Pirate Party Politician Fights Piracy (Of Her Book)

[Parnage]

Once again the people who want to dictate how you live your life and make your money turns out to be just as corrupt and ignorant as they claim others to be. Of course she didn't know that they might protect her rights as an author, she is so torn up at the idea as she counts her money and enjoys the dream of publishing a book. Yeah I am sure her book will be very much interesting and relevant in ten years when she will release it for free. Right?

Double-standards are to be expected of people like this, they want you to give up your intellectual property for free but they never mention giving away their own. Most likely as Julia Schramm has shown they rarely have any to start with.

 

[ShadowKatt]

Let me get this straight......
This Pirate Party wants to not just allow, but ENCOURAGE everyone to copy anything they want. They think IP's are horrible and copyright is an evil worthy of breaking the tinfoil hats out for?

Did I fall into a parallel anti-Earth or something? Do they even know why these things exist in the first place? Do they even know how the world works????

No, you're not in a parallel earth. It's a party of people that believe that information should be freely available and that DIGITAL piracy should not be criminalized in any way. Which I can actually get behind.

However, just because they're advocating it doesn't make it any less illegal.

 

[Greni]

And suddenly, to break up the mad ramblings of people not reading the thread, and the people correcting the people that didn't read the thread:

 

[maxmanrules]

Oh man, this is hilarious. I hope no one ever takes her seriously ever again.

I would point out that it's not her doing it, it's the copyright licensor, which is Random House.
I think someone else may have pointed this out as well, but meh.

 

[Soak]

Great! Why not take what you just wrote and merge it into the article instead of saying she's directly responsible for the takedown, and change the headline accordingly?

Because she is responsible. Look at it this way: whether I kill a guy, or I pay you to kill a guy, I'm still responsible for that guy being dead. Every step she took from the moment she signed that contract is in direct opposition to what the Pirate Party and its supporters stand for. She's not an innocent bystander or a naive youngster blindsided by a corporate machine; she's an informed and active participant in the process.

Lets say, i see the point you're making - hope i do - i still disagree and have to say, every court would as well, at least they would call it differently.
Aside from your simile being out of scale, as you put it, you seem to accuse both of murder. However, only one actually killed the guy, the other was at most instigating the killing. Not only that, but i see the case different as well. Look at it this way (following your simile): Someone offers me a lot of money to borrow a firearm from me and use it on my lawn. I'm glad i own no firearms and if i would, i (hope i) wouldn't be stupid enough to go for the deal, because possible consequences of someone using a firearm on my lawn include someone else shot at, at least close to my lawn. And if someone got shot on my lawn, i would still plead for "not guilty" and hope to get through with it.
She was stupid enough to go for the deal, not with a killer, but with the evil "content mafia", but still, she isn't throwing those takedown notices at her innocent co-pirates by herself, but the "content mafia" is. And as already said, several times by now, she is still to blame and hold responsible for her stupidity of signing that stupid contract to the evil, stupid "content mafia", but that won't change the facts into what you make it sound like.
You may interpret and publish it every way you like, that's part of the right of free press, which is a good thing of course, but, though it was and still is often a point of discussion, i learned in my studies of journalism, that as a good journalist, you should always stick to the facts (in short).

And suddenly, to break up the mad ramblings of people not reading the thread, and the people correcting the people that didn't read the thread:

*yaarrr harr me mates*

 

[Robert Ewing]

*takes off glasses. Puts hand over face* SIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Seriously though, what the hell is going on.

 

[rbstewart7263]

shes quite pretty.

 

[GenGenners]

Let me get this straight......
This Pirate Party wants to not just allow, but ENCOURAGE everyone to copy anything they want. They think IP's are horrible and copyright is an evil worthy of breaking the tinfoil hats out for?

Did I fall into a parallel anti-Earth or something? Do they even know why these things exist in the first place? Do they even know how the world works????

No, you're not in a parallel earth. It's a party of people that believe that information should be freely available and that DIGITAL piracy should not be criminalized in any way. Which I can actually get behind.

However, just because they're advocating it doesn't make it any less illegal.

Piracy is still piracy though, digital or otherwise. It's just the same thing distributed in a different format. I don't see why they think it deserves special treatment.

 

[Dastardly]

Pirate Party Politician Fights Piracy (Of Her Book)

Actually, it sounds to me like it's her publisher fighting it. She, as the article even mentions, doesn't own the rights to the book at the moment.

The publisher put the book out there, but it doesn't necessarily mean they believe its message. They advanced her the money and they want to earn it back... but it doesn't seem to me like she is leading this charge. It seems more likely that they put her name on the order, since really she doesn't have any legal ground to do so herself.

We can argue that she shouldn't have gotten into bed with a publisher to begin with, but we might do well to consider that copyright protection is just one of the services a publisher offers. Self-publishing is all well-and-good, but for folks just starting out, publishers can offer tons of help:

1. getting the book finished
2. making it look nice
3. getting it distributed
4. advertising it

All of that stuff is self-pay for the self-published, and you're probably not sitting on a thousands-deep rolodex of contacts to draw from. It's clear that she negotiated a ten-year term to return copyright, which means she's not in it for the standard lifelong haul.

I think it's an oversimplification to brand her a hypocrite here (and that's from a guy who despises the piracy hypocrisy).

 

[Strazdas]

Let me get this straight......
This Pirate Party wants to not just allow, but ENCOURAGE everyone to copy anything they want. They think IP's are horrible and copyright is an evil worthy of breaking the tinfoil hats out for?

Did I fall into a parallel anti-Earth or something? Do they even know why these things exist in the first place? Do they even know how the world works????

obviuosly more than you. Copyright is not bad. The way copyright has been used in the world for the last, say, 30 years is a spawn of evil and must be destroyed at all costs.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

I think I'll put some of this irony in the fridge for later, it's so damn delicious I can't quite manage all of it right now.

But where will you store all the excess hypocrisy if your fridge is full of irony?

 

[GenGenners]

Let me get this straight......
This Pirate Party wants to not just allow, but ENCOURAGE everyone to copy anything they want. They think IP's are horrible and copyright is an evil worthy of breaking the tinfoil hats out for?

Did I fall into a parallel anti-Earth or something? Do they even know why these things exist in the first place? Do they even know how the world works????

obviuosly more than you. Copyright is not bad. The way copyright has been used in the world for the last, say, 30 years is a spawn of evil and must be destroyed at all costs.

Then they should attack the abusers of copyright, or facilitate the advancement of correct copyright usage, not try to kill the idea of copyright itself. It's like a doctor cutting off your leg to stop your foot hurting because, well, at least your foot won't hurt anymore, right?

 

[tzimize]

BWAH HAH HAH HAH HAH!

Sorry, when I first read the title, I was just thinking to myself "Please all that is Holy let this be what I think it is!"

For once, I am not disappointed.

I'm not sure if this bit of news has therefore reduced or restored some of my faith in humanity.

Aaaand that many posts is how many it took before (some) people got the picture. Title of article is misleading, text of article is mediocre at best. I expect better from this site. The escapist is a serious website. Right?

Also, it annoys me that so many people can read this article (or the headline only maybe...) and not read between the lines.

 

[Stu35]

Warning. Title is Missleading.

She's not the one issuing the take down reports. Her publisher, whom she sold the copyrights to is.

Still a bit hypocritical, but not as much as the title implies.

I feel that this can't be quoted enough given that 4 pages in people are still relishing the "irony" of this situation with all the glee of jackals who have come across a wounded pregnant gazelle.


Of course, it is a little bit funny that this has happened, and it can't reflect well on the Pirate Party as a whole.

 

[Caverat]

She is still technically a pirate.

After all, she put aside her morality and principles for self serving greed like any other pirate.

/flameshield on

Also, your use of truthbeams is super effective.

 

[Something Amyss]

you can have somebody killed for about a tenth of what Schramm got for her book, after all

...Do you have first-hand experience with this?

I always wonder why in the age of instant information people think they can get away with such obvious hypocrisy. I think it is probably down to the human nature of people getting all worked up about something, and then forgetting it a week later to get worked up about something else. People can get away with it simply because people move onto the next big thing.

People don't care that much in the first place, really. It's not so much people are hopping to the next big thing, it's just that people don't pay attention to this sort of thing at all.

 

[Something Amyss]

It's like a doctor cutting off your leg to stop your foot hurting because, well, at least your foot won't hurt anymore, right?

It's also kind of like trying to abolish murder laws because they fail to put away all murderers.

It's also worth noting that she still sold the property for a hefty sum, placing value on intellectual property and giving the rights of the content to another. This is kind of the antithesis of combatting the evils of intellectual property. She is expecting everyone else to live by this code, but okay, she can totally disregard it.

Reminds me of morality issues in the US.

 

[Strazdas]

Let me get this straight......
This Pirate Party wants to not just allow, but ENCOURAGE everyone to copy anything they want. They think IP's are horrible and copyright is an evil worthy of breaking the tinfoil hats out for?

Did I fall into a parallel anti-Earth or something? Do they even know why these things exist in the first place? Do they even know how the world works????

obviuosly more than you. Copyright is not bad. The way copyright has been used in the world for the last, say, 30 years is a spawn of evil and must be destroyed at all costs.

Then they should attack the abusers of copyright, or facilitate the advancement of correct copyright usage, not try to kill the idea of copyright itself. It's like a doctor cutting off your leg to stop your foot hurting because, well, at least your foot won't hurt anymore, right?

they tried. the response was even worse coypright laws and ACTA/SOPA ect

 

[ThatDarnCoyote]

Not sure why she did what she did.

I can think of 100,000 reasons why.

All the complaints that blame the publisher miss an important point. Namely, that a prominent member of a political organization that almost exclusively focuses on copyright issues is now pretending (after cashing the fat check) that she was too stupid to understand the nature of the fairly standard copyright contract she was signing.

She'd probably be better off admitting to hypocrisy.