Did anyone ever get to save/archive his stories? Help would be greatly appericiated.
Did anyone ever get to save/archive his stories? Help would be greatly appericiated.
Since he specifically asked for his stories to be withdrawn, I think we should respect his wishes. I do have several saved, but in this instance consider sharing them would be wrong.
I know it is always going to be a contentious issue since he did it quietly and without warning, but he will have had his reasons to remove them.
Since he specifically asked for his stories to be withdrawn, I think we should respect his wishes. I do have several saved, but in this instance consider sharing them would be wrong.
I know it is always going to be a contentious issue since he did it quietly and without warning, but he will have had his reasons to remove them.
Unfortunately, those "valid reasons" often involve religious proscriptions by a new spouse, who'll often insist an author burn and disassociate themselves from their previous lives. :(
Getting religion has resulted in a lot of books over the years.
Since he specifically asked for his stories to be withdrawn, I think we should respect his wishes. I do have several saved, but in this instance consider sharing them would be wrong.
I know it is always going to be a contentious issue since he did it quietly and without warning, but he will have had his reasons to remove them.
I understand your point of view but would argue what a reader owes the authors is not to post the story elsewhere on the Web EDIT TO ADD: without permission, not to claim the story as the reader's own, and not to sell the story.
Beyond that, I think it's fair for the reader to do whatever he or she wants to do with the story, including sharing it offline with others who ask. I admit even that sharing is iffy-does the reader make it available to anyone who asks on a public forum? Is that distinguishable from posting it somewhere directly?
The line is a thin one, perhaps vanishingly so, although I think it matters whether the entire transaction takes place offline and privately between the reader and the requestor, or online in a public forum.
I don't think the motive for the author's action is relevant, even if the author proceeds to post the stories for sale.
bb
I don't think the motive for the author's action is relevant, even if the author proceeds to post the stories for sale.
It might be if the author no longer wants to be associated with the story, or no longer thinks the story is worth considering. If they switch to writing life affirming religious tracks, why would they want their old porn tracks lying around?
My line in the sand is: if a reader once possessed the file, and lost it, then I'll consider loaning him mine since he previously owned it but no longer does due to technical issues. But when an author removes a story, that means he no longer wants anyone to read it. Period!
By the way, just to avoid crossing a line, let's not suggest trading files on the forum. If someone admits they have the story in question, send him a private message rather than listing how many times he's been asked to violate someone's copyright.
But when an author removes a story, that means he no longer wants anyone to read it. Period!
I think that's a huge assumption.
Perhaps the author no longer wants an audit trail from the story, in which case they wouldn't care about off-line sharing.
AJ
It might be if the author no longer wants to be associated with the story, or no longer thinks the story is worth considering. If they switch to writing life affirming religious tracks, why would they want their old porn tracks lying around?
I understand wanting to respect what you think are the author's wishes, but I'm still not persuaded they are controlling. After all, if the author publishes a print book and it sells, are readers who bought the book obliged to destroy it when the author withdraws it from sale? Not lend it to a friend?
I don't know the answer for sure, but the whole motive thing I think is a little squishy. Ernest's copyright argument is a better one, but still not controlling. EDIT TO ADD: I think a significant issue is what you do with the copy: keep it to savor it at home, or post it somewhere else? Home, OK. Posting, no.
bb
I understand wanting to respect what you think are the author's wishes, but I'm still not persuaded they are controlling. After all, if the author publishes a print book and it sells, are readers who bought the book obliged to destroy it when the author withdraws it from sale? Not lend it to a friend?
Laws concerning print book sales are clear, laws concerning ebooks are less so, simply because the courts (and corporations selling them) view them as being outside all 'fair use' doctrine.
With print books, if you buy a physical item, you own it and can do anything you want with it other than copying or republishing it. With ebooks, most corporate sellers attempt to restrict what you can legally do with them by insisting on 'rental models' which specify you only 'borrow' the book and that it can be revoked anytime the corporation wants to remove it. The only time that's been enforced, by Apple, the fallout was terrible and it's never been enforced since, but the legal argument continues to be championed.
The principal behind print copies supports the 'restoring legally purchased copies' argument (though if you lose a print book, you're forced to purchase another, while you aren't restricted from purchasing another used copy).
However, if an author wants to unpublish a book (as opposed to a publisher decided to not renew a book) is more an expression of artistic integrity. As a result, you shouldn't be forced to throw away legally purchased books, but readers should be restricted from giving copies of the book away, as it flies in the face of what the author wants done with his work.
Arguing that authors may secretly want you to steal books doesn't fly, unless the author contacted you personally and authorized the transfer of his book (though a few authors actually offer their books for free on torrent sites in order to promote subsequent book sales).
Laws concerning print book sales are clear, laws concerning ebooks are less so
Many countries treat e-books the same as print books and computer software. If you have a legal copy you can use it or resell it, but you can't resell it and still use it. Thus, if I've got a copy of an e-book I can hand that on to another, but must delete it from my system when I do hand it on, unless I have legal multiple copies - ie bought a few or they're free.
Laws concerning print book sales are clear, laws concerning ebooks are less so, simply because the courts (and corporations selling them) view them as being outside all 'fair use' doctrine.
You are wrong here. 'fair use' is the wrong doctrine. The 'first sale' doctrine is what you are looking for.
You are wrong here. 'fair use' is the wrong doctrine. The 'first sale' doctrine is what you are looking for.
Except, many publishers (including Amazon) refuse to allow you to pass an ebook from one owner to another (i.e. you're physically restricted from selling or giving it away).
Amazon has a check box whether you, as the author, will allow books to be given to someone else, or how many people can 'share' a book (typically either 0 or 1).
Except, many publishers (including Amazon) refuse to allow you to pass an ebook from one owner to another (i.e. you're physically restricted from selling or giving it away).
True, that goes against the first sale doctrine, but it has absolutely nothing to do with fair use.
In other words, you had the facts basically correct but named the wrong legal doctrine.
In other words, you had the facts basically correct but named the wrong legal doctrine.
Sue me. 'D I know legal basics, but only enough detail to get me in trouble. I can (generally) review legal documents, but don't know legal terms and procedure enough to adequately write legal documents. That's why they hire lawyers.
I know legal basics, but only enough detail to get me in trouble.
Given that you self publish books for money, it would probably be worth your time to learn more about copyright law.
But if you aren't willing to invest that time, you really shouldn't get so defense when someone who knows a bit more corrects you when you make a misstatement about copyright law.
But if you aren't willing to invest that time, you really shouldn't get so defense when someone who knows a bit more corrects you when you make a misstatement about copyright law.
Sorry, I didn't intend to come across harshly. I was just arguing that I understood the concepts, but that I didn't feel guilty for attributing it to the wrong law. As long as I understand what I can and can't do, I really don't care whether I'm quoting the right legal principal. All I'm interested in is if I'm doing the correct thing, or something that'll land me in trouble.
As I said, I'm not attempting to earn a legal degree, all I'm trying to do is to get by in a continually more litigious world.
Beyond that, I think it's fair for the reader to do whatever he or she wants to do with the story, including sharing it offline with others who ask. I admit even that sharing is iffy-does the reader make it available to anyone who asks on a public forum? Is that distinguishable from posting it somewhere directly?
The main reason many don't pass along copies of another's work without their explicit permission is it's against the copyright laws, no matter how you do it. So it makes sense not to claim to be breaking the law in a public forum.
Beyond that, I think it's fair for the reader to do whatever he or she wants to do with the story, including sharing it offline with others who ask.
Sharing with anyone in any medium while retaining a copy of yourself is a violation of copyright law.
Yes, you can do just about anything you want with a legally obtained copy of a story as long as you treat it like a dead tree book. The minute you do something with it that you couldn't do with a dead tree book you are probably violating copyright law.
What copyright protects, is the right to make additional copies.
With a dead tree book you can give it to a friend, or even a complete stranger, but if you do so, you don't have it yourself anymore.
With a story on digital media, if you make a new copy and give that copy to someone else, you are squarely in violation of copyright law.
I would only use them personally, i was a big fan of his stories, that is why i was hoping someone might have them.
Well at least it seems that I am learning a lot about law...
And from lawyers, too! I'm a lawyer. So's my cat.
bb
And from lawyers, too! I'm a lawyer. So's my cat.
bb Come on, have some realism.
Who would want a lawyer who is known to be a pussy in court :0)
Who would want a lawyer who is known to be a pussy in court :0)
Pussies have wiles, you know?
bb
Who would want a lawyer who is known to be a pussy in court :0)
any divorcee paying for both sides would be happy to pay for the other side to have such a lawyer.
Laws regarding copyright and file transfers are pretty messy, different everywhere, partially untested, and mostly kludged together from decades old legislation that doesn't really take modern usage into account. I'm sure that a decent lawyer could make just about any argument that you'd like, pro or con, about distributing an author's files.
Whether the author has taken the files off the site, though, is probably irrelevant. In publishing, letting a book fall out of print does not affect copyright, nor does it prevent a sufficiently motivated (and well financed) fan from finding a copy. I can't imagine that internet release would be any different; if anything I'd expect it to be more open. Once a story has been released to the internet it should be considered available in perpetuity.
You might be able to make an argument regarding the format of the stories, however. Those of YT's stories which were released on Usenet are basically publicly available and are going to be in a lot of online archives. Stories released in web formats, such as on SOL, won't be as widely distributed, but they'll still be around. Ebook formats you could probably argue are protected, especially in cases where they have only ever been available behind pay-walls.
In the case of YT's stories, though, that still might not count. To my knowledge, he never actually sold the stories on pay sites, nor did he make special ebook releases of his stories. The download options for his stories were simply a result of SOL's system allowing Premium members to download stories in Kindle & epub formats. Since Premium membership can be earned without spending money, and since the fee is for the site not the story, I suspect that even those files would be fine to transfer.
Generally I feel that anything released to the internet in any form, especially any free form, will be available eternally to anyone who wants it. The only real question is how much effort someone is willing to put into finding an item. I'd agree that it might be worth trying to expunge something in cases where the poster could be reasonably expected to be unaware of the ramifications, such as teens posting sexual content, but that's a moral and legal issue which I'm not sure could actually be done technologically.
As to the specific question posed by demunics2, the big problem is going to be quantity. Young Thinker was a very prolific author with over 200 stories on SOL. Even if someone does have all of them, and is willing to share, it's not like someone can just email you a couple of files.
Generally I feel that anything released to the internet in any form, especially any free form, will be available eternally to anyone who wants it. The only real question is how much effort someone is willing to put into finding an item.
If nothing else, there's always the Way Back Machine (I forget the web address for it). Basically, it's a repository of websites, so you can extract anything released years ago but that's no longer publicly available. Thus you're right, once posted online, it never actually goes away, it just gets harder to track down. That doesn't take into account the author's intent (i.e. their reasons for taking the story down). Unlike a print book going out of print, an author has to physically pull a story to remove it from an existing website, meaning he'd prefer (for whatever reason) for it to no longer be available online. Call me old fashioned, but I tend to respect the author's implied intent (either stated or unstated).
A couple people have found stories on the way back machine here in the forum, so hopefully they can provide a pointer for it.
A couple people have found stories on the way back machine here in the forum, so hopefully they can provide a pointer for it.
Google is your friend, sometimes.
https://archive.org/web/
Google is your friend, sometimes.
But then, laziness is king (which allows the corrupt to run free!)
Wasnt even thinking about emails and such. I was hoping there would be someone who might have uploaded them to some type of cloud. Like the google drive etc.
storiesonline.net is found on the Wayback Machine, but the archive SOL login screen doesn't actually communicate with the database, so you can't access the story content. Pity.
Exactly, I had already tried this. Oh well it was worth a try, thanks anyways to everyone who voiced their opinions, and also those who tried to help.