E-Reads
E-Reads Blog Featured Titles eBook Download Store Contact Us
Browse Titles Categories Authors FAQs About Us
Menu Graphic
Menu Graphic

Looking for a good book to read?

If you're looking for an old favorite or a lost “gem,” many long out-of-print titles by popular authors are finally available again. Every week, we feature a handful of titles from the hundreds on our site. Be sure to check out the latest featured titles!

Menu Graphic
Menu Graphic


Categories
More...


Search







MobiPocket

Fictionwise.com

Sony Connect

Baen Books

eReader.com

Amazon Kindle



RSS Feed

Richard Curtis on Publishing in the 21st Century

Monday, February 22, 2010

We Have Met the Enemy and He is The Real Caterpillar

  • He's ripped off hundreds of books.
  • He can rip yours off in five minutes. It's so easy even a caveman can do it.
  • He painstakingly proofreads the books he steals.
  • He has ethical and moral standards. And a conscience...of sorts.
  • Though piracy's toll is in the billions of dollars, he thinks the crime is overrated.
  • But he admits it's a crime.
That's a thumbnail profile of a book pirate. I've condensed it from an astounding interview with one conducted by C. Max Magee on his website "The Millions".

After pondering the phenomenon of book piracy, a crime estimated to drain over $3 billion annually from legitimate copyright owners, Magee decided the best way to understand it was to ask a practitioner. "Who are the people downloading these books? How are they doing it and where is it happening? And, perhaps most critical for the publishing industry, why are people deciding to download books and why now? I decided to find out. After a few hours of searching – stalled by a number dead links and password protected sites – I found, on an online forum focused on sharing books via BitTorrent, someone willing to talk."

The perpetrator's handle is "The Real Caterpillar" and, as is so often the case, he is far from a noble Robin Hood. "He lives in the Midwest," writes Magee, "he’s in his mid-30s and is a computer programmer by trade. By some measures, he’s the publishing industry’s ideal customer, an avid reader who buys dozens of books a year and enthusiastically recommends his favorites to friends. But he’s also uploaded hundreds of books to file sharing sites and he’s downloaded thousands."

Here are a few revelations in his own words:
  • I generally only upload content that I have scanned, with some exceptions. I have been out of the book scene for a while, concentrating on rare and out of print movies instead of books because it is much easier to rip a movie from VHS or DVD than to scan and proof a book
  • I do not pretend that uploading or downloading unpurchased electronic books is morally correct, but I do think it is more of a grey area than some of your readers may
  • Just because someone downloads a file, it does not mean they would have bought the product I think this is the key fact that many people in the music industry ignore – a download does not translate to a lost sale
  • In truth, I think it is clear that morally, the act of pirating a product is, in fact, the moral equivalent of stealing…however, I feel the impact of e-piracy is overrated, at least in terms of ebooks
  • I’ve spent anywhere from 5 to 40 hours proofing the OCR output
And, finally: "In truth, I think it is clear that morally, the act of pirating a product is, in fact, the moral equivalent of stealing… although that nagging question of what the person who has been stolen from is missing still lingers."

Two persons mentioned by Caterpillar as having been stolen from are Mark Helprin and Harlan Ellison. Both have published privacy or anti-piracy statements on their websites. You may read Helprin's here but it says in part: "You agree to comply with all copyright laws worldwide in your use of this site and to prevent any unauthorized copying of the materials." Ellison's is an all-caps fist-shaking no-prisoners Jeremiad which you may read in its entirety here. Here's a taste:

A HOST OF SELF-SERVING INDIVIDUALS SEEM TO THINK THAT THEY CAN ALLOW THE DISSEMINATION OF WRITERS’ WORK ON THE INTERNET WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION, AND WITHOUT PAYMENT, UNDER THE BANNER OF “FAIR USE” OR THE IDIOT SLOGAN “INFORMATION MUST BE FREE.” A WRITER’S WORK IS NOT INFORMATION: IT IS OUR CREATIVE PROPERTY, OUR LIVELIHOOD AND OUR FAMILIES’ ANNUITY. WHY SHOULD ANY ARTIST, OF ANY KIND, CONTINUE CREATING NEW WORK, EKING OUT AN EXISTENCE IN PURSUIT OF A CAREER, FOLLOWING THE MUSE, WHEN LITTLE INTERNET THIEVES, RODENTS WITHOUT ETHIC OR UNDERSTANDING, STEAL AND STEAL AND STEAL, CONVENIENCING THEMSELVES AND “SCREW THE AUTHOR”? WHAT WE’RE LOOKING AT IS THE DEATH OF THE PROFESSIONAL WRITER!

Caterpillar laughs at them. "One thing that will definitely not change anyone’s mind or inspire them to stop," he says, "are polemics from people like Mark Helprin and Harlan Ellison – attitudes like that ensure that all of their works are available online all of the time."

For the full flavor of Magee's interview read Confessions of a Book Pirate in its entirety here.

We are Harlan Ellison's literary agents. Our e-book company is publisher of some thirty of his books. Though we cannot express ourselves as colorfully as he, we support his position completely. His work and property, the work and property of countless other authors, our own labor and investment and that of all legitimate, reputable publishers worldwide are being stolen. Those who file-share copyrighted books are receiving stolen property. We ask those who take and those who receive to consider whether there is any difference between having your literary property robbed and your purse stolen. For one victim's answer, read Are Pirate-site Downloaders Better Than Muggers, Pickpockets and Shoplifters? This Victim Doesn't Think So.

Richard Curtis

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Asked to Donate Work for Nothing, Artists Flip Google the Bird

"I should do a freebie for Google? What's the matter, do they have a tin cup and an eye patch on the street? F**K NO!"

Though none of the artists solicited to donate their work for nothing to Google Chrome actually said that, they might well have paraphrased Harlan Ellison's foaming-at-the-mouth rant against Warner Bros. and all other corporate patrons that think they're doing writers and artists a favor by displaying their work.

Canadian-based illustrator Gary Taxali's written response to Google was slightly more printable than Ellison's, but the writer would certainly agree with the graphic one issued by the artist (left). Here's what Taxali had to say:
DON’T CALL ME
In the last little while, there has been a MAJOR backslide in the industry. Poor rates have been an issue for a while but things are becoming worse. Clients fees are getting even lower and the rights theyre demanding are even higher.

You want examples? How about SWATCH calling me and asking me to design a watch. They wanted a complete transfer of copyright for a paltry fee. As if thats going to happen. Google calls me and wants my work for their new search engine all over the web, the fee? Nothing. Editorial clients are slashing 1999s fees almost in half and citing the bad economy as an excuse. You know what? My excuse is that the economy is bad so you have to pay me MORE for an illustration. Hows that for an economic stimulus package?

So heres to every client with shitty fees and terms. Do not waste my time or contact me. I am very busy working with clients who respect artists and youre wasting my time with your solicitations. So for you, I give you a special salute that I hope will keep you away because I dont need your work.
According to Andrew Adam Newman writing in the New York Times about the Taxali-inspired uprising, his posting on Drawger "drew more than 200 responses, many from other illustrators who also had rejected Google’s offer." Newman quotes another illustrator, Brian Stauffer, who also turned Google down. “When a company like Google comes out very publicly and expects that the market would just give them free artwork, it sets a very dangerous precedent.”

Sadly, there are plenty of artists who need the exposure and will take Google up on its offer.

And of course, Google may feel it needs an eye patch and tin cup. It only squeaked by the first quarter of 2009 with a $1.42 billion profit.

You can read the whole story in Newman's Use Their Work Free? Some Artists Say No to Google. You can also Catch a snatch of Ellison's fulmination on YouTube and buy it online.

Richard Curtis
PS: This posting relies on original research and reporting performed by the New York Times. I want to acknowledge the newspaper's invaluable contribution. A free society cannot endure without its newspapers. We must strive to find a way to rescue the industry. Until then the least that caring individuals can do is buy a paper on the street or purchase a subscription. Support the New York Times.

Labels: , , , , ,