Kate Branden
Michael W Lucas 
Why do we authors get angry about folks pirating our books?
Medium-sized publisher advance on a novel in 1960: $3,000.
Medium-sized publisher advance on a novel in 2022: $3,000.
Gimme my $4.99.
I put my novels out in the world under a license that says "give me $5 and you get a digital copy."
A thought for you pro-piracy folks, not one I'm going to argue here:
Why should you be allowed to violate that license, keeping in mind that I will use your exact same argument to justify a closed-source Linux variant that I distribute to customers.
Lars Liedtke đȘđș@mwl "But that is something completely different, the GPL is sacred!!!!!!11" đ€Ł
Tirifto (malnova konto / old account)@Corvan @mwl I think this is inaccurate. People who love the GPL usually love it because itâs a way to protect user freedom, not simply because itâs a licence. Iâll prefer pirating non-free software to buying it, because disrespecting the non-free licence is less rewarding for the unjust proprietor. But respecting the GPL is more rewarding for user freedom, so I shall respect it and urge others to do the same. I only appreciate the legal framework as far as it serves my ideals, and doesnât work against them. I assume this is how many other people feel, too.
Now, how people ought to feel about licences for creative works, thatâs a different question, and this is probably not a good way to answer it.
Now, how people ought to feel about licences for creative works, thatâs a different question, and this is probably not a good way to answer it.
@mwl @Corvan Legally, perhaps, but not morally. People often care about morals (and other things) more than they care about laws. If a law is in conflict with something they truly care about, they will be more likely to break the law. If a law can be used to support something they truly care about, they will be more likely to try and use it in its defence. Thatâs why you canât expect people to be consistent in their treatment of any given law.
Moreover, copyleft wasnât born out of appreciation of copyright, but rather the opposite. It shouldnât be surprising if people who like copyleft dislike and disregard copyright in other context. It may seem counter-productive, since the former is legally dependent on the latter, but they are really different in spirit, and driven by different motivations.
Moreover, copyleft wasnât born out of appreciation of copyright, but rather the opposite. It shouldnât be surprising if people who like copyleft dislike and disregard copyright in other context. It may seem counter-productive, since the former is legally dependent on the latter, but they are really different in spirit, and driven by different motivations.
@mwl @Corvan I thought we were talking about unauthorised copying (i.e. pirating), not stealing.
At any rate, my point is that people have different ideas about morals, different things they care about, different convictions. Your conviction (if I get it right) seems to be that disrespecting any copyright licence is equally bad, be it a licence to a piece of software or a piece of culture. But I donât see what would make your conviction more valid or objective than others, and admittedly I donât share it, myself.
@tirifto @Corvan we do all have different ideas of morality. That's why we put our creations out into the world under different terms and conditions.
If you don't respect the terms and conditions on my work, why should I respect yours?
And piracy is stealing. I spend month or years on a book and someone won't give me $5 or ask their library? Total dick move.
@mwl @Corvan Sure, but thatâs not stealing. Stealing is normally when you take something from someone; you gain it and the other person loses it. Making a copy is very different in nature, since the other person does not lose whatever you take. Even if itâs a bad thing to do, and the other person still loses out on profit, it remains different from stealing. I think the difference is important enough to avoid conflating the concepts.
Your argument makes perfect sense if we assume that each creator has the final say in how their work should be used and shared. But not everyone agrees on that; for instance, some hold the opinion that every work should be free to use and share, and they value this belief over the authorâs decision. It doesnât really make sense for these people to firmly follow the authorâs licence, if it directly goes against the idea of how software or culture should be. They would be betraying their own beliefs if they did that, wouldnât they? Yet it does make sense for them to be in favour of copyleft licences, because those support and propagate their idea, rather than work against it. Copyright is not something they inherently care about, but rather something that can be useful at times (and obstructive at others).
Your argument makes perfect sense if we assume that each creator has the final say in how their work should be used and shared. But not everyone agrees on that; for instance, some hold the opinion that every work should be free to use and share, and they value this belief over the authorâs decision. It doesnât really make sense for these people to firmly follow the authorâs licence, if it directly goes against the idea of how software or culture should be. They would be betraying their own beliefs if they did that, wouldnât they? Yet it does make sense for them to be in favour of copyleft licences, because those support and propagate their idea, rather than work against it. Copyright is not something they inherently care about, but rather something that can be useful at times (and obstructive at others).
@mwl @Corvan If you mean logic by which you have a belief that says (for example) software freedom is unimportant, and you value respecting that above respecting copyright (or whatever the other side believes), then yes, it would! And does, for anyone who holds such a belief. 
Re: stealing: In what way does the existence of âintellectual propertyâ as a concept (which I personally consider terribly misguided) change the definition of âstealingâ?
Re: stealing: In what way does the existence of âintellectual propertyâ as a concept (which I personally consider terribly misguided) change the definition of âstealingâ?
Intellectual property law is very definite on this point. Go read Nolo Press' Copyright Handbook and their trademark book. Billions of dollars get spent tracking and punishing IP theft, that's as real as you get.
Ebooks are intellectual property. To be doubly sure, they are licensed for a single user. It's theft.
If you can't bother to go to a library and check the book out, print or physical? You're saying the rules of society don't apply to you, and are in the social category "criminals, assholes, and people we don't want."
I'm done with this discussion. Have a good day. Don't pirate books.
@mwl @Corvan Intellectual property is an absurd concept (same for theft thereof) and I refuse to accept or validate it. This is an instance where morals are more important than law for me, personally. 
Ebooks are data. Data can be copied at virtually no cost. It has unlimited uses. Share your ebooks with your friends. Support the authors you appreciate. Have a nice day. Stay human.
PS: if the people who came up with the idea of intellectual property donât like you, you must be doing something right!
Ebooks are data. Data can be copied at virtually no cost. It has unlimited uses. Share your ebooks with your friends. Support the authors you appreciate. Have a nice day. Stay human.
PS: if the people who came up with the idea of intellectual property donât like you, you must be doing something right!
so, I said I was done with this discussion and you continued? Huh. Lots of respect you have there.
In fact, you agree with my initial point, that any logic book pirates use can be used to violate the GPL. I have absolutely no idea why you engaged at all, except perhaps to make yourself difficult to someone who you clearly weren't going to persuade or reach middle ground on.
This conversation is over.
@mwl You said you were done⊠right after you brought up new discussion points. I still had something to say in reaction to them, so I did, trying to mirror your post and keep it brief. Adequately respectful for a public discussion on social media, I should say. 
And I actually replied to @Corvan, since I didnât think their wording was representative. I did not expect you to reply, since you said you were not going to argue your thought here, but then you did, so⊠yeah. 
@tirifto @mwl you seem not to have noticed my irony.
I like the GPL, others do not, even others use different licences, that is fine. What I do not like is people unable to leave others their choices and I have experienced this too often to take those people seriously anymore.
@mwl is a single author without a big industry behind him. Buying his books is making him literally write more. So pirating his books would be cutting our own flesh But what do I know...
I like the GPL, others do not, even others use different licences, that is fine. What I do not like is people unable to leave others their choices and I have experienced this too often to take those people seriously anymore.
@mwl is a single author without a big industry behind him. Buying his books is making him literally write more. So pirating his books would be cutting our own flesh But what do I know...
@Corvan I thought you were exaggerating (and mocking) what you perceived to be many GPL supportersâ core belief, misunderstanding it in the process. It is possible that I have misunderstood your intent, myself. Buying books from authors you enjoy is a good thing.
Alexandre Oliva (moved to @instead of encouraging others to jump into this mirage of a rabbit hole, I recommend you and others to have a look at chapter 8 of glyn moody's walled culture. it might help you realize who's really exploiting and harming you, and stop defending and fighting to increase their unjust power over us and you
waifustealing books is about as wrong as stealing anything else
but copying books, or reading them without paying, are not stealing, that's just twisted propaganda language.
sharing culture is good and takes nothing away from anyone who earned it
attacking others' freedom (the only way to break the gpl) is not good, and it takes away what others ought to have
any argument twisted so as to make them appear similar is itself immoral
you wish to use and increase your powers to control and deprive others of that which they should have
we use sparingly the unjust power given us to reassure nobody can deprive others of that which they ought to have
we are not the same
but copying books, or reading them without paying, are not stealing, that's just twisted propaganda language.
sharing culture is good and takes nothing away from anyone who earned it
attacking others' freedom (the only way to break the gpl) is not good, and it takes away what others ought to have
any argument twisted so as to make them appear similar is itself immoral
you wish to use and increase your powers to control and deprive others of that which they should have
we use sparingly the unjust power given us to reassure nobody can deprive others of that which they ought to have
we are not the same
Benno 
@mwl because eventually artificial intelligence will render intellectual property, Linux, books and indeed human existence utterly meaningless.
that's not a license. no copyright license is required to receive or to keep a copy of a work, or to read it. a license is needed to make and to distribute copies, unless other circumstances apply.
copyright is your enemy as much as it is your reader's. it's corrupt law made to give publishers control and profits, exploiting authors and readers alike.
copyright is your enemy as much as it is your reader's. it's corrupt law made to give publishers control and profits, exploiting authors and readers alike.
@lxo no.
Writers create intellectual property and license it. Go read The Copyright Handbook.
Copyright has problems, but you should have a basic understanding of the topic before discussing it.
yeah, sorry, you're right, I've only been studying, writing and speaking about the topic for some 25 years. you?
good advice, though. I second it.
here's some stuff you might be interested in reading before discussing further. there's more I can share if you wish.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
https://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/#Self-Defense
good advice, though. I second it.
here's some stuff you might be interested in reading before discussing further. there's more I can share if you wish.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
https://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/#Self-Defense
@lxo Studying and working in the field since 1985.
Yes, I've read those pages. GNU has done some clever things, but they ignore the inconvenient parts of the law.
Under the law as it stands, writers create and license intellectual property via copyright. That's why each print book has a license printed in the front of it.
cool. me, I feel it's the industry that "industry" that ignores the inconvenient parts. but it's not ignorance, really, it's an attempt to move public perception of unsettled law or often-distorted issues in whatever direction each group steers
take this "license" you mention in printed books. I went for one of my 1984 prints, the one that's not yet falling apart, and looked for a license. there isn't any to be found. below the copyright notices, there are a few paragraphs about several rights that remain reserved to the publisher, i.e., that are explicitly *not* licensed. that's not a license at all, but I guess that's how misinformed or misinforming people refer to that statement.
specifically, returning to the point you attempted to dispute upthread, I checked that it doesn't license any right to read or to have a copy or to lend it or sell it to others. it doesn't have to. those are not rights that need to be licensed. reading and having copies are not exclusive rights; lending and selling, in some jurisdictions, are, but they are exhausted by the first sale, and after that they're no longer reserved. making copies and adaptations remain reserved, but there are allowed exceptions under fair use and other provisions depending on the jurisdiction.
take this "license" you mention in printed books. I went for one of my 1984 prints, the one that's not yet falling apart, and looked for a license. there isn't any to be found. below the copyright notices, there are a few paragraphs about several rights that remain reserved to the publisher, i.e., that are explicitly *not* licensed. that's not a license at all, but I guess that's how misinformed or misinforming people refer to that statement.
specifically, returning to the point you attempted to dispute upthread, I checked that it doesn't license any right to read or to have a copy or to lend it or sell it to others. it doesn't have to. those are not rights that need to be licensed. reading and having copies are not exclusive rights; lending and selling, in some jurisdictions, are, but they are exhausted by the first sale, and after that they're no longer reserved. making copies and adaptations remain reserved, but there are allowed exceptions under fair use and other provisions depending on the jurisdiction.
@lxo there is extensive case law about the rights conferred by owning a copy of a book over the last century.
Licenses as we know them today did not exist when copyright law was settled. The copyright statement is the license.
Go to any publisher, on the legal and production side, and the first lesson you get is that publishers do not sell books. They license IP. Titles are even depreciated as IP.
how can that statement be a license if it doesn't license anything? newspeak?
it's not even a licensing agreement, that publishers often try to get their customers to confuse with licenses
they're so deep down this virtual-rabbit hole that they start believing the lies they made up to twist public opinion and law
copyright grants its holder the power to exclude others from certain activities over a creative work
the holder doesn't own the work, but that power to exclude
but then the lie that they own the work starts being used to grow copyright to give them more powers to exclude other uses of the work, for longer times
and then they demand DRM to expand those exclusive rights to whatever they wish, even if they're not related at all with uses reserved by copyright law
then we get people sued and prohibited from sharing programs because they might be used to share copyrighted works. we get demands for payment to post links to news articles. we get publishing oligopolies that beat up authors while authors defend the expansion of the powers of the oligopolies. but because you've settled inside that virtual-rabbit hole, you think that's as it should be, and that people who don't fall for the lies are the bad ones.
https://mastodon.social/@mmasnick/109462530750842480
https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic/109461421731443118
it's not even a licensing agreement, that publishers often try to get their customers to confuse with licenses
they're so deep down this virtual-rabbit hole that they start believing the lies they made up to twist public opinion and law
copyright grants its holder the power to exclude others from certain activities over a creative work
the holder doesn't own the work, but that power to exclude
but then the lie that they own the work starts being used to grow copyright to give them more powers to exclude other uses of the work, for longer times
and then they demand DRM to expand those exclusive rights to whatever they wish, even if they're not related at all with uses reserved by copyright law
then we get people sued and prohibited from sharing programs because they might be used to share copyrighted works. we get demands for payment to post links to news articles. we get publishing oligopolies that beat up authors while authors defend the expansion of the powers of the oligopolies. but because you've settled inside that virtual-rabbit hole, you think that's as it should be, and that people who don't fall for the lies are the bad ones.
https://mastodon.social/@mmasnick/109462530750842480
https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic/109461421731443118
Cory Doctorow's linkblog (@[email protected])
Attached: 1 image When a superdense, concentrated mass forms a black hole, the laws of physics around it change, giving rise to an eldritch zone where the normal rules don't apply. When corporations form a concentrated industry, the laws of economics likewise change. Take copyright: when I was a baby writer, there were dozens of comparably sized New York publishers. The writers who mentored me could shop their rights around to lots of houses, which enabled them to subdivide those rights. 1/
I think this conversation has gone as far as is useful. Have a good day.
Digital Mark λ âïž đč đœ@mwl Looks to me like you should be burning down the publishers, because they're stealing $27,000 advance there.
@mdhughes we are. Note my career.
But taking books without paying for them is wrong.
thomkennon@mwl Please - take my book. đ€â
Nemo_bis đ@mwl That's sad. But how is it related to piracy?
Because we're already getting shafted, and then folks steal from what little we do get.
@mwl There's precious little evidence that the readers are to blame.
#Bertelsmann profit margins (EBITDA): 15 %.
https://www.bertelsmann.com/media/news-und-media/downloads/2022-halbjahresfinanzbericht/bertelsmann-interim-report-2022.pdf
I'm glad you got your own publisher and bookstore!
The tip jar link on https://mwl.io/faq seems broken.
Stealing books is wrong. Period.