorrect. You didn't have a million dollars before that you no longer have; you lost nothing. The way to get some of that money is to make sure people have a convenient, easy, and reasonably-priced way to buy your books. We've seen over and over that the way to reduce piracy is not through lawsuits, but by offering compelling legal services and products.
Rather than spending your time trawling those sites to send DMCA notices (is that really what you want to do with your time?) you would be better off talking to the people doing the uploading and downloading. Find out why they're doing it. Figure out what would get them to support you financially. These are people who are obviously interested in your work, otherwise known as potential customers. TechDirt wrote about a comic book author (IIRC) who did this with great success.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
also you should read wileys book "bittorrent for dummies"
i have an idea, lets teach people how to illegally download our stuff and then sue them for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]