12 January 2010

pirates sinking to a new low

You know... I thought I'd heard it all. I really had. How much lower can pirates sink? I thought I'd hit the all time low with the pirates heisting charity anthologies intended to raise money for everything from victims of fire and flood to premature babies, abused women, autistic children, breast cancer victims... But I've found something that is even more deplorable than that.

The CNN discussion of piracy has been an education in the lengths pirates will go to in order to justify their illegal activities.

We started off with them blatantly misrepresenting the laws. I'm sorry. I've read the copyright law, the Millennium Act, fair use... I know what Creative Commons and Open Source do and do not. That didn't go well, though the Open Source myths persist, even after dozens of individuals stating the truth.

There was even a self-professed college professor misrepresenting fair use. I find that one scary, since this person is in charge of teaching college students about fair use. Personally, I think he should be fired (if he really is a professor) or at least forced to go through remedial training on the law. If he really believes a fraction of what he says, his students are surely plagiarizing all over the place, and he's letting them. That is not a good situation.

They proceeded to blatantly misrepresenting the industry. Sorry...Dan Brown and Nora Roberts and Stephen King earn a heck of a lot more money than your average midlist or indie author. The indie presses are not getting rich. The indie presses do not have investors and boards of directors. The e-books are not grossly overpriced...maybe in NY but not in indie. And most indies do not use troublesome DRM. That tack didn't last much longer, though they still claim the books are grossly overpriced at over $10. Picture me rolling my eyes, since the most expensive e-book I have is about $7 and is for a book that is 50% longer than your average 100,000 word length. Some are as low as $1.50...or free.

They proceeded to arguing that the copyright laws are old and outdated. I would have to agree that they do not adequately cover the digital community, but the proper way to change a law is to appeal to the lawmakers with your concerns...not to break it, because you don't agree with it. Too much work for them, apparently.

Oh, we've seen it all...from the self-proclaimed anarchist of the discussion, who feels all copyright should be abolished, to the flaming two-year-old who feels that there should be a money-back guarantee on life and he should never be responsible for his own choices, because that means being a responsible adult and doing his research, like most people do. Everyone in the world should pander to him. Nope. Not in my job description. If his parents and teachers defaulted in teaching him personal responsibility, I'm not his mother and responsible for trying to instill it in him. Nor am I responsible for enabling his bad behaviors, behaviors that others allow him.

Talking to that one is a lost cause, since he completely misrepresents his opponent, even to dismissing the risk the creators take, because it doesn't fit his tiny mindset and feed his entitlement mentality. Gods forbid anyone should be paid for their work (besides anyone who turns wrenches for a living (which I'll assume he does), which really makes me wonder if he realizes that wrench turners are, at best, 10% of the world these days, though many people in my immediate family do and don't share his bias), because that means someone getting an equitable shake in life for their hard work and means that someone else does work...which he dismisses, if you aren't turning wrenches.

Further, forbid that he should read the free reads offered by an author and decide to chance a book or two afterward, because he wants to try everything for free first...in totality, before deciding if it's worth his hard-earned money. Of course, he's not paying for them, because that would be responsible. Nor does he believe in voting with his wallet and not purchasing from authors who don't give free reads, which actually has a better chance of changing how authors operate than what he's currently doing.

But, we're not even to the lowest of the low yet. Think it can't get worse? Oh, it can. This twit feels he's somehow better than those protecting their copyright because...he's a military vet. WTF? I am sorry. Did I miss a step? I think he missed the boat, but he's honestly saying that he alone gets to define what is patriotic, because of his military service, and he finds piracy patriotic and anti-piracy movements unpatriotic. Never mind that when I presented this to my personal military family, they said the man was out of his mind to make such statements.

Let's not even get into my military background. I've sacrificed more than my share, and my husband has as well...most of our family has. Within in the last two generations, we have military members from every major US service, all of them vets of foreign wars. Anyone willing to take that honorable service and cheapen it as to associate it with illegal acts has no respect from me. Of course, since he has no qualms about pirating from charity, he was already at the bottom of my list, but hey... He's just continuing to be the bottom-feeder he always was, I suppose.

And the idea that only he gets to decide what is patriotic is...well, beyond unpatriotic and yet another sign of his self-absorption. Then again, his comments about how only wrench turners should define what is real work is rather self-important, as well. Overall, I'd say this guy's ego is the size of Jupiter. Thank goodness most military and ex-military (and wrench turners, for that matter) possess more common sense and integrity than this person.

1 comment:

rowena said...

At least we have to admit that e-book thieves are equal opportunity offenders.

The pirate sites have almost every author's ebooks, from President Obama's two inspiring, non-fiction works, through bestsellling fiction authors such as J R Rowling, to the lowliest self published debut author.

One recent survey found that more than 28 percent of e-reader owners have used unregulated file-sharing services to download at least one e-book within the last twelve months, and 6 percent have used such services to download ten or more titles during this interval.

One survey also suggests that e-book "sharing" is concentrated disproportionately among males aged 18-34.

What are these 18 - 34 year old males reading?

What might be the social engineering implications of material that is freely disseminated?