Issue report: You are illegally sharing my fucking book | Hacker News Reader

Issue report: You are illegally sharing my fucking book

code.google.com

34 pointsphilk1022 comments

Open articleView on HN

Let me get this straight: A random Google Code Project is illegally hosting an e-book. Author of e-book somehow finds out and creates a nasty bug report demanding a take down?

Wouldn't filing a DMCA in this scenario do the trick? Forgive me, I'm just having a hard time finding this HN newsworthy.

Didn't you read the part where he links to a blog post, encouraging people to steal his book?

He was only objecting to the "on google code, where it makes the top 4 search results when you search for my f*ing book"

I suspect he is not the type of copyright holder who enjoys the protection afforded to him by DMCA laws. He just doesn't want to be pissed on his face, please piss on his back only, see?

Well, to be fair, he only did that as a response to the guy publishing his book on google code. I don't think there would be a post about it otherwise.

edit: didn't see the date of the post. Thought the "yesterday" in question was actually a twitter post from yesterday.

The post is 3 years old. The issue was created today.

The goal isn't to get it taken down, it's getting some publicity. So writing a witty bug report and submitting it to HN isn't surprising at all.

Here is the translated version of the project description

"software management bookseller - 2 projects subject Software Quality Assurance

The you group 03 note:

- The TestResult in the Trunk folder to store the resulting Excel file Test Unit

- Folder Test Unit in the trunk to store source code test unit

Part of you does that person's post into the right folder

The assignments are in the Document you to view and download

- In a work assignment you fill out to complete his term and then update, and the completion of the self assessment and complete performance of work done on the assignment offline

Good Luck :)"

This reminds me of the recent post analyzing top HN stories statistically. One of the conclusions was that having profanity in the title helped your article do better; I can't help thinking that this is a very illustrative example of that observation in action.

I reported this internally at Google -- looks like the file has been deleted.

It is humorous. I clicked, I up voted. Seems perfectly fine for HN

Could someone give more context?

Somebody wrote a book. A pdf copy of said book is being hosted illegally in a google code site. The author asked for it to be taken down via a bug report on that google code site.

I think the point is that it is a fairly humorous method to ask for something to be taken down (vs. standard legal channels). Plus the author apparently has some fairly "progressive" views on pirating.

Really? Click on the issue link (article), then once you've read it, click on the Downloads link. There is Manning 2009 Art of Unit Testing, and some random thai/viet filenames that go along with the rest of the project, which seems to contain nothing original -- but I can't say for sure, I don't talk thai.

It's vietnamese.

Thanks. (Hard to post ignorantly without sounding ignorant)

I think the author is confused about what happens when one publishes on the web.

Somebody is mad about their book being read. Cry me a river. If you didnt want your book to be "stolen" then dont write it. You, as author, will not control what I read, how I read and where. So yes, I am gonna "steal" that book from you, just to steal from you, and then delete it from my computer. Its probably not worthy of being read anyway.

And furthermore, nobody is sharing your book illegally, they are sharing a digital copy of your book as a data-file, which is very quite different from a real book. You cant hold it you see, you cant smell it, you cant borrow it to your friend, only make another copy.

"If you didnt want your book to be "stolen" then dont write it."

If you didnt want you car to be "stolen" then dont buy it.

If you didnt want you wife to be "raped" then dont get one.

If you didnt want you computer to be "hacked" then dont have one.

Very compelling argument.

A substantial difference between "a car" and "a file on a computer". One main difference is that one actually can steal a car: if I steal a car, I possess it, and the owner does not possess it. He or she can no longer use the car, while I can.

The book in question exists as a file on a computer. If I copy that file, then the owner is not deprived of the use of the file: he or she still possesses it, and can still use it. That's not theft in any traditional sense.

The other raping and pillaging scenarios are equally nonsensical, pretty much on the same logical grounds. Please try a new argument next time.

If the owner of the file makes his living by selling copies of the works he created, taking a copy and putting it on the web (where they can be had for free) reduces the value of his works. In other words, the owner is deprived of the use of his works because you've diluted their value.

The argument that "you still have the original so you are undamaged" is false. If the startup you work for dilutes your 5%=100shares of equity down to 0.0001% and the value of your stock is reduced to near zero, I can asure you, you won't feel comforted by the fact that you still have 100 shares.

Shares are different: they're like money, they represent value. A copy is a copy. Humans copy: that's how we made technological progress. Someone didn't invent agriculture while out on a hunt and then coast for the rest of his/her natural life on the "intellectual property" and then have his/her descendants coast on the proceeds. People copied what they saw that worked. Copying is how humans make progress, trying to stop or inhibit that is going to warp society beyond belief.

> they are sharing a digital copy of your book as a data-file, which is very quite different from a real book. You cant hold it you see, you cant smell it, you cant borrow it to your friend, only make another copy.

You can read it, yes?

I'm among the first to complain when people conflate "make a digital copy of" and "steal". However, you're going to the opposite extreme - pretending that because it's digital, it has none of the qualities of the original book. You're omitting quite a bit - he (and perhaps his editor) wrote every word in it, chose every image, researched the technology, and typeset the whole thing. Just because it ended up as both a PDF and a printed copy does not diminish the author's labor.

(It certainly diminishes the printer's labor, which is why we raise a stink when printed copies are cheaper than electronic ones.)

But you're hurting the entire ecosystem if you tell authors "stop writing if you don't like it". There's a middle ground somewhere.

Yes I can read it.

The argument I was trying to make is to bring attention to the difference between a file and a book, they are different beasts, sure you can read them, but its not the same thiing to read a book and to read from a computer screen or kindle. Its just not the same.

The author has no right decide how I am going to read the book. Its the redistribution which he holds a right to. Lets take the discussion to what form of distribution copyright should apply to. Lets discuss who can decide when to read and how to read a text. Who has the right and who has copyright?

Its not just so simple, oh hey copyright, do as I almighty author say. Where is the consumer-rights in all this debate?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com