How to deal with Pirates
blog.liberwriter.com
blog.liberwriter.com
But the blog post author's response is interesting to me, particularly:
"Actually going after one of these sites legally is not likely to work out well for most self-published authors: It’s like playing whack-a-mole: another one will spring up in its place if you manage to get one.You don’t have the resources big publishers do, and those guys still aren’t able to shut this stuff down."
What he seems to be missing here is that whether your response is to try to shut these things down, or whether you're going to each site and humanizing yourself - the cost is the same: you're spending time doing things that aren't writing, and aren't working.
It seems to have worked out (possibly) for the author in this case, but it's not scalable as we like to say here. You're still playing whack-a-mole, you're just doing it with a feather duster instead of a sledgehammer.
(I'm the one who wrote the blog post, by the way)
"It's probably still a drop in the bucket, but at least she came away feeling like she did something, rather than sitting still."
Valid point. This is just something that's always frustrated me as someone who creates work with value (to those who need it), but which is also easily copied. Since sometime in my mid-teens, I've consistently failed to understand the entitlement mentality that allows people to justify the behavior that compels authors and publishers to spend time and/or money combating the behavior.
I suppose, ultimately, efforts like the one the nearly-pirated author made are the probably the most effective as they at least have a chance at educating people as to the effects of the actions they take.
Doesn't make it less frustrating though
you're spending time doing things that aren't writing, and aren't working.
People spend a lot of time doing things that aren't directly related to putting source code into the repository. That is pretty irrelevant to this issue.
Despite negative connotations "hacking" still means expanding the usage of an object and "terrorism" still means enforcing ones ideals through violence.
So these comparisons are not valid.
EDIT: To make my point clear. When clicking the link, I thought the article was literally about pirates, that is sea criminals (or perhaps the political party). If only the author would have used the more descriptive, and more correct term "copyright infringement" I would have been less confused. So usage of the word "piracy" in this context is both damaging, wrong and confusing.
I really liked Rebecca's approach, because rather than getting into a rage about her book being ripped off, she kindly, and politely explained how they are hurting her, and what the consequences are for those who enjoy her writing.
For further reading of why Amazon is bad for authors and customers alike, see: http://stallman.org/amazon.html
The author found the rogue translator through a message board where the translator was asking for help with obscure English phrases. It's surprising both how much effort the translator went to, and how confused he was. For example, he thought "white-liberal guilt" might be guilt about using cocaine (since it's a white powder).
Eventually the author decided to help the pirate achieve an accurate translation, since he seemed to be actually interested in the book.
Check out the article here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/steal-my...
> a lot of people on these sites don’t think of authors as actual human beings
Maybe author's that peddle vendor locked-in DRM crippled stuff via Amazon to an audience unable to understand how they are getting shafted should try seeing their readers as actual human beings first.
The book has lending enabled, and if you were to ask nicely, perhaps she'd disable DRM on it too, if it is enabled. She sounds like a very reasonable person, inclined to discussion before getting in an internet rage about some detail of the book.
The correct (not necessarily legal) way to solve the problem of an inaccurate or inherently wrong price is to apply a smooth scale. Sure download my book and if you liked it please visit my cafepress site and buy a tee shirt or bumper sticker or post on facebook / social media about how awesome my book is... or provide a nice positive review on amazon even if you don't buy it. If you really want to annoy your middleman, such that your middleman might never sell anything of yours again, ask pirates to paypal you whatever they think its worth if they're overcharged by the middleman.
Most of the drama comes about because some people create to eat and some people eat to create, and making assumptions about who fits in where is a big issue.
She entered into an agreement with Amazon that she was happy with. She was not a 'victim' in that arrangement, and actually gets a pretty good deal in terms of revenue sharing. Yes, there was a problem with the international pricing in India, but that may be something she can fix. She got to set the price for her book, though, and is happy with the arrangement of getting paid for the book itself, rather than t-shirts, bumper stickers, or other unrelated knick-knacks.
There is no monopoly provider in the knick-knack space, or at least its not the same monopoly provider, so she could try to use them as a strategy to bypass the somewhat ineffective monopolistic middleman.
Now gas stations, theres no monopoly on gas stations. Or banks. Or news websites. But I don't think you'll sell many people, or at least not as many people, on the idea that Amazon isn't the monopoly provider of ebooks. Lets discuss the marketplace with joe6pack ... there's the Kindle, and the "huh?".