Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Library.nu and Ifile.it Shut Down

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the no-books-for-you dept.

Censorship 336

Ralph Spoilsport writes "A coalition of 17 publishing companies has shut down library.nu and ifile.it, charging them with pirating ebooks. This comes less than a month after megaupload was shut down, and SOPA was stopped. If the busting of cyberlockers continues at this pace and online library sharing dismantled, this under-reported story may well be the tip of a very big iceberg — one quite beyond the P&L sheets of publishers and striking at basic human rights as outlined in the contradictions of the UN Charter. Is this a big deal — a grim coalition of corporate power? Or just mopping up some scurvy old pirates? Or somewhere in between?" Adds new submitter roaryk, "According to the complaint, the sites offered users access to 400,000 e-books and made more than $11 million in revenue in the process. The admins, Fidel Nunez and Irina Ivanova, have been tracked down using their PayPal donation account, which was not anonymous. Despite the claims of the industry the site admins say they were barely able to cover the server costs with the revenue."

cancel ×

336 comments

MegaUpload bust was highly successful (0, Flamebait)

Harry Nelson (2575925) | more than 2 years ago | (#39060825)

It's been a month now and literally every upload site has either closed down or shut down their affiliate programs that offered money for uploaders. Those who uploaded pirated material to gain money are devastated on forums and cannot find any good upload site anymore. This was highly successful bust against piracy, and rightly so.

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39060865)

Agreed. People who say that you "can't stop it so don't try" are completely wrong. You can stop most of piracy via crackdowns on the major outlets. Does it stop all of it? No, but it stops most of it. USENET will be next.

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (5, Insightful)

what2123 (1116571) | more than 2 years ago | (#39060933)

If you honestly believe what you are saying and/or are not a troll you need to get off the MegaMediaNewsSteam. I haven't heard anyone I know that still downloads their wares and were actually affected by MegaUpload going bunk. The best thing about the "pirates" is that they are extremely resourceful and have many, many different outlets to get their files. If you ask me, MegaUpload was probably the worst tool to use for this anyway. There are many more ways to get files and are just as effective. Hell, IRC was and still is better that MU.

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (5, Insightful)

Harry Nelson (2575925) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061011)

MegaUpload and similar sites were used by general population, and outright made money from copyright theft. It was very similar to selling warez on streets, they just tried to hide it behind "clever" subscription models and affiliate programs. Yes, serious pirates will always be able to get their files, but when the circle is small enough companies don't care. They care about what most of population does, and they can easily make it harder and inconvenient enough for general population.

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061193)

It was very similar to selling warez on streets,.

No, it wasn't.

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061495)

true it made a LOT more money ...

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061457)

The level of this discussion is seriously concerning...

MegaUpload & ebooks have nothing to do with each other besides being copyrighted ok?

Publishers, while evil in their own right, are nothing like the MPAA/RIAA monkeys.

Now, thinking real hard... how's library.nu different from my local public library?

Furthermore, one of the biggest arguments for music/movie piracy has been cut out the middle man (RIAA) (ex. the artist goes touring to make money and we're all the better for it), if all publishing material is free, what can the publishers do?

It's a tough situation, and it stems from the same business model as the music/movie people, perhaps we should let the government publish our media? ;)

At the very least it would give them something better to do than unconstitutional tracking of US citizens.

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061513)

devil's advocate line of thinking, as i haven't really thought all the way through this...

public library still has limited supply.
public library still has limited borrowing period.

did library.nu restrict the number of copies lent out and/or length of term?

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061601)

MegaUpload and similar sites were used by general population, and outright made money from copyright theft. It was very similar to selling warez on streets, they just tried to hide it behind "clever" subscription models and affiliate programs. Yes, serious pirates will always be able to get their files, but when the circle is small enough companies don't care. They care about what most of population does, and they can easily make it harder and inconvenient enough for general population.

You have no idea what you are talking about. We make money showing ads that non-premium members see on the "landing pages" for file downloads. Good job spouting your uninformed bullshit though. You should look at http://sibsoft.net/xfilesharing.html - that's the script 99% of us use to setup and operate file sharing sites. The ads-on-landing-pages model is already there, just plug, play, and profit.

PS: die in a fire

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061779)

MegaUpload was (to me at least) more a place where documents and other things got put by whistleblowers. There was very few pirated content on MU, it wasn't the place to go for your latest movie or video game.

Shutting down MU did more damage to whistleblowers, the Anon community and similar groups than to pirates. There was also a host of information on there that has now simply disappeared and needs to be re-uploaded elsewhere.

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39060943)

nonsense.

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061005)

It's been a month now and literally every upload site has either closed down or shut down their affiliate programs that offered money for uploaders. Those who uploaded pirated material to gain money are devastated on forums and cannot find any good upload site anymore. This was highly successful bust against piracy, and rightly so.

It doesn't change anything. People were sharing copyrighted works before the whole "cyber lockers" came online, and will continue to do so after cyber lockers are history. Really the only idiots to have suffered are those that uploaded pirate material for financial gain. Anyone that puts up a sharing system using a centralised infrastructure is a patented idiot.

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061083)

The other people who have suffered are those idiots who used those cyberlocker services to store and share their own data that they had every right to do so with.

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061229)

The other people who have suffered are those idiots who used those cyberlocker services to store and share their own data that they had every right to do so with.

Nope, all the people that put their data on a public cloud (ie an online space not controlled by the user) is a STUPID and deserves every harm possible.

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061239)

You've gotta be pretty naïve to believe that MegaUpload was a respectable site that was going to stay around for a long time and that you could trust with your files.

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (1)

Harry Nelson (2575925) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061347)

Especially since most of these sites deleted files that had no downloads during specific time frame, for example 60 days. They clearly were not meant for limited sharing of personal documents, they were looking for popular material, ie. warez.

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (3, Informative)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061275)

The people who have suffered most is those who used these services for legitimate content, and there were quite considerable numbers of people who did so... Quite a few open source projects used such sites, for instance its not uncommon to have downloaded linux based firmware images for various devices including android phones from such sites.

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061203)

The big question I hoped would be answered within a few posts, is where's a good ebook site now that those two have vanished?

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061559)

The big question I hoped would be answered within a few posts, is where's a good ebook site now that those two have vanished?

Try emule or god forbid some torrent site.

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061561)

Yeah.. now I will have to go to the library every time I find a book I need. Thanks for slowing down my research.

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061215)

Do you have a link to someone complaining they are not getting paid for uploading?

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (2)

Harry Nelson (2575925) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061449)

http://www.wjunction.com/95-file-hosts-official-support [wjunction.com]
http://www.wjunction.com/102-file-host-discussion [wjunction.com]

Everyone is afraid of being scammed by new companies because there have been so many since the busts and after every other site shutdown. And just look at the forum in general - file uploading sites have official discussions and support persons, they're clearly seeing what kind of files people are uploading and on what kind of stuff the forum specializes in (file uploads, torrent seedboxes, remote desktops for quickly obtaining new warez releases and uploading them to file upload sites and spreading those links)

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061489)

All you've done is make sure that the dark nets are... dark.

Just like the war on drugs has not had any perceptible impact on drug use, the war on piracy will simply make criminals out of people who want to read a book, but probably won't stop them from doing it.

Re:MegaUpload bust was highly successful (3, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061737)

It's not made anyone a criminal for "reading a book" this is a crackdown on a site flagrantly facilitating copyright infringement. Boohoo.

Slashdot deletes posts (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39060835)

Slashdot used to have a no-deletion / no-censorship policy. They now delete posts. And no one gives a shit.

There is a "Flag" button, the FAQ has been modified to allow deletion. And if you look at the source of this very comment page, you'll see evidence that moderators have the ability to check-mark a number of posts and click the Delete link.

Sad. Slashdot was no longer slashdot after Taco left.

Re:Slashdot deletes posts (5, Informative)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#39060997)

Pay for and run your own web site with an audience, traffic, and exposure (generally, and legally) like this, and see what you think about that subject. If nothing else, just being able to junk the spam is essential. That you think of this as censorship shows that you have no idea what the word means (and what the practice of actual censorship is). This isn't a publicly funded service, crap posts aren't deleted by the government, and dealing with what's posted here is no more censorship than is choosing which letters to the editor to include at the NYT web site.

Sad

Well, something is. Just not what you think.

Re:Slashdot deletes posts (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061301)

Freedom doesn't die because people hate freedom. Freedom dies because people hate the work and nuisance that it brings. Freedom isn't for free.

Re:Slashdot deletes posts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061453)

Freedom is hard, lets go shopping!

Re:Slashdot deletes posts (2)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061021)

It's true - sure we no longer have to endure the GNAA posts, but there were only ever a few of those per story, and they never got modded up. Seems like a solution looking for a problem.

Re:Slashdot deletes posts (4, Insightful)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061381)

The flag is so subtle that I hadn't even noticed it...

Wasn't there a big shitstorm over *one* post being deleted a few years back? I think it was due to a court order or something of the like... maybe about the HDCP keys or something? Bah.

I think the fact that posts *cannot* be deleted makes people consider what they are going to post a little more carefully. Aside from the usual spam and idiocy, I generally find the commentary here to be of a higher quality in general than places like Reddit or the comments section in other news sites. I feel that this is going to go into the shitter now.

No, it was Scientologists (4, Informative)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061749)

It was a post containing text copyrighted by the Church of Scientology, and it happened in 2001. [slashdot.org]

Re:Slashdot deletes posts (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061795)

Scientologists Force Comment Off Slashdot [slashdot.org]

Yes, that was a big deal. Yes, that story was posted by CmdrTaco. It is well worth reading, if just to see how far things have deteriorated here.

I propose an end to book sharing as well! (5, Funny)

jesseck (942036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39060893)

I've heard of these buildings, many even publicly sponsored, where books are shared, and one does not need to pay the publisher for the privilege of reading their work. I propose these houses of corruption be banned, so they stop stealing from the coffers of the rich!

Re:I propose an end to book sharing as well! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39060983)

I've heard that these places actually PAY for EVERY COPY of the books they have.

Re:I propose an end to book sharing as well! (2)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061273)

I hear most are donated by people who have read them. Do they not realize the economic devistation they are causing the public!?!

Re:I propose an end to book sharing as well! (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061337)

Even a donated book was paid for by the original owner. And most donated books don't go into circulation, they get sold to raise cash to buy books.

Re:I propose an end to book sharing as well! (3, Funny)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061015)

Does it actually hurt, physically, to make such a bad analogy? Is it sort of like passing a kidney stone?

Re:I propose an end to book sharing as well! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061081)

Does it actually hurt, physically, to make such a bad analogy? Is it sort of like passing a kidney stone?

Is it genuinely that bad an analogy or was this just your best chance to strike and attempt some smartassery? Libraries mean you need never compensate an author for his work, which is quite a lot like library.nu if we're being logical.

Re:I propose an end to book sharing as well! (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061129)

Libraries mean you need never compensate an author for his work

Why is that - because the libraries have ripped off the copies they keep on their shelves? Do they have an inside contact at the publisher who sneaks them out in a backpack during lunch?

Re:I propose an end to book sharing as well! (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061185)

A great deal of library books are donated, used books.

Re:I propose an end to book sharing as well! (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061225)

Which were still paid for by the original owner. And most donated books are not put into circulation, they are sold to raise money to buy the books they want.

Re:I propose an end to book sharing as well! (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061329)

Wasn't the original ebook (that was copied) paid for to? I'm assuming someone didn't buy the book and type it all up (oh wait, this would require having bought the real thing, nevermind). How does one get the book without it being bought in the first place? These aren't leaks, are they? Someone had to buy it first, right? Just like at the library?

Re:I propose an end to book sharing as well! (2)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061469)

Uh, OK. You may not be aware of this, but when a person donates a book, he no longer has the book! Weird, huh? Furthermore, if someone else already has the book you want, you either wait, or the library must obtain ANOTHER paid-for copy of the book. And if the library in the next town over also wants the book, it has to get its own paid-for copy.

Re:I propose an end to book sharing as well! (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061577)

Uh, OK. You may not be aware of this, but when a person donates a book, he no longer has the book!

You sure about that? [instructables.com]

Re:I propose an end to book sharing as well! (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061583)

What is your point? All you've stated is that electronic books are different than physical books. Pretty sure both of us -- and everyone reading the article and our comments -- already knew this.

(Parody: When the author sells an ebook online, he still has it, even though he sold it! Weird, huh?)

I'm still not seeing a difference here:

Library gets a copy of a physical book (originally paid for by whoever bought it first) and loans it out as many times as it wants, forever.
Electronic library gets a copy of an electronic book (originally paid for by whoever bought it first) and loans it out as many times as it wants, forever.

In both situations, someone who really wants a paid-for copy for themselves can pay for it themselves; someone who really wants to just borrow one can borrow and return/delete it; someone who really just wants to steal one can steal it with great ease (I probably have an unreturned library book somewhere.)

Main difference I'm seeing is that one kills trees and burns gasoline.

Re:I propose an end to book sharing as well! (1)

HappyHead (11389) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061353)

And yet publishers still complain about used book stores, and accuse them of being thieves. I have also seen complaints from big publishers (and one really stupid author) about their books being found in public libraries depriving them of income.

Re:I propose an end to book sharing as well! (2)

jesseck (942036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061511)

Bad analogy? It was, I admit it. What is happening today is a precursor to the end of the current library model, though. We already see this with the ebook market- publishers need to decide if their works can be lent or not on Barnes & Noble (I own a Nook, so that's what I'm familiar with). Many books cannot be lent.

Other media companies (movies, music, and gaming is starting as well) are doing their best to eliminate the second-hand markets, and to end sharing of the media with others. Academic book publishers do this by making a new edition every year or two, many times with few changes, so that the used textbook's lifespan is short. "Traditional" book publishers are / will be looking for a way to monetize their product's lifespan as well- whether it is a licensing fee libraries pay for each book checked out or higher costs for books that libraries purchase.

My initial post may have been a bad analogy, but only time will tell. The safe bet is the publishers will find a way to remain profitable, and communities like mine will continue to reduce the number of libraries and associated services.

Public lending right (4, Interesting)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061035)

Actually, in many countries authors are already compensated for the lending of their books in public libraries by a public lending right [wikipedia.org] . Although not in the U.S... I suspect if publishers tried to pull that here, they'd get some seriously negative PR.

Re:I propose an end to book sharing as well! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061041)

In EU a law is being introduced that forces libraries to pay royalties to the authors. They will get paid twice - first when the book is bought by the library, second each time a book is borrowed.

Re:I propose an end to book sharing as well! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061615)

It already works this way in the UK, and has for a long time, and it's a very good thing. The authors cut of a book sale is usually quite low (once they have paid for their advance), and the amount they are paid as a PLR (Public Lending Right) fee is tiny, fractions of a penny per book each time it is borrowed. As each book borrowed is potentially a book that the reader no longer needs to buy, it seems only fair that the author should get some recompense, even if that is only a few hundred pounds a year if their book has been read many tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of times.

Re:I propose an end to book sharing as well! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061479)

And burn their contents, so they may not be resold over and over again.

sooner or later (3, Interesting)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#39060897)

Seem like a matter of time before others join in on all the "fun". Encyclopedia Britannica sues to have Wikipedia taken down could be a future headline IMO.

Re:sooner or later (1)

Harry Nelson (2575925) | more than 2 years ago | (#39060941)

Wikipedia doesn't put works done by Encyclopedia Britannica on their site. It's completely different than having a site that allows you to download pirated ebooks.

Britannica 11th ed. Re:sooner or later (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061063)

There might still be some text from Eleventh edition (1910-1911) in there; as that is in the public domain.

Actually WP does use material from Brittanica (1)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061069)

Actually, Wikipedia does use material from Britannica. [wikipedia.org] It's just material from out-of-copyright versions of Britannica.

Re:sooner or later (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061055)

Encyclopedia Britannica sues to have Wikipedia taken down could be a future headline IMO.

So, your opinion is based on ... a complete misunderstanding of the case at hand, of Wikipedia, and of the Britannica? The Trifecta Of Not Getting It! Congratulations.

"barely able to cover the server costs" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39060945)

Wait, so you mean I can be a legal pirate if I operate non-profit?

Uhh, I'll be right back, gotta make a few phone calls.

Distributing someone else's work is NOT a right (3, Insightful)

cornicefire (610241) | more than 2 years ago | (#39060995)

Unless you have permission. It's called freedom of speech. It's for expressing your opinions. It's for communicating your thoughts. It's not for sitting on your rear end and downloading some movie without paying for it. Calling downloading a "human right" is an insult to Martin Luther King, Peter Zenger, and everyone else who fought for our right to express ourselves.

Re:Distributing someone else's work is NOT a right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061047)

Think for a moment...if we appoint adjudicators of what content is and isn't free speech, we've already lost it.

Re:Distributing someone else's work is NOT a right (4, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061149)

Think for a moment...if we appoint adjudicators of what content is and isn't free speech, we've already lost it.

Have you heard of the "courts?" They've been doing exactly that for hundreds of years. CP, for example, is not free speech. Saying a politician murdered a prostitute? Not free speech. Saying you think a politician's opinion is wrong and stupid and you would like to see him die? 100% protected free speech (yes, even the "want to see him die" part, so long as you don't encourage someone to kill him or say you are going to do it yourself).

Re:Distributing someone else's work is NOT a right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061283)

Congress shall make no law

Re:Distributing someone else's work is NOT a right (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061455)

Saying a politician murdered a prostitute? Not free speech.

Sort of. It's a civil matter of defamation, not a criminal charge, assuming that you believed that statement to be untrue.

It is, however, perfectly legal to broadcast something like "This network has found no evidence that Senator Jones killed a prostitute." even if the effect of saying such things is for most people to think that Jones killed a prostitute but was careful to hide all the evidence.

Re:Distributing someone else's work is NOT a right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061475)

Run into the nearest theater and yell FIRE!!!

Library.nu was for book piracy, not films (2)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061137)

It's not for sitting on your rear end and downloading some movie without paying for it. Calling downloading a "human right" is an insult to Martin Luther King, Peter Zenger, and everyone else who fought for our right to express ourselves.

Considering that library.nu was a site for book piracy, I think your comment is a bit misguided. Frankly, I suspect Martin Luther King would probably have been okay with someone downloading "Why We Can't Wait" from library.nu.

Re:Library.nu was for book piracy, not films (1)

Deep Esophagus (686515) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061669)

King might be OK with that, but his estate... not [ajc.com] so [slashdot.org] much [nytimes.com]

Re:Library.nu was for book piracy, not films (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061701)

It's not for sitting on your rear end and downloading some movie without paying for it. Calling downloading a "human right" is an insult to Martin Luther King, Peter Zenger, and everyone else who fought for our right to express ourselves.

Considering that library.nu was a site for book piracy, I think your comment is a bit misguided. Frankly, I suspect Martin Luther King would probably have been okay with someone downloading "Why We Can't Wait" from library.nu.

Ah, bliss. This is the same style of bullshit argument I generally hear from the pro-give-me-everything-I-want-for-free-because-I-want-it crowd. Find one minuscule, entirely irrelevant flaw in a given statement and assume that completely destroys the opposing argument. Such as:

  • "It's for expressing your opinions. It's for communicating your thoughts. It's not for sitting on your rear end and downloading some movie without paying for it." "Yeah, but TECHNICALLY, these were books. You never said anything about books. ZOMG UR ARGUMENT COMPLETELY VOIDZ0RZ!!!1!"
  • "Don't go around pirating copyrighted material. There's nothing that says you're entitled to obtain it by completely redefining the terms on-the-fly like that just so you can rationalize getting it for free." "Yeah, but TECHNICALLY, I only recognize one singular exact definition of 'pirate' and 'piracy'. Since I refuse to accept language changing and evolving for any use besides my own and nobody's come up with a single word for this which I accept ("copyright infringement" is TWO words, dumbass), I willingly have ultimately no clue what you're talking about, so what I'm doing is legal. ZOMG UR ARGUMENT COMPLETELY VOIDZ0RZ!!!1!"
  • "If you REALLY want to send a message to the RIAA/MPAA, just stop buying their stuff. Stop downloading it, stop sharing it, stop discussing it, stop bragging about it to your friends, stop all of that. Buy stuff from people who AREN'T assholes about it and help build up the independent market and break the big label/studio stranglehold, rather than give them more legal ammunition with which they can attack us." "Yeah, but TECHNICALLY, I really really really REALLY want RIAA/MPAA stuff, and since my social development and sense of responsibility stopped COLD around the time I was seven or so thanks to my hippy parents giving me whatever I wanted if I cried loud enough, I feel I'm entitled to everything I want for free. ZOMG UR ARGUMENT COMPLETELY VOIDZ0RZ!!!1!"

Re:Distributing someone else's work is NOT a right (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061143)

Distributing your own creative works IS a right, and it is being infringed upon by removing the medium of sharing in order to fight piracy.

Re:Distributing someone else's work is NOT a right (1)

Pembers (250842) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061599)

If you've written a book and want to give it away, perhaps you shouldn't distribute it (only) via a site that's used mainly for hosting or linking to pirated books. There are plenty of "show off your writing" sites that you could post it to, or you could spend a few dollars for your own hosting.

Re:Distributing someone else's work is NOT a right (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061159)

Do you have a reading comprehension defect? This site is for books. Why can I go to a library and get a book, but not download one? I have to burn gas and kill trees to read for free?

Re:Distributing someone else's work is NOT a right (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061281)

What backwater do you live in? Most libraries will let you borrow ebooks.

Re:Distributing someone else's work is NOT a right (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061339)

Inside the Washington, DC beltway. Why would I know libraries let you borrow ebooks? I've not stepped in one since I found out I could get the same content without leaving my house. Similar to a record store.

Re:Distributing someone else's work is NOT a right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061343)

The physical book was paid for.

Re:Distributing someone else's work is NOT a right (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061651)

The original downloaded ebook was paid for.

Re:Distributing someone else's work is NOT a right (1)

Pionar (620916) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061413)

And what makes you think free access to books is a right?

Freedom of speech doesn't include freedom to free (as in beer) access to someone's writings.

Re:Distributing someone else's work is NOT a right (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061525)

I refer you to the original comment I made, which you did not answer. If you can answer that question, then I will proceed to the next step of the discussion. Why can I go to a library and get a book, but not download one? (And actually, where I live, everyone does have a right to a library card, which gives them free access to books. And don't say the taxes pay it, because you don't have to be a taxpaying citizen to get a library card, just a citizen, period.)

Re:Distributing someone else's work is NOT a right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061171)

you can express yourself, and someone can read what you've written, but by god that person better not share what you've written with anyone else or we will send the swat teams after them.

I borrowed a newspaper today (4, Insightful)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 2 years ago | (#39060999)

I borrowed a newspaper today. I didn't pay for it, but I still read it.
Also, I have 3 books at home which aren't mine (borrowed, not stolen).

Basically, that's at least 30 euro of lost revenue for the industry.

Yet I don't feel guilty...

Re:I borrowed a newspaper today (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061031)

I borrowed a newspaper today. I didn't pay for it, but I still read it.
Also, I have 3 books at home which aren't mine (borrowed, not stolen).

Basically, that's at least 30 euro of lost revenue for the industry.

Yet I don't feel guilty...

30? More like 3 million. Thats how piracy works, haven't you been paying attention?

Re:I borrowed a newspaper today (-1, Troll)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061099)

I have 3 books at home which aren't mine

And did you scan them, run them through OCR, and then make some money off of "sharing" them with millions of your closest personal friends? No?

So, your point is that you have no sense of what the discussion is actually about, right? Right.

Re:I borrowed a newspaper today (2)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061399)

And did you scan them, run them through OCR, and then make some money off of "sharing" them with millions of your closest personal friends? No?

I read them, and I "paid" by giving some books to my friends in return. So yeah, it's actually quite an organization we've set up here. And it's decentralized p2p too. :-)

But if you imagine that millions of people are all doing this, you can get an idea of the huge damage to the industry. I'm only a small player. There are people who own and read way more books than I do.

So, your point is that you have no sense of what the discussion is actually about, right? Right.

Don't mock my comment. I know what I am talking about. We're talking about billions of euros/dollars... stolen from the industry by book-sharing people. And they've been at it for centuries!

Re:I borrowed a newspaper today (1)

oPless (63249) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061595)

[Snip]There are people who own and read way more books than I do.

So, your point is that you have no sense of what the discussion is actually about, right? Right.

Don't mock my comment. I know what I am talking about. We're talking about billions of euros/dollars... stolen from the industry by book-sharing people. And they've been at it for centuries!

Oh Wait, there's those things called Libraries! Burn them down immediately!

Re:I borrowed a newspaper today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061351)

Newspapers don't make their money off people buying a copy of the paper, they make it off advertising. The more people that read it the better.

Re:I borrowed a newspaper today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061383)

Passing a single physical copy of something from one person to another is rather different to duplicating it indefinitely and then potentially millions of people having simultaneous access to it.

It's a difficult concept to grasp I know.

Its about more than piracy (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061163)

I cant help but wonder how much money the people behind ACTA/SOPA/PIPPA/MAFIAA are spending to get these sites taken down. Its got to cost some pretty big bucks to collaborate it all across nations and political boundaries. What's the payout for them?

Re:Its about more than piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061509)

You are assuming those organizations are paying and not the (mostly innocent) taxpayers in those nations.

Re:Its about more than piracy (1)

jesseck (942036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061563)

What's the payout for them?

Our freedoms

Re:Its about more than piracy (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061691)

What's the payout for them?

I would assume donations from the concerned parties.

Why is it... (2)

qzjul (944600) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061261)

Why is it that I never hear about these places until they close?

lib.ru? (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061271)

It is still online, and we are still happy to have it. You guys, i really wish you best luck shutting it down.

Farenheight 451 (1)

tekrat (242117) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061359)

Bradbury was right on target.

But the firemen don't need to burn paper books, they just need to wipe your kindle (of 1984, if I recall (in great irony)), close down the websites and prevent your iPad from accessing anything outside the walled garden.

How long before Publishers and the RIAA are hunting down camps of vagrants, people who recite to others "I am The Grapes of Wrath" or "I am The Beatles" ?

We are headed for some dark times. They didn't have to burn our books. Instead, they gave us electronic toys, and we burned the books for them.... And they control the electronic toys. So now we are screwed.

Re:Farenheight 451 (1)

afaiktoit (831835) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061621)

http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6450954.html [schoollibraryjournal.com] "The author, interviewed last week by the L.A. Weekly, says the novel is actually about how television destroys interest in reading literature."

Just more proof... (2)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061389)

This is just further proof that existing IP laws are sufficient and we don't NEED draconian measures like SOPA or ACTA to stop piracy.

The laws are there. They can be enforced without censorship and stepping all over peoples' rights.

Re:Just more proof... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061729)

Actually this is more proof that our IP laws are absolutely corrupt and one sided. That there is VERY little judicial oversight and that the power is flowing only one way. It is not serving the interests of the public, it is not fostering small business creation or innovation, it is giving corporations the power they need to squash any and all competition and cement their place in the business hierarchy. AWESOME!

Cognitive dissonance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061521)

Paypal bad!

But ... we think Bitcoin is bad too!

Although Bitcoin would have saved these guys ...

Enter the Readeasy. (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061541)

Overlapping circles of people who share books.

The thing about forcing certain goods and services into the area outside the law is that if enough people want those goods and services, it becomes socially acceptable to ignore the law. This both weakens the law in general (and thus the fabric of a government of laws) while at the same time turning the law into a tool of oppression for those in power.

It happened during prohibition. It happened during the war on drugs. And now it's going to happen in this war on piracy.

Money doesn't add up (1)

shuz (706678) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061557)

Making up educated numbers here but you should be able to push a metric shit ton of traffic for 11 million annually.
~40k per month for an OC3 line 155Mbps.
I'll give you a million for your storage solution.
About 1.2mil for ~2000 or so CPU's and a terabyte of active memory worth of servers.
Figure 100k a sysadmin. Would be a good idea to not have a admin to cpu ratio higher than 1:250 so that nearly a million there
You need cooling and a place to house the servers. I'll give you another million.
Oh networking, ya that is another cool million. Oh you are going with Cisco? maybe a bit more.

I feel that I am really stretching it here but I don't see how hosting costs for a pretty big operation even come close to 11 million. Now the expensive parts are support and app dev but I don't see how a hosting service would need to change or create a complex app. I keep on forgetting "administrative costs" aka a couple people skimming the cream off the top for relatively little effort aka executive management. That is most likely where the other 4 mil went. Hey CEO's have to eat too you know!

good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39061567)

data belongs to the people who created it. I'm all for DRM and these kinds of busts.

--
BMO

Library analogy (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061619)

Library gets a copy of a physical book (originally paid for by whoever bought it first) and loans it out as many times as it wants, forever.

Electronic library gets a copy of an electronic book (originally paid for by whoever bought it first) and loans it out as many times as it wants, forever.

In both situations, someone who really wants a paid-for copy for themselves can pay for it themselves; someone who really wants to just borrow one can borrow and return/delete it; someone who really just wants to steal one can steal it with great ease (I probably have an unreturned library book somewhere.)

Main difference I'm seeing is that one kills trees and burns gasoline.

They're thiefs.... sorry (3, Insightful)

Temujin_12 (832986) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061711)

If you copy media you purchased, you're smart.

If you copy media you didn't purchase, you're cheap.

If you copy media you didn't purchase AND you make a profit off of it, you're a thief.

We do have to be careful that this doesn't turn into a slippery slope but, c'mon, making a profit off of other artists material which you don't have the rights to is just good old fashioned stealing no matter how you slice it.

Oh great... (2)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 2 years ago | (#39061719)

These were absolutely essential for my scientific work, because I'm living in a very poor country and (if at all) academic publishers only allow authors to put papers and book drafts on their web page that cannot be used for quoting.

Now I'm really, really getting angry! As if Springer books priced at $150 or even $240 plus months of complicated ordering by the university to our library weren't already painful enough.

Thanks a lot, all you IP-property assholes. Eat shit and die!!!

(And yes, I have also published books including typesetting them in their entirety in LaTeX because the publisher was too lazy/saves costs/rips off academics. And no, I haven't seen a dime for any of this work...)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...