OJ info here. Potter info here. Please note that the OJ book soon went off-line and that the Potter leak apparently involves just a summary.
The TeleRead take, or at least mine: Anti-piracy (I prefer the P word; Branko doesn’t). That said, I remain disappointed that the author and publishers of the Potter series won’t allow legal e-books, for which they’d be compensated. Here’s a chance to help make an industry. But perhaps that is what J.K. fears.
Please do not lie about my opinions.
Heck, Branko, the post simply notes your reluctance to use the word “pirate,” as opposed to saying you tolerate such behavior. Furthermore, if you want to use the P word outside the Dickens context discussed earlier, be my guest. Let’s get a Branko definition as applied to books. No deliberate “lies” here—please don’t just assume. I’ll welcome your clarification. Thanks. David
People can disagree about the use of the term “pirating”, especially when multiple legal jurisdictions are involved. Consider the classic novel “The Great Gatsby” by F. Scott Fitzgerald which is available at Project Gutenberg Australia but is not available at Project Gutenberg in the United States. The copyright laws in the two countries differ substantially enough that they are in effect incommensurable. Wikipedia says that “a work may be public domain in the US but not in Australia, or vice versa.”
The term “pirating” has stigmatic connotations for some people and emancipatory connotations for others. Does it make sense to say that Project Gutenberg in Australia or the United States is “pirating” a work if the work is legally in the public domain in only one country, and hence available for downloading from only one website jurisdiction?
(This comment is intended to be relevant to the ongoing disagreement between Branko Collin and David Rothman about the term “pirate”. It is not really a comment on the dissemination of the Potter or OJ books.)
Thanks for your thoughts, Garson. In PG-Australia’s case we’re indeed talking piracy—Hollywood’s takeover of Congress. Different copyright terms are a much different issue from either (1) distributing the OJ book that even the publisher recalled or (2) publishing Dickens’ novels, soon after they came out, without paying him. Thanks. David
I could not resist posting on this revived Harry Potter ebook thread, as well as this one. Its funny that the subject of legally ‘pirated’ ebooks hasn’t come up before.
In the US, Bookshare.org distributes electronic versions created from scans of all the HP books but only to disabled readers, so it is perfectly legal, for now anyway. Bookshare files can also be downloaded as braille, but the transcription is automated, so the results can be mixed.
How long will it be before publishers trying to sell ebooks notice that non-profits like Bookshare are actually competing with them, and using their own books permission-free to do so? The ironic aspect is that readers with disabilities are the one group of consumers that truly -need- ebooks right now, and they need them to be accessible, which means very transparent DRM, if any at all.
Ebook boosters/promoters/pushers should have started with disabled readers in the first place. These folks are the core audience for this technology, and they have not been given their due.
Bookshare’s an interesting case. Yep, it doesn’t get permission from publishers, but it is entirely legal under U.S. law and thus would not be a pirate op in any sense. Sure agree with you about the value of e-books for the disabled! – David