Social Shaming Works Faster Than Legal Recourse

from the uh-oh-lawyers dept

Fri, Aug 10th 2012 5:49am — Timothy Geigner

In the right hands, social media is a powerful tool. It can send canine-themed rappers to Palin-land, for instance. Some governments have even taken to the internet to publically shame tax evaders. But now we have a story of a couple of authors who found that imploring their well-connected customers to shame plagirists on their behalf may be a better route than legal recourse.

Reader drew writes in about the story of two fiction authors, John Scalzi (whom you may recognize from when we wrote about his free ebook experiment) and CJ Cherryh, who found that there were people selling the authors' works under a different name on Amazon's site. They sent their DMCA notices and waited in frustration as their publishers worked with the site to get all of the infringing works taken down. This admittedly has to be frustrating for victims, but fortunately the authors weren't content to sit on their hands and be pissed off.

"Both writers also posted a request for their Facebook fans to write scathing one-star reviews of Mr. Farabi's books, and warn others about the scan. By noon on Sunday, July 15th, all six of "Mr. Farabi's books" had been pulled, and were no longer for sale on Amazon.com. Score one for irate fans and copyright holders!"

The point here is that if you truly connect with your fans, they will be willing to fight on your behalf in situations such as this, and that is a far cry from the theory that everyone on the internet simply wants everything for free. But it takes work and a willingness to connect with your fan-base, so that the fans are willing to support you in this manner. Still, that work pays off in the passion those true fans will demonstrate.

And content creators, be they authors, musicians, or movie-makers, have no greater ally than a passionate fan-base. Those fans, as demonstrated here, are a more effective anti-piracy weapon than any legislation you can dream up, because while some companies on the internet may or may not be interested in acting as the "copyright police," they will sure as hell listen to their customers.

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: cj cherryh, infringement, john scalzi, mores, plagiarism, social shaming
Companies: amazon

48 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

MRK, 10 Aug 2012 @ 6:26am

Lynch mobs also work faster than the legal system.

Public shaming works so long as the accused is truly guilty. The rule of law is superior to mob rule.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 6:28am

As cool as I think this example is, it's a fine line between letting your fans know something's wrong, and inciting them to take hostile actions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 6:31am

"plagiarists" not "plagirists" 1st paragraph.

Also, who knew that shaming people could actually work?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 6:31am

Re:
"Public shaming works so long as the accused is truly guilty. The rule of law is superior to mob rule."

I'll say this, the difference between this case and the case of Lendink is very, very thin, but also very, very meaningful and important.

1. In this case the authors were correct
2. They didn't whip up a frenzy amongst other authors, but rather implored their fans to take action

I think this serves as an example of how it can work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 6:31am

Re:
See: the twisted concept that is 'social justice', which is as close to a lynch mob as you can get online. For a moment, I actually thought this was an article praising social justice, since publicly 'shaming' individuals is a core concept of the movement. You have no idea how glad I am to see it wasn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 6:40am

Re: Re:
I agree that in this case it's worked out well, but with the "victim" acting as judge and jury, the potential for actual fact-finding is low, and abuse very high. Like the LendInk instance you mentioned.

This instance may have been good, but I'm still not a fan of any methodology that involves riling up a group of people (fans or other authors) and setting them on someone for a perceived offense.

I think if they'd said "Hey, fans, just as a warning, somebody else is trying to pass my stuff off as theirs. Don't be confused." it would have been a lot better than saying "Hey, this guy is stealing my stuff, go ratebomb him into oblivion."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Machin Shin (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 6:47am

This case seems like one of the rare cases that should involve Amazon making an automated system. It should not be hard to run all their incoming book submissions through a system that compares the books with already existing ones and flags any that seem a bit to close.

Piracy is one thing. Claiming someone else work as your own to try and profit off it is something I think we all agree should be prevented when possible. Of course the prevention methods need be reasonable, but spotting a fully ripped off book with the authors name swapped should be a simple thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 10 Aug 2012 @ 6:55am

Re:
"who knew that shaming people could actually work"

Apparently, this method does not work well on politicians.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 6:56am

Re: Re: Re:
"I think if they'd said "Hey, fans, just as a warning, somebody else is trying to pass my stuff off as theirs. Don't be confused." it would have been a lot better than saying "Hey, this guy is stealing my stuff, go ratebomb him into oblivion.""

I'd say that's absolutely fair. On the other hand, revenge once the author has CONFIRMED a bad action doesn't exactly rate high on my list of "Things That Suck", either....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 10 Aug 2012 @ 6:59am

Re:
Are you suggesting Amazon compete with Turn It In ?

Let the lawsuits begin .... Hey, you copied my plagiarism checking software. - lol
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 7:04am

Re:
"spotting a fully ripped off book with the authors name swapped should be a simple thing."

Up until the ripoff artists copy the books and put them in a frame of a cat reading a book.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 7:08am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think there's a lot of alternatives better than rallying the troops, so to speak. Like what Inman did with Funnyjunk and Chuck. A fundraising campaign, and a hilarious picture of a bear. A couple of "WTF is wrong with you" status updates. Not an incitement to harass. Sure, some fans went out and did things that maybe they shouldn't, but at least the author wasn't telling them to round up and crash down on somebody.

Not saying I don't sympathize with the authors here. Desire for revenge is an absolutely understandable state, but I'm not sure I want to condone organizing a revenge squad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 7:18am

Re: Re:
Eh, that's simply because they have no shame, they are paid quite well not to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 7:28am

Re: Re:
"who knew that shaming people could actually work"

Apparently, this method does not work well on politicians.

That's because shame is *supposed* to carry some sort of social consequences. But they know that no matter how much bad shit comes out on them, they'll still get reelected anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 7:42am

Re:
I'm a little leery of such a system, due to the joys that youtube's ContentID system has caused.

It might work, if they had someone to look over each flagged entry, but then of course the question arises of 'who is going to pay for them to do so?'

On the whole I think they system they have is better than any automated one they could put in place to handle stuff like this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bratwurzt (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 7:48am

Crafty fellow
He has a whole range of businesses...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 10 Aug 2012 @ 8:27am

Well why hasn't shaming worked for the RIAA and the MPAA?
This is such horse manure. The RIAA and the MPAA have tried social shaming. They put out so many anti-piracy trailers for the front of DVDs that it drives viewers nuts. They've tried to persuade the world to pay their share and how far has that worked?

So they also sued them and everyone is going, "Gosh, if only they would shame them." That's bogus. I've been trying to shame the cheap leeches around here into paying for years and has it worked at all?

I personally like to look at it with realpolitik. A bunch of people are cheap and a bunch of people want to launch internet companies without paying for the content. So they get together and knit up some philosophy about how we'll have an explosion of innovation and creativity, if only we get rid of copyright and patents. They ignore the fact that this shangrila hasn't emerged from the government-zones of the planet like the middle of the oceans or Somalia. It's all about the Benjamins and getting something without paying the content creators.

So I say that sometimes realpolitik demands that legal force is the only weapon because social shaming only goes so far. Google blathered on and on about how they were helping the world by giving away books, but they straightened up once the lawyers showed up.

So dream on. If social shaming worked, you guys would have followed my scolding years ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:01am

Re: Re:
Hey those social justice idiots don't have a patent on public shaming.

I do. HOW DARE THAT PIRATE AUTHOR AND HIS EVIL THEIVING FANS STEAL MY "IP"!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:03am

Re:
Yeah, because the justice system never imprisons innocent people for years, or executes a person only to find out later that the crime they were executed for was actually committed by someone else. Oh wait...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:05am

Re: Well why hasn't shaming worked for the RIAA and the MPAA?
This is such horse manure. The RIAA and the MPAA have tried social shaming. They put out so many anti-piracy trailers for the front of DVDs that it drives viewers nuts. They've tried to persuade the world to pay their share and how far has that worked?

That's not shaming, that's guilt and intimidation. A subtle, but important difference. Especially when the only people who have to deal with it are the ones behaving themselves.

You shame a third party in the eyes of the masses. You can't shame a nameless, faceless group. The people you are trying to persuade have nothing to fix those feelings on. So instead the trailers and warnings try to make you (the viewer) feel guilty for being a dirty pirate, and scared of the consequnces, except you know that you're not, so it doesn't stick there, either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ruben, 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:12am

Re: Re: Re:
....with the "victim" acting as judge and jury, the potential for actual fact-finding is low, and abuse very high.

You mean, like the DMCA?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:16am

This sounds a lot like how those author's on twitter got rid of LendInk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:29am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 9:31am

Re: Well why hasn't shaming worked for the RIAA and the MPAA?
[looks at rant] And you wonder why people call you a troll?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mason Wheeler (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 10:20am

Re: Re:
Last I heard, there were no cases in which anyone executed in the US was later proven to be innocent of the crime. Not a single one.

Admittedly, this was a few years ago. Has it changed since then, or is this scenario still nothing but a wish-fulfillment fantasy for capital punishment opponents?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LDoBe (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 11:03am

Re: Re: Well why hasn't shaming worked for the RIAA and the MPAA?
Shame also requires that the one doing the shaming be credible to the one being shamed. If the shame-ee (new word?) doesn't care what the shamer says, and feels that the shamer is just a blowhard douchebag, the shame-ee doesn't feel shamed at all.

Guilt on the other hand doesn't require anyone to tell the guilty to feel guilty at all. Guilt is intrinsic to the one who committed an act they feel is wrong, and therefore the VAST majority of millennials will NEVER feel guilty about illegal downloads, and they most likely will never feel shame, because they don't feel that the MPAA or the RIAA are credible, or have any moral high ground whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 11:14am

Re: Re: Re:
Last I heard, there were no cases in which anyone executed in the US was later proven to be innocent of the crime.

Actually, there have been several, and it's reasonable to assume that there are more that have gone undiscovered.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 11:20am

Re: Well why hasn't shaming worked for the RIAA and the MPAA?
They put out so many anti-piracy trailers for the front of DVDs that it drives viewers nuts.

That's not social shaming.

I've been trying to shame the cheap leeches around here into paying for years and has it worked at all?

I've never seen you do this, actually. I've seen you accusing people of piracy with zero evidence that they are engaging in or supporting it, but you can't shame someone out of doing something they're not doing in the first place.

This is odd, actually, because some commenters here do admit to being pirates, and yet I've never seen you chastise them. I may have missed that, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 10 Aug 2012 @ 12:18pm

Re: Re: Re:
The NY Times thinks there were 25 at least...

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/14/us/25-wrongfully-executed-in-us-study-finds.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 10 Aug 2012 @ 12:19pm

Re: Re: Re:
They only have to be better than one other equally shameless person...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 1:42pm

Re:
Very similar yes, but with a few very important differences, the biggest being they actually checked to make sure the targeted parties were guilty before releasing the hounds/fans.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SleepyJohn, 10 Aug 2012 @ 2:52pm

Revenge is a dog that bites its master,
and should be left to those too stupid to understand why.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JMT (profile), 10 Aug 2012 @ 4:00pm

Re: Well why hasn't shaming worked for the RIAA and the MPAA?
"The RIAA and the MPAA have tried social shaming. They put out so many anti-piracy trailers for the front of DVDs that it drives viewers nuts."

Are you that clueless that you don't realise you just answered your own question?

"... shangrila..."

Yep, clueless...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2012 @ 11:31pm

Re: Well why hasn't shaming worked for the RIAA and the MPAA?
>The RIAA and the MPAA have tried social shaming. They put out so many anti-piracy trailers for the front of DVDs that it drives viewers nuts.

There you have it, you answered your own question. The people don't feel shame, you dimwit, because they fucking paid for the damn DVD. They're driven nuts because they're not full of shame; they're full of anger at something that alleges them as thieves, over a DVD they legitimately bought.

>So they also sued them and everyone is going, "Gosh, if only they would shame them." That's bogus.

You're talking about America where people get sued for the most inane and ridiculous of things. Also, shaming doesn't work if you demand pots of money that people can't afford as compensation. It's like the rich guy trying to evict the tramp living under the bridge that the rich guy doesn't even own - who do you think people are going to be sympathetic towards?

>I've been trying to shame the cheap leeches around here into paying for years and has it worked at all?

I don't know who the hell you are, and what the hell you do for a living (but given that you support John Steele I suppose I can guess). If I don't know what your product is how the hell do I know if I'm paying for it or not? And why should I feel guilty about not paying for something I don't want? But nooooo, I have to sit here and listen to you blather on about how I'm a thief.

No, bob, what you're doing isn't shaming. At best, you're a liar. At worst, you're a borderline sociopath.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Aug 2012 @ 1:20am

Re: Re: Re:
And the numbers might be flawed when you have Governors dissolving panels investigating these charges before a ruling that might make the state look bad.

See Texas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 11 Aug 2012 @ 1:29am

Re: Well why hasn't shaming worked for the RIAA and the MPAA?
It is so very hard to understand your scolding because your so very wrong most of the time.
I am enjoying Somalia being your new word of the day replacing paywall.

Social shaming works when someone who is innocent tries to shame a bad actor.

The cartels - not innocent, they are known to be liars.
They imagine they must be losing much money and move as such, when the only failure is to accept the old business model is actively hurting them.

Social shaming does not involve spending millions of dollars to buy laws to get your way, while claiming poverty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gene Cavanaugh (profile), 11 Aug 2012 @ 9:25am

Shaming on the internet
So lynch mobs are a good thing? Don't think so; that is how Reagan got his "fans" to agree to give all our money to the one percent with "tinkle down" (aka "trickle down") where the 1% gets to urinate on the 99%.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 4:41pm

""Both writers also posted a request for their Facebook fans to write scathing one-star reviews of Mr. Farabi's books, and warn others about the scan."

im sure he ment to say "SCAM"... (cant expect professional writers to get it right )..

social shamming, is THE most stupid thing you could possibly do !!!... it's also illegal, goes directly against your much loved and leaned on constitution (is also bullying).. and can lead to results you really did not want to occur....

like murder, suicide, but right.. let a bunch of angry americans take justice into their own hands,, trust masnick to think this type of thing is OK.. !!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 4:48pm

"....with the "victim" acting as judge and jury, the potential for actual fact-finding is low, and abuse very high."

exactly, it's not like Yanks dont often 'lose it' and go on some kind of rampage and kill a bunch of people.. that is why you have a legal and justise system..

because if is at all possible for you to take things way too far, there are about a million or so Americans willing to do that..

SO Masnick would you accept it as ok if one of your readers took the law into his own hands and got his gun and shot the leaders of the MPAA or the RIAA ?? or any other group you dont agree with ??

would you stand up and accept responsibility for their actions, after all you incited them to act !!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 4:51pm

Re: Shaming on the internet
lynch mobs are a good thing !!!! if you are part of the mob, and not the one being lynched..

trusting a crazy idiot with the law, and hoping he/she will act in a rational way is a very big (read impossible) ask..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 5:05pm

so these people wrote 1 star reviews on a book that their friend wrote..

so they are lying right.... or do they really believe the books only rated one star ??

thats not social shamming, that is lying to get your way..

huge difference,, it's a shame Masnick and co cannot see the difference...

Score one for irate fans and copyright holders!"

oh right, so now you want to help the copyright holders ??? Masnick and co ??? I thought you hated copyright holders,, now you are supporting them.. ?????? Hmmmmm interesting..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 5:08pm

do you people remember the term "going postal" ?? thats what you are trying to incite here... that makes the writer and poster of this forum criminals... but we allready knew that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Aug 2012 @ 6:28pm

one last thing, If I am a fan of someone, that that someone asks me to lie for them, I would probably (certainly) cease being a fan... I take offense to being asked to lie for someone elses gains..

are you ok with that ???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2012 @ 1:26am

Re:
darryl, darryl, darryl... did you really think these sudden outbursts would change everyone's opinion of you as an Australian?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2012 @ 4:37am

Re: Re:
you racist as well ??? !!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Aug 2012 @ 5:46pm

Re: Re: Re:
Racist? "Australian" is a nationality, not a race. How about I rephrase myself - did you really think these sudden outbursts would change everyone's opinion of your intellect? Namely, it not being in the range of positive numbers?

But hey, you proved it again by the racism accusation. You've all the intelligence of a shitstain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 13 Aug 2012 @ 5:44am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We could call this a case of Awareness Squad. I do agree that anything done in a mob fashion can go wrong. Techdirt had an example pretty recently where there was an update asking ppl not to harass the authors involved. It wasn't on purpose but the article stirred the mob. So it's interesting that maybe even if they only commented on that their fans would go and do their job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steve, 14 Aug 2012 @ 10:16am

Re: Re:
The justice system is flawed, sure, but don't fall into the logical fallacy of requiring absolute perfection from something or it's totally worthless. He is right, this is just mob mentality. How many of those fans actually checked to see if what the author said was correct before joining the mob? Few, if any, I'd imagine. Just 4chan alone has shown that this sort of thing is as inherently flawed as the classic torch & pitchfork carrying mob.
[ link to this | view in thread ]