I thought that it was legal for cousins to marry in certain American States... but not in works of fiction.
First cousins allegedly may marry in:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona (but not if they intend to procreate)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
and the list goes on.
the Digital List Price information suggests that the price of $5.99 was set by the publisher (James Crawford), which means that he was on the 35% rate.
Mr. Crawford must have decided that 35% of $5.99 was preferable to 70% of whatever Amazon would have sold it for, taking into account the fact that Amazon allows lending of books on the 70% rate by every customer who buys a copy, also account sharing for up to at least 6 customers, and now lending by Amazon to Prime-paying customers in addition.
Also, Amazon is able to change its contracts with authors at any time without notification. 35% looks like a sensible deal to me!
There are two Jack Crawfords on Amazon. One only has two e-books, one for $5.99 and the other for $0.99.
JackHerer, Amazon doesn't allow ebooks to be sold for less. How much of a discount on $0.99 do you want???
What if the ripped off Jack Crawford only had the one book?
Should that make a difference?
Suppose each one of his works takes ten years to research and craft? For all I know, the ripped off Jack Crawford might have labored for ten years researching his Super Love! Kaiju e-book.
Should it make a difference how long it took the author to write a book, or how long it could take to write the next one? No!
Even if Amazon's mistake put Jack Crawford on the BestSeller list (which I assume it did not), the principle should not change. Amazon ought to pay him.
"No. I'm saying that there are all sorts of business models and new services they can use to make more money. But those new services won't start under SOPA."
But why should we?
Let's take the flood of abuse as read, also all the comments about buggy whip manufacturers.
Look at Dexter Haygood on Simon Cowell's X-Factor as an example. Dexter was voted into the mentoring program because he is really, really good at singing like James Brown. That's his talent. It's what he does best and what he likes to do.
Why should he have to sing a sexually ambiguous pop song?
Maybe he could make more money if he offered new services, and adopted a business model involving bells, whistles, tassles, dancing girls and imitation military costumes, but you are expecting a good old dog to learn new tricks.
So far, for authors, I haven't seen any helpful suggestions from pirates on how authors could make more money while giving away their writing free.
"Write better, write faster, add graphics, add music..." simply adds cost, complexity and is possibly mutually exclusive.
Your ilk want writers to be buskers. I suspect that better quality music is recorded in recording studios than in laybys on highways.
The current law says that OSPs must respond to 1) DMCA notices and 2) red flags.
Most OSPs ignore anything other than DMCAs.
So, they are NOT providing a tool that meets all the requirements under the law. If a car manufacturer sold a car with a handbrake but no working footbrake, and as a consequence, drivers broke the law by driving through traffic lights or crashing into property, I think we'd blame the tool provider.
OSPs have no duty to monitor their sites, but they DO have a duty to remove infringing content once they are made aware that it is there.
That's not really working out so well. Scribd does a reasonable job, so it is possible.
4shared is a Cyberlocker. It claims a monthly rate of 55,000,000 (fiftyfive million) unique visitors and 2,500,000,000 (is that two-and-a-half billion?) page views. A MONTH.
Sites like this need to be encouraged to NOT host infringing content. Their business model is sloppy. It does not pay to follow a law that contains loopholes. It does not pay to enforce TOS, so they mostly don't.
They put up the verbiage, do untold harm to small business pesons (authors), and if the author happens to find out that their copyrights are infringed, and sends in a DMCA, then they remove the individual file.
But, it has already been "shared" through their services with others, and any file can be re-upped.
Same response. The general public does not know what "FAIR USE" is. Possibly, you don't know what "Fair Use" is.
In most cases, it is NOT "fair use" to post an entire, in copyright work on a file sharing site.
As for your comment about never seeing anyone who claims they own the copyright.... just look at the standard welcome page on 4shared, or Scribd.
What do you think people understand by "my stuff" or "my collection"? "My" implies ownership. The Terms Of Service require users to post only their own copyrighted content.
Mike,
When you say, "What if it's public domain?"... the problem is, the general public doesn't seem to understand what "public domain" is.
People think that an in-copyright work is "public domain" or "public domained" if they can find it on a "file-sharing" site.
How do you suggest that the "public domain" problem is addressed?
What do you do about people who untruthfully describe an in-copyright work as "public domain" when it isn't?
What do you do about sites like Scribd that have a default setting that all works uploaded to their site are "Creative Commons Licensed" unless "the author" chooses a different description?
The "author" is usually an anonymous user, and they don't care that they are falsely describing a copyrighted work as "Creative Commons" when it is no such thing.
I know that SOPA doesn't address these things. My comments were in response to someone who wanted to talk about the way things ought to be, and you took them out of context.
Nah, Mike. You are wrong about EBay. I've considered starting a class action lawsuit against EBay more than once, but the fact is, it is not "dedicated to copyright infringement" so it has never occurred to me, and will never occur to me to report EBay to ic3.gov .
EBay is merely an unwitting "fence", and only sometimes. Occasionally, it does a Lord-Nelson/Telescope-To-Blind-Eye imitation, but I challenge anyone to say that it is "dedicated" to copyright infringement.
I reckon that the technology exists. Have you ever filled out a survey, or written to your Congressman, and if you miss out a box, the app (or whatever runs the thing) refuses to submit it until you complete whatever you omitted?
Mike Masnick writes, "A bill like SOPA creates so much liability that it would be impossible for two engineers in a garage to build the next great startup unless they also had a dozen lawyers sitting with them."
Mike, are you saying that business startups are necessarily virtuous, even if their profitability depends upon ripping off authors and musicians and actors.... because it would be "too hard" for them to respect other creators' copyrights?
Are you therefore saying that authors, creators, musicians ought to embrace being ripped off, because other people need to rip them off in order to make a quick buck?
There are things that your fantasy guys in a garage could do.
1. Terms of Service that people read. Every vital paragraph ought to have to be checked, and there ought to be a timer, so robot checking didn't work.
"Who has time/who can be bothered to obey rules," you might say. Or perhaps you want to tell me that reading rules stifles innovation?
2. When a person wishes to upload a file large enough to possibly be an entire work (e-book, movie, magazine etc) a pop-up should appear, asking the uploader to verify that they WROTE this work personally.
The pop-up might also involve a legal disclaimer with the same info used on a counter-DMCA, which could be stored in advance, and which the uploader would have to agree would be shared with any DMCA claimant.
This would save a lot of time. It would educate a lot of innocent and deluded folk who mistakenly assume that they own the copyright of any e-book or i-movie they snagged from a pirate site.
It would also provide a clear chain of good faith proof by those garage guys, and if Joe Dirt were on record as having claimed to have personally written the entire works of Harlan Ellison, Clive Cussler, Nora Roberts, also of JK Rowling, also John Grisham, also of twenty-five Elloras Cave anthologies, and the entire collected works of Terry Pratchett, it might be fairly easy for those two garage guys to decide what to do in the event that someone were to point out that Joe Dirt couldn't possibly be telling the truth.
How ironic it is that those in favor of "free speech" (and free content on the internet) appear to be flagging and hiding the remarks of those who disagree with them.
We're talking about "college" players. Under some laws, for the purposes of insurance and financial arrangements college kids are still considered children.
No, they should not be exploited without their consent.
Besides, I don't see how "Free Speech" rights cover the "right" (or lack thereof) of someone else to make money (how is that "free"?) off the images of these young people.
My sympathies are with Ken Follett. I am not clear why people think that it is lawful and legitimate to post links to illegally posted property for the apparent purpose of encouraging others to break the law (albeit civil law).
Most people would object if a blogger were to post the combination to Mike's locker at work (assuming for the sake of argument that he has one, and there's cool stuff in it).
The blogger wouldn't be stealing. Those who followed his link to Mike's locker might do so with the intention of stealing.
Do we have a natural right to steal? Do we have a natural right to encourage others to steal?
Someone will probably say that downloading an electronic book without paying for it is not, strictly, "stealing". It is merely "copyright infringement". Consider that people like this blogger are "giving away" property that does not belong to them, and that they have no right to give away.
Why do you think it is acceptable and a natural right to infringe an author's or a musician's copyright?
Most file hosting sites expressly state that their members may not upload and share files if they do not own the copyright. Only Ken Follett owns the copyright to Ken Follett novels.
The converted e-book should not have been available to others on the file hosting site. Just because it was, does not make it all right for anyone else to tell others that it is there by posting a link.
You might argue that Ken Follett makes what you consider to be "enough" from his writing, and that he won't miss the income from one or two illegal downloads of his work, and that most of the people who follow a link to a "free" copy of his novel would not have purchased it anyway.
According to the law of averages, some would have.
Moreover, an e-book can be illegally duplicated an infinite number of times, and while one private instance of sharing may not be particularly harmful, when a link is posted on a Tweetable public blog the potential is there for thousands of people to make a copy.
And they do. I've heard from debut authors whose first novels hardly sold at all... mere dozens, yet in the week the book was released for legal sale, there were thousands of downloads of those books on the pirate sites.
Piracy may not hurt the big fish authors, but it is devastating the little fish, and piracy begins with ordinary honest people telling one another that it is fine to share links to "freely available" and "complimentary" e-books that are hosted on file-"sharing" sites.
Re: Re: Forcing our views...
http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/cousin.htm
Cousin marriage is not illegal in many States, yet it is on the banned list.
Re: Incest Is Legal (except in works of fiction sold via PayPal)
I thought that it was legal for cousins to marry in certain American States... but not in works of fiction.
First cousins allegedly may marry in:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona (but not if they intend to procreate)
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
and the list goes on.
Re: Re: Re:
Why isn't everyone sympathetic to James Crawford mentioning his name, and the names of his two e-books?
Does anyone have the urls to those books on the Nook site?
Re: Bad algorithm?
There was no free e-book on Nook. That's the point. It was a free 3-chapter excerpt according to Mike's article.
Re: Re: Amazon screws up twice in one go!!!
If the book under discussion is "Blood Soaked and Contagious"
by James Crawford, http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Soaked-and-Contagious-ebook/dp/B005NF3SGK/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
the Digital List Price information suggests that the price of $5.99 was set by the publisher (James Crawford), which means that he was on the 35% rate.
Mr. Crawford must have decided that 35% of $5.99 was preferable to 70% of whatever Amazon would have sold it for, taking into account the fact that Amazon allows lending of books on the 70% rate by every customer who buys a copy, also account sharing for up to at least 6 customers, and now lending by Amazon to Prime-paying customers in addition.
Also, Amazon is able to change its contracts with authors at any time without notification. 35% looks like a sensible deal to me!
Re:
There are two Jack Crawfords on Amazon. One only has two e-books, one for $5.99 and the other for $0.99.
JackHerer, Amazon doesn't allow ebooks to be sold for less. How much of a discount on $0.99 do you want???
What if the ripped off Jack Crawford only had the one book?
Should that make a difference?
Suppose each one of his works takes ten years to research and craft? For all I know, the ripped off Jack Crawford might have labored for ten years researching his Super Love! Kaiju e-book.
Should it make a difference how long it took the author to write a book, or how long it could take to write the next one? No!
Even if Amazon's mistake put Jack Crawford on the BestSeller list (which I assume it did not), the principle should not change. Amazon ought to pay him.
Re: Re: Could engineers in a garage start a business without ripping off creators?
"No. I'm saying that there are all sorts of business models and new services they can use to make more money. But those new services won't start under SOPA."
But why should we?
Let's take the flood of abuse as read, also all the comments about buggy whip manufacturers.
Look at Dexter Haygood on Simon Cowell's X-Factor as an example. Dexter was voted into the mentoring program because he is really, really good at singing like James Brown. That's his talent. It's what he does best and what he likes to do.
Why should he have to sing a sexually ambiguous pop song?
Maybe he could make more money if he offered new services, and adopted a business model involving bells, whistles, tassles, dancing girls and imitation military costumes, but you are expecting a good old dog to learn new tricks.
So far, for authors, I haven't seen any helpful suggestions from pirates on how authors could make more money while giving away their writing free.
"Write better, write faster, add graphics, add music..." simply adds cost, complexity and is possibly mutually exclusive.
Your ilk want writers to be buskers. I suspect that better quality music is recorded in recording studios than in laybys on highways.
Re: Re: Could engineers in a garage start a business without ripping off creators?
Let's talk about your "tool provider" analogy.
The current law says that OSPs must respond to 1) DMCA notices and 2) red flags.
Most OSPs ignore anything other than DMCAs.
So, they are NOT providing a tool that meets all the requirements under the law. If a car manufacturer sold a car with a handbrake but no working footbrake, and as a consequence, drivers broke the law by driving through traffic lights or crashing into property, I think we'd blame the tool provider.
OSPs have no duty to monitor their sites, but they DO have a duty to remove infringing content once they are made aware that it is there.
That's not really working out so well. Scribd does a reasonable job, so it is possible.
Re: Re: Could engineers in a garage start a business without ripping off creators?
4shared is a Cyberlocker. It claims a monthly rate of 55,000,000 (fiftyfive million) unique visitors and 2,500,000,000 (is that two-and-a-half billion?) page views. A MONTH.
Sites like this need to be encouraged to NOT host infringing content. Their business model is sloppy. It does not pay to follow a law that contains loopholes. It does not pay to enforce TOS, so they mostly don't.
They put up the verbiage, do untold harm to small business pesons (authors), and if the author happens to find out that their copyrights are infringed, and sends in a DMCA, then they remove the individual file.
But, it has already been "shared" through their services with others, and any file can be re-upped.
Re: Re: Could engineers in a garage start a business without ripping off creators?
Same response. The general public does not know what "FAIR USE" is. Possibly, you don't know what "Fair Use" is.
In most cases, it is NOT "fair use" to post an entire, in copyright work on a file sharing site.
As for your comment about never seeing anyone who claims they own the copyright.... just look at the standard welcome page on 4shared, or Scribd.
What do you think people understand by "my stuff" or "my collection"? "My" implies ownership. The Terms Of Service require users to post only their own copyrighted content.
Look here:
http://torrentfreak.com/top-10-largest-file-sharing-sites-110828/
Re: Re: Could engineers in a garage start a business without ripping off creators?
Mike,
When you say, "What if it's public domain?"... the problem is, the general public doesn't seem to understand what "public domain" is.
People think that an in-copyright work is "public domain" or "public domained" if they can find it on a "file-sharing" site.
How do you suggest that the "public domain" problem is addressed?
What do you do about people who untruthfully describe an in-copyright work as "public domain" when it isn't?
What do you do about sites like Scribd that have a default setting that all works uploaded to their site are "Creative Commons Licensed" unless "the author" chooses a different description?
The "author" is usually an anonymous user, and they don't care that they are falsely describing a copyrighted work as "Creative Commons" when it is no such thing.
I know that SOPA doesn't address these things. My comments were in response to someone who wanted to talk about the way things ought to be, and you took them out of context.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nah, Mike. You are wrong about EBay. I've considered starting a class action lawsuit against EBay more than once, but the fact is, it is not "dedicated to copyright infringement" so it has never occurred to me, and will never occur to me to report EBay to ic3.gov .
EBay is merely an unwitting "fence", and only sometimes. Occasionally, it does a Lord-Nelson/Telescope-To-Blind-Eye imitation, but I challenge anyone to say that it is "dedicated" to copyright infringement.
Re: Could engineers in a garage start a business without ripping off creators?
I reckon that the technology exists. Have you ever filled out a survey, or written to your Congressman, and if you miss out a box, the app (or whatever runs the thing) refuses to submit it until you complete whatever you omitted?
Re: Re:
That, sir, is an absurd over-generalization.
Could engineers in a garage start a business without ripping off creators?
Mike Masnick writes, "A bill like SOPA creates so much liability that it would be impossible for two engineers in a garage to build the next great startup unless they also had a dozen lawyers sitting with them."
Mike, are you saying that business startups are necessarily virtuous, even if their profitability depends upon ripping off authors and musicians and actors.... because it would be "too hard" for them to respect other creators' copyrights?
Are you therefore saying that authors, creators, musicians ought to embrace being ripped off, because other people need to rip them off in order to make a quick buck?
There are things that your fantasy guys in a garage could do.
1. Terms of Service that people read. Every vital paragraph ought to have to be checked, and there ought to be a timer, so robot checking didn't work.
"Who has time/who can be bothered to obey rules," you might say. Or perhaps you want to tell me that reading rules stifles innovation?
2. When a person wishes to upload a file large enough to possibly be an entire work (e-book, movie, magazine etc) a pop-up should appear, asking the uploader to verify that they WROTE this work personally.
The pop-up might also involve a legal disclaimer with the same info used on a counter-DMCA, which could be stored in advance, and which the uploader would have to agree would be shared with any DMCA claimant.
This would save a lot of time. It would educate a lot of innocent and deluded folk who mistakenly assume that they own the copyright of any e-book or i-movie they snagged from a pirate site.
It would also provide a clear chain of good faith proof by those garage guys, and if Joe Dirt were on record as having claimed to have personally written the entire works of Harlan Ellison, Clive Cussler, Nora Roberts, also of JK Rowling, also John Grisham, also of twenty-five Elloras Cave anthologies, and the entire collected works of Terry Pratchett, it might be fairly easy for those two garage guys to decide what to do in the event that someone were to point out that Joe Dirt couldn't possibly be telling the truth.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How ironic it is that those in favor of "free speech" (and free content on the internet) appear to be flagging and hiding the remarks of those who disagree with them.
Free Speech
We're talking about "college" players. Under some laws, for the purposes of insurance and financial arrangements college kids are still considered children.
No, they should not be exploited without their consent.
Besides, I don't see how "Free Speech" rights cover the "right" (or lack thereof) of someone else to make money (how is that "free"?) off the images of these young people.
DMCA Take-downs (as Rowena Cherry)
My sympathies are with Ken Follett. I am not clear why people think that it is lawful and legitimate to post links to illegally posted property for the apparent purpose of encouraging others to break the law (albeit civil law).
Most people would object if a blogger were to post the combination to Mike's locker at work (assuming for the sake of argument that he has one, and there's cool stuff in it).
The blogger wouldn't be stealing. Those who followed his link to Mike's locker might do so with the intention of stealing.
Do we have a natural right to steal? Do we have a natural right to encourage others to steal?
Someone will probably say that downloading an electronic book without paying for it is not, strictly, "stealing". It is merely "copyright infringement". Consider that people like this blogger are "giving away" property that does not belong to them, and that they have no right to give away.
Why do you think it is acceptable and a natural right to infringe an author's or a musician's copyright?
Most file hosting sites expressly state that their members may not upload and share files if they do not own the copyright. Only Ken Follett owns the copyright to Ken Follett novels.
The converted e-book should not have been available to others on the file hosting site. Just because it was, does not make it all right for anyone else to tell others that it is there by posting a link.
You might argue that Ken Follett makes what you consider to be "enough" from his writing, and that he won't miss the income from one or two illegal downloads of his work, and that most of the people who follow a link to a "free" copy of his novel would not have purchased it anyway.
According to the law of averages, some would have.
Moreover, an e-book can be illegally duplicated an infinite number of times, and while one private instance of sharing may not be particularly harmful, when a link is posted on a Tweetable public blog the potential is there for thousands of people to make a copy.
And they do. I've heard from debut authors whose first novels hardly sold at all... mere dozens, yet in the week the book was released for legal sale, there were thousands of downloads of those books on the pirate sites.
Piracy may not hurt the big fish authors, but it is devastating the little fish, and piracy begins with ordinary honest people telling one another that it is fine to share links to "freely available" and "complimentary" e-books that are hosted on file-"sharing" sites.