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.
Filed Under: books, copyright, copyright trolling, dummies, mass lawsuits
Companies: john wiley
Comments on “Copyright Trolling For Dummies; Publisher John Wiley Sues 27 For Sharing 'For Dummies' Books”
Individuals
It’s highly doubtful they’re using the shakedown strategy. If they’re only targeting 27 people, it would be next to impossible to turn a profit after their lawyers get their cut.
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?
Re: Individuals
Troll. Of course he’s a troll. Anyone who ever tries to stop my sharing is a troll.
Re: Re: Individuals
No anybody who tries to enforce a granted monopoly is a troll and must be beaten.
Re: Individuals
Agree with your points, but I’d also like to know their requested damages.
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.
Re: Re: Individuals
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re: Individuals
If they were taking a reasonable course, A take down notice would e the first line no a law suit.
I think the Dummies phenomenon has waned over the last few years. Some of the books were good back when they started, but a lot of the ones I have looked at lately are pathetically shallow. It is pretty easy to find good tutorials online for most of the topics. Once someone masters the concepts of “Google Search for Dummies” the market for the rest of the series pretty much evaporates.
The modern solution to all failing business models is to litigate a bit more profit from your former fans.
Re: Re:
I agree. The books from when they started were great. i was even able to contact one of the writers and ask questions (my Prof for VB macro scripting class had it as a text book cause he didn’t know how to do what he was teaching) and I got a response within 24hours. Now, I can find better info using Google than these books give.
What is the proper recourse?
Author owns a copyright on some work. Person takes work, copies it, and distributes it across the internet.
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…)
Re: What is the proper recourse?
Mike wants every rights holder to throw in the towel and to embrace piracy. If you don’t do this, you are not “adapting” and you are wrong and stupid. It’s Pirate Mike’s motto.
Re: Re: What is the proper recourse?
And what do you want?
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?
Re: Re: What is the proper recourse?
If we limit the cash flow to creators and not ‘rights holders’, we would have a lot less to talk about.
Re: Re: Re: What is the proper recourse?
Actually, no. Most creators need the help of publishers or other folks. These marketplaces have existed for a long time and there’s a reason we have a division of labor. Authors are good at sitting in a room and cranking out text. Publishers are good at selling the text.
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.
Re: Re: Re:2 What is the proper recourse?
The necessity for publishers is waning. The market will determine the replacement, not current publishers. That is what disruption is all about. There is no longer a need for creators to give up their rights. It is the publishers who are asking the creators to bend (roll) over.
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.
Re: Re: Re:2 What is the proper recourse?
Well maybe is time for writers to find other people who are good at delivering things in the new age.
Anybody from the 80’s will remember the tinfoil stories about the “New Order conspiracies” LoL
Re: Re: What is the proper recourse?
And don’t forget his old innovation canard. Not only are you not adapting, but you’re stopping others from innovation. If someone drives a car through the plate glass window and circumvents the checkout line, I’m sure Mike would see that as innovation too.
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.
Re: Re: Re: What is the proper recourse?
Yet Pirate Mike doesn’t see all of the cryptography and clever mathematics behind DRM as innovation. Nope. That doesn’t count.
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.
Re: Re: Re: What is the proper recourse?
The clever mathematics where developed for security reasons not by the entertainment industry that wouldn’t be capable of coming up with something like that in a million years.
You be hard pressed to find any studio, label or publisher funding research in sciences, I double dog dare you find any.
Re: Re: Re: What is the proper recourse?
Yet Pirate Mike doesn’t see all of the cryptography and clever mathematics behind DRM as innovation. Nope. That doesn’t count.
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!
Re: Re: What is the proper recourse?
Mike wants every rights holder to throw in the towel and to embrace piracy. If you don’t do this, you are not “adapting” and you are wrong and stupid. It’s Pirate Mike’s motto.
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.
Re: What is the proper recourse?
Work that is already paid for many times over, besides that why do people need protection?
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?
Re: What is the proper recourse?
Maybe you’re new here but the general vibe of this community is that the system is broken and needs fixing. That’s kinda exactly what they’re saying here; they can sue, but why sue people who are telling you your distribution method and pricing is not appealing to me when you could addapt and sell them shit.
Re: Re: What is the proper recourse?
I find your ideas interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Logic Bomb
Maybe I’m missing some previous context to this post? But why should a publisher allow people to steal the work an author has invested time to create and sell in order to make a living?
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?
Re: Logic Bomb
Mike doesn’t believe in copyright holder’s rights or author’s rights. He wants the pirates to be able to take whatever they want without paying. Anyone who stands in the pirates’ way and tries to exercise their rights secured under the Constitution just isn’t “adapting.”
Pirate Mike is really earning his pirate flag on this one.
Re: Re: Logic Bomb
I don’t really get why this comment was flagged. It’s just an average troll.
More importantly, flagging it only adds a curiosity factor to it and gives it more attention.
Re: Logic Bomb
Your publisher wastes a lot of time getting them removed from bit torrent sites you mean.
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.
Re: Logic Bomb
Their suing 27 unrelated people who may have coincidentally shared the literature, in one lawsuit.
Also these lawsuit tend to included innocent defendants who have open wi-fi or a commuter that they share with people who live them.
Re: Logic Bomb
Why should you have any protection?
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?
Re: Re: Logic Bomb
That’s right. Why should you have a monopoly? Don’t you know that monopolies are by definition horrible and evil and wrong. We want you to just work for free. We know you can do it. Then when you’re really famous for giving your stuff away for free, you can sell t-shirts. That’s Mike’s plan.
Re: Re: Re: Logic Bomb
Why should you be protected by anything at all?
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.
Re: Logic Bomb
Suing someone for pirating a digital good does nothing to increase your profits. If the publisher said he was suing Al Gore for inventing the internet that allowed piracy to exist, you’d be wise to stop doing business with that publisher, too, because it would be just as effective at bringing in paying customers.
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! 🙂
Re: Re: Logic Bomb
I agree with Mike that it is head in the sand behaviour to think suing people will “turn the tide” of piracy.
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.
Re: Re: Re: Logic Bomb
Of course the difference between shoplifting and file sharing is that with shoplifting there is an actual loss.
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.
Re: Re: Re: Logic Bomb
What a well written post. I wish I could give you insightful a few more times.
Re: Re: Logic Bomb
Excellent summary, Infamous Joe. Short and to the point, and really illuminates the paradigm shift required to be successful in the internet age. +1 Insightful for you.
Re: Re: Logic Bomb
#2 isn’t quite accurate. It should read, “They don’t value your product enough to pay your asking price for it.”
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.
Re: 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.
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.
Re: Logic Bomb
they people doing this aren’t paying for the book and not only does the publisher lose money I do as well.
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.
Re: Re: Logic Bomb
But by the same token, every pirated copy is not a lost sale either. People take the easiest route to find information. If
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.
Re: Re: Re: Logic Bomb
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re: Logic Bomb
Apparently not enough to reduce revenues for authors, musicians and actors year after year after year in a recession no less.
Re: Re: Re: Logic Bomb
They might be capable, but that doesn’t mean they’re customers. They must be willing to buy stuff, and some people will never be willing.
Re: Logic Bomb
Trolling or not, enforcement of granted monopolies like are bad, be it by East India Company, copyrights or patents.
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.
Re: Logic Bomb
How are you loosing money by people downloading your book?
Just because someone got it for free does not mean they would pay for it if that were the only option.
Re: Logic Bomb
It is not “trolling”, but of course that is of no moment here where one who plays by the rules of law is vilified constantly.
Re: Re: Logic Bomb
Suing a bunch of people who infringed on copyright individually instead of in concert in one lawsuit ratter then one per infringed as noting to do with “playing by the rules of law” and will get the lawsuit thrown-out quit quickly unless Wiley can convince the court that people have some kind of association with each other in regards to their sharing of his book, which is unlikely to happen since everyone else who as tried to do so as failed.
Re: Logic Bomb
Your publisher isn’t removing anything from anywhere. They’re merely lying to you, and you’re stupid and gullible enough to believe them.
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.
Re: Logic Bomb
Maybe you’re new here but the general vibe of this community is that people should be able to pirate anything they want for any reason.
Re: Logic Bomb
Want a suggestion on how your publisher can adapt?
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.
Textbook example of Mike being anti-copyright and pro-piracy. No admonishing or acknowledgement of the purported wrongdoings of the defendants. Instead, Pirate Mike calls the plaintiff a troll, and he doesn’t support them vindicating their rights in a meaningful way. Mike is 100% behind the infringers (aka pirates) and not behind the author or the rights holder.
Day after day all we get are more and more examples of Mike’s piracy apology.
Re: Re:
“No admonishing or acknowledgement of the purported wrongdoings of the defendants”
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.
Re: Re: Re:
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you see someone do something you think, in your opinion, is foolish, time and time again, even if they are completely within their rights to do this foolish thing, then it is perfectly reasonable to criticize them, without being anti-whatever-they’re-doing.
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.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Or if you’re astroturfing for Big Search, Big Hardware or Big Piracy. Then you keep harping on the same topic again and again.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Or if you’re astroturfing for Big Search, Big Hardware or Big Piracy.
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.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Then you keep harping on the same topic again and again.”
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.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
That is unfair to tinfoil hat wearers everywhere.
Oh and he knows what astroturfing is he has been doing it for a very long time.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Big Piracy don’t have money to lobby because if they did you wouldn’t see this ridiculous laws being put forward.
Re: Re: Re:
No. IT’s not irrelevant. There’s this myth that the folks on bittorrent would never buy the book anyways. Or maybe they’re just tasting a book to see if they like. Wrong. At some point, it starts cutting into sales.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you know what else would cut into sales? TV, Music, Movies, Hobbies, Work, Children, Interpretive Dance, drinking, eating, having sex, growing banana trees, eating bananas, starting fires, raising naked mole rats, cooking naked mole rats over a fire built under a banana tree, feeding naked mole rats to children, and writing really ignorant comments on blogs.
Let’s make all those things illegal too, so we can save the “For Dummies” books.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Wrong. At some point, it starts cutting into sales”
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.
Re: Re:
Anti-copyright may be, pro-piracy is doubtful though.
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.
Re: Re: Re:
I think there is a rising generation that is actively hoping they all starve to death slowly.
Mike has enough compassion he is still trying to warn and help them.
Re: Re:
“Textbook example of Mike being anti-copyright and pro-piracy. No admonishing or acknowledgement of the purported wrongdoings of the defendants.”
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.
I might as well post this before the trolls do:
Hey Pirate Mike, maybe Wiley should hire you to write the book on “Piracy for Dummies.”
/sigh
Re: Re:
If it was bundled with “Copyright Trolling for Dummies” it would make a great box set. Who says a perpetual motion machine is impossible?
John Wiley is doing the right thing. How could Mike M. decide not to buy something from an author who decides to sue people for downloading his books via torrent.
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.
Re: Re:
It’s not wrong to not buy based on any fact. That’s for Mike to decide and not anyone else.
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.
Re: Re:
I don’t support what he is doing and I will never buy a book from someone who sued people who shared anything, that is by principal, it is an ethos.
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?
I usually think that Mike is on the right track, but I disagree with this one. Here you have a legitimate copyright owner — the publisher no less — suing people that have put unlicensed copies of the book on the internet.
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+dummies+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.
Re: Re:
But this could be a test run for larger things.
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.
Seems to me someone in their legal department is being a little over-zealous, but so far, the case doesn’t look like your average settlement scam.. I’ll reserve judgement for now and wait for further details to come out…
“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..
Re: Re:
Well it may happen since Willey have no incentive to find anything new or to promote anything new, they can keep just doing what they do or so they believe just like Hollywood that instead of making something new keeps putting out sequels.
Nobody seems to be creating anything new, just recycling the old stuff to get money out of it, which is a shame.
Re: Re:
Wiley are douchebags, and I hate it when I have to buy a book from them. If I ever write an academic book (I plan to) it will be with a CC license because the idea that I would make money on an obscure tract on astrophysics is looney anyway. I would do it to contribute some knowledge to the world.
Also, more people should publish in open source journals, but that will have to wait for tenure…
Re: Re: Re:
Talk about irony. You complain about Wiley charging $100 for a textbook but you’re perfectly happy to look for a job at a university that charges tens of thousands of dollars for 30 some weeks of classes. Then you want tenure so you don’t have to worry about being fired. At least Wiley plays in the open marketplace and doesn’t ask for tenure.
Have you looked at the student debt heaped on the backs of students? Big College is one of the biggest scam artists around.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, Big Bob, does putting the word “big” in front of things make it evil? You must hate Big Bird, and Big Ben, and maybe even Big Balls. Big deal, Big guy.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Hey, Big Infamous Joe, there’s nothing wrong with a Big Mac.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Thanks a lot, now I want one in a Big Way!
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What do you think copyright is?
It is a tenure of life + 95 years.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s not irony, the irony would be if you were looking to be a student at a university that would charge you tens of thousands of dollars for 30 weeks, yet complain about a one hundred dollar textbook.
What you’re alluring to is double standards, though even that’s stretching it.
I actually own a couple dummies books and was considering buying some more. I sometimes recommend them to others. Now I’m less likely to buy any more.
Wiley Internal Statement – 11/01/2011
“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.
Re: Re:
Please stop and pay us the small fee of $3000 to show us your really really sorry.
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.
Re: Re:
The thing is, I like dummy books and I respect the fact that they’ve historically not been very hard on infringement. While I don’t mind them so much enforcing a legitimate copyright claim to a reasonable degree and not demanding ridiculous sums of money, because I do think IP can be a good thing is implemented correctly (regardless of the fact that I often I yell ABOLISH IP!!! out of anger for our retarded laws), I would respect them a lot more if they put a reasonable – non-revocable – creative commons release date on their books so that, after a reasonable period of time (or the day the content gets discontinued, whichever comes first), their books automatically release themselves under a creative commons license. I understand that copy protection privileges are opt out, but publishers ought to be aware of their insane length and there is no reason for them not to be competent enough to curtail this absurd length. Not doing so is something I’m beginning to disrespect. We have CC licenses they can use. For companies to retain the copy protections of ‘their’ content for absurd periods of time when they can voluntarily release such content into the public domain, to me, is unacceptable. As a community, we should expect and demand this from content creators. As much as reasonably plausible, we should avoid consuming content that doesn’t release itself under a creative commons (or similar) license after a reasonable period of time. If more people do this, more and more companies will start doing so and it will undermine copy protection lengths.
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.
Re: Re: Re:
The license should also state a possible maximum price for the book when it’s not discontinued. Claiming that a book will release itself under a CC license if it gets discontinued and later deciding to charge an absurd price for the book effectively discontinues it. That’s, essentially, a legal workaround and no legal workarounds should be allowed, of course.
How much are iTunes songs in the US? Apparently someone said $20 for 20 songs…
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.
Some issues with the Wiley filing…
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.
I’ll just leave this here: http://www.dummies.com/store/product/BitTorrent-For-Dummies.productCd-076459981X.html
Re: Re:
I’ll just leave this here
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070301193544/uncyclopedia/images/f/fb/Extortion_for_Dummies.png
Does this mean there won’t be a book “File Sharing for Dummies”?
Learn to Adapt?
Mike, I’m not an author but I’m astounded by your article. Really… “Learn to adapt”? To what, letting people blatantly ripoff your hard work? Do you earn a living with your writing (I hope not). I don’t see protecting the copyright of your work as patent trolling. That’s a hell of a stretch. Copyright trolling is what this A-hole’s down in texas do with other people’s work.
I also find it really ironic that your assinine article itself is copyrighted… nice touch.
Re: Learn to Adapt?
You are new here aren’t you?
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
Re: Learn to Adapt?
Protecting the copyright of your work isn’t patent trolling, because patents are different from copyright – oh, wait; the article never mentioned patent trolling to begin with. Try again.
Re: Re: Learn to Adapt?
Who said this as anything to do with patents?!
Re: Learn to Adapt?
Mike, I’m not an author but I’m astounded by your article.
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?
Re: Re: Learn to Adapt?
Uh, yes, the copyright on your article is in the upper left next to your name. Look again.
Re: Re: Re: Learn to Adapt?
Haha that’s the category of the article you moron.
It’s posts like this that are so beyond biased that make even me, a very pro fair-use guy, not want to waste time reading TechDirt.
Re: Re:
Biased how? This is an opinion blog after all.
What were you expecting?
Re: Re:
And you waste so much time here you –
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
John Wiley sucks...
My wife contributed to a felting book published by John Wiley. It took her TWO YEARS to paid by them. TWO FUCKING YEARS. These publishers don’t give a shit about authors.
Re: John Wiley sucks...
I think all too common stories like this is what turns people who would normally never think of stealing penny candy from a Walmart but would just go home and download tons of movies, music and books.
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.
I actually like the series. After reading a bunch from a torrent, I went out and bought 4 of them, spending about a $100 bucks (which is a lot for a poor student).
I pirate books and then pay for hard copies??? Who would have thunk it?
Re: Re:
Thank you for sharing a real world example of how it actually is beneficial….
And sorry that Wiley and ICE will soon be raiding your home.
“The people who aren’t paying for your book are not your customers.”
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.
Re: Re:
Oh c’mon – piracy is more like “committing adultery in your heart” no physical contact required – and likely no knowledge either.
Re: Re:
“Should you allow someone to rape you at any point that they want”
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.
Re: Re: Re:
“Should you allow someone to rape you at any point that they want”
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…
Re: Re:
Extreme logic, like comparing a violent sexually assault to making a copy of an item to make the issue seem more awful.
This is really disingenuous! How is intellectual property theft different than real property theft? If I steal a Wiley book from Barnes & Nobel (US bookstore chain), is it any different than if I steal a Wiley e-book off bit torrent? The answer is clearly no, it is not. Only a simple minded person won’t/can’t understand this. Anyone who supports theft in any form is of criminal intent and should be dealt with by that system. Societies have a right to create laws that protect people against property theft.
Re: Re:
Actually it is different, actual theft will be remunerated by insurance companies, so Wiley won’t feel the need to chase these, he still gets paid.
Re: Re:
If I steal a Wiley book from Barnes & Nobel (US bookstore chain), is it any different than if I steal a Wiley e-book off bit torrent?
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.
Re: Re: Re:
And in BOTH cases, the income from someone’s work is lost to someone who hasn’t got the decency to pay for it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And in BOTH cases, the income from someone’s work is lost to someone who hasn’t got the decency to pay for it.
In one case, something is lost, in the other the potential for something might or might not be lost. So it’s still different.
“There’s just no good reason to give support to companies who sue people like this, rather than learn to adapt”
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.
Re: Re:
They charge almost the same for electronic versions as dead tree versions. I guess harvesting raw electrons from the environment and refining them into digital paper to hold the content is as expensive as its real world counterpart.
Libraries
Last time i looked these dummy books were at my local public library where hundreds can use them without purchasing.
Re: Libraries
At least until SOPA gets passed.
“In this environment, the criminal prosecution of a library for copyright infringement is no longer beyond the realm of possibility.”
Hurray for the law suit
I wish all publishers would sue for illegal downloads. 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. You can read the whole story here http://www.thecreativescorner.com/2010/03/23/your-copyright-is-useless/
Hey, John Wiley, kick butt and take names.
Have Fun,
Jeff
Re: Hurray for the law suit
I wish all publishers would sue for illegal downloads.
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.
the illegal downloads are the new version of the library…when the library system came out publishers were up in arms that they would lose sales. the reality was that more people bought their books because they were able to see if they were worth buying b4 they have to pay for them. now people download them to see if they are worth buying. in my opinion the people who suffer the most from illegal downloads are the libraries since it is easier to d/l for sampling then to go to a library.
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.