Just trying here. Does anyone have a link to or a full copy of this story. I know the author largely deleted it for personal reasons, but I would still like to read the full version.
Just trying here. Does anyone have a link to or a full copy of this story. I know the author largely deleted it for personal reasons, but I would still like to read the full version.
This has come up several times before.believe it is now called Abeautifull mess by Ken Randall
The op is looking for the original version, not the edited-down version you are referring to.
The original was pulled by the author. At last, I had the original until my hard drive crashed. However, there are several people that has the original and have emailed it to interested people. So, you might get lucky and still me able to get a copy.
I know this was discussed before, but I don't know if we ever got a consensus opinion. If an author has pulled a story, is it still okay to share it, or is that frowned upon?
If an author has pulled a story, is it still okay to share it, or is that frowned upon?
Hmmm,
let's have a look how it's with a printed book:
I can give away or resell any book I own. Why the book isn't available any more doesn't matter. The author or his estate might refuse to republish it; the publisher who has still the rights might've decided a small print run isn't profitable enough; ...
All this doesn't affect my right to give away my (printed) copy.
Now with an electronic copy there is a difference. If I move the file to another persons storage it's – to me – the same as when I give away my printed copy. If I retain the file and give another just a copy it's as illegal as when I use a photocopier to copy my printed book to give it away.
There is another thing I can do with a printed book as far as I don't do it commercially: I can lend it to another person for reading. I don't know how to do this with an ebook.
HM.
Helmut, that was well reasoned, but in the electronic age one has to take a reasonable stance on ownership.
Just spitballing here....
If someone has freely shared a product, whether it is a story or a photo, then there is no legal standing to then retract that product and refuse to allow it to continue being shared. You cannot retroactively claim strict ownership rights to a product freely given.
Yes, the owner retains copyright protections and you cannot sell it, nor could you use a photo, for instance, in a commercial endeavour, without permission, but the free use of a freely distributed work? The author is out of luck.
Now the question is, how does that apply with websites like SOL? It is my contention that if the story was posted here for the average reader, and not behind the paywall, the author had limited expectation that they would retain control of each copy of the story in whole or in part. I think that expectation would depend on the webmaster here and how his TOS is set up, no?
If they had posted it on Alt.sex.stories, for example, they would have absolutely no expectation of control and no recourse.
I know this was discussed before, but I don't know if we ever got a consensus opinion. If an author has pulled a story, is it still okay to share it, or is that frowned upon?
It's against the law to give away copies without the prior permission of the copyright owner, and they have a right to sue you for damages - what extent applies to the amount they can get varies with the legal jurisdiction involved due to variations in the local law. However, that does not stop some people from sharing copies without permission, they just do it unlawfully and it's the person doing the sharing that's breaking the law, not the recipient.
Some people claim that because it was once free to view it should be OK to share it, but that is not the case either legally or morally. If I own a great statue and I place it in my front yard for a month to let my neighbours share in the wonder of it then I move it into my lounge room, the neighbours do not have a right to come and look at it without my permission just because I once put it on public display. That same basic concept applies to material posted on the internet.
Public display can be cancelled by the owner at any time they wish to cancel it.
If I own a great statue and I place it in my front yard for a month to let my neighbours share in the wonder of it then I move it into my lounge room, the neighbours do not have a right to come and look at it without my permission just because I once put it on public display.
Ok, now let's say you owned a great painting which you put on display and let people photograph. Then you remove the painting from public view. Do you honestly think people would or should stop sharing their photographs of it with their friends? Note, sharing 1 to 1, not printing copies, uploading to a site etc.
I tend to err on the stricter side of copyright. BUT a certain amount of leeway has to be accepted. Sharing a copy 1 to 1 is not the same as uploading someones work because they no longer appear to be active etc etc.
Consider the statue in your private collection gifted to a university or public library by your estate. Is that breach of copyright?
Do you honestly think people would or should stop sharing their photographs of it with their friends? Note, sharing 1 to 1, not printing copies, uploading to a site etc.
Which is part of why the majority of art museums ban photography.
Sharing a copy 1 to 1 is not the same as uploading someones work because they no longer appear to be active etc etc.
In the eyes of the law/courts, yes, they are the same in kind, if they differ, it's only in degree (number of copies shared).
Consider the statue in your private collection gifted to a university or public library by your estate. Is that breach of copyright?
No, that's no different than giving away a physical copy of a legally produced book or a painting. The fist sale doctrine says that the authors interest in any given physical copy is exhausted with the first sale. But, the no matter how many times it is transferred, the owner of the physical copy does not gain the right to make new copies.
Creating a copy of the statue on the other hand, so you have the statue and the university / public library has the statue would indeed be a breech of copyright.
Which is part of why the majority of art museums ban photography.
Most of the reason is that standard flash photography damages pigments in the paint, especially in older, egg based colors.
I may be wrong, but, unless a copier accepts money for the copy of a work and the original author is accredited, there is no limit to distribution.
Ken Randall's issue with "Charlotte's Movie" was a personal one that developed AFTER it was written and freely distributed to multiple sites. He pulled all full copies that he was able to due to not wanting to personally distribute the material any longer. I can appreciate that.
However, I find the redacted version of "A Beautiful Mess" to be just that, a beautiful mess. It was good for what it was, but it is definitely a chopped up edit of a longer, fuller piece with many open lines that I personally find dissatisfying.
It is not the sexual content, but the relationship and interpersonal breaks present in "A Beautiful Mess" that i would like to resolve for myself. I want to read the complete work to see if those discontiuities are due to the work or to the edit. I believe they are due to the edit.
IF my curiosity is never satisfied, so be it. As Wesley says, "Learn to live with disappointment". However, if someone can freely share a copy, i will be happy to read it so i can judge for myself.
Unfortunately, I was not reading online when the full version was originally distributed. I had other venues and pressures on my attention. Otherwise, I probably would have read it then.
Enough, on this rant. Honestly, if an author does not want their work read...DON'T PUT IT ONLINE! Once a reference is out there, someone, somewhere will be curious and go looking.
Personally, I think Ken Randall is a better writer than what is displayed in the butchered redacted version of this story having read some of his other works. I would like to see if my opinion is justified by reading the full version for myself.
Now, can we please get back on topic?
Most of the reason is that standard flash photography damages pigments in the paint, especially in older, egg based colors.
No, it's not, because they don't allow photography with out the use of flash either.
I may be wrong, but, unless a copier accepts money for the copy of a work and the original author is accredited, there is no limit to distribution.
You are wrong. It is a violation of copyright law to distribute copies without the permission of the author. Payment for the copies is irrelevant, except for the issue of damages.
Do you honestly think people would or should stop sharing their photographs of it with their friends?
It depends on what notice I put up with the display. A good friend of my father was a very good artist and often had commissions he got well paid for. Whenever he displayed a work in a gallery it had a sign beside it that people were not allowed to take photos of it. They could enjoy looking at it, but not take photos. He did take legal action against a few people who took unapproved photos and sent them to friends which led to them being widely spread. Many of his paintings he ended up getting paid several thousand dollars by publishers so they could take digital photos and use them for book covers.
So, in answer to your question, unless I have a sign up saying they can take photos they are breaking the law to take them and distribute them in any way.
From what I can see, it was completed in October 2009 so don't bother with older versions.
I didn't say anything about versions or years. It's complete as far as I can verify against the copy I already had.
My point (and it was not aimed at you, you know where to look) was that any Wayback Machine version from before that date will be incomplete.
He had called himself "Pleasure Boy 1" originally but I seem to remember that he renamed himself before completing the story.
Nope, not Wayback Machine and not from Pleasure Boy. It's through a magnet link with 2000+ other SOL stories in *.txt format.
So it can be found online, apparently in .txt form. What exactly is the difference between downloading it from that site to read offline, as opposed to someone sharing a singular copy with the interested reader?
Downloading from say the wayback machine effectively creates a 'new' copy on the users machine. Nobody this far has objected to such a practise.
In case you don't know this: AssTr text stories (for example) can be found using the Wayback Machine, SoL stories can't.
Some authors have pdf or epub files on AssTr, I don't believe the Wayback Machine takes copies of them.
What exactly is the difference between downloading it from that site to read offline, as opposed to someone sharing a singular copy with the interested reader?
Legally/Morally? It depends. If the author posted it to that other site himself, they at a minimum have an implied license from the author to distribute the story.
Random person who has a copy and wants to make a one on one exchange has no such license.
If someone else put the story there, there is no difference legally or morally, it's wrong/illegal
Downloading from say the wayback machine effectively creates a 'new' copy on the users machine. Nobody this far has objected to such a practise.
Actually, there have been people who have objected, in court by suing the operators of the Wayback machine, who were forced to settle a number of those suits.
In general, the operators of The Wayback Machine are counting on an extra legal idea, one which has a bit of validity. That idea is that in general, for most of the stuff people are looking for, there is no one still around who would have standing to sue them for the copyright violations.
What exactly is the difference between downloading it from that site to read offline, as opposed to someone sharing a singular copy with the interested reader?
When I post a story to SoL or one of her sister sites I give the site management approval to display it on their site and to also allow their site members to download a copy to their own machine for personal reading purposes, I do not give anyone the right to pass copies along to other parties for any reason. Thus your passing a copy to another is a violation of my copyright.
When I post a story to SoL or one of her sister sites I give the site management approval to display it on their site and to also allow their site members to download a copy to their own machine for personal reading purposes, I do not give anyone the right to pass copies along to other parties for any reason. Thus your passing a copy to another is a violation of my copyright.
How do you prevent anyone passing a single copy of your writings to another individual?
How would you know they had done so?
What would you do if you learned of an instance?
Would you prosecute for violation of your copyright?
What would you say the odds are of finding a judge to rule in your favor and award damages?
What should be the fine or penalty for an individual who freely passed a single copy of your story to another individual?
Since you seem to have such a hard-line approach to this, I assume you have answers to my questions.
In general, dealing with individual copyright piracy like you mention is like dealing with individual speeding - it's not easy to pick up everyone. The fact that anyone attempting to do what you suggest does not give them any moral or legal right to do so, and any judge would rule in my favour if a case was presented to the court with evidence, but getting that evidence would be hard with individuals. Having said that, there have already been cases of people breaking the copyright laws with stories posted at SoL and many of us have taken action to deal with them when we've found out about them posting the stories to other sites - especially when they try to sell the stories on those sites.
Yes, authors posting stories electronically are really trusting to the honesty of the readers, but we all know there are also a number of rectums out there who will not behave in an honest manner, and all we can do is tell everyone they shouldn't break the copyright laws. This is especially true with a site like SoL where you can simply tell the person about the site and they can legally read the stories by becoming an ordinary member with free access.
Having said that, there have already been cases of people breaking the copyright laws with stories posted at SoL and many of us have taken action to deal with them when we've found out about them posting the stories to other sites - especially when they try to sell the stories on those sites.
You have answered a specific scenario I did not ask about and did not answer any of my questions. I would propose that a legal complaint based on the case of a single copy of a free story downloaded from a website that invites readers to download stories that was freely passed to another single individual would be hard pressed to win a legal judgment in the scenario I presented. Hard evidence would be difficult or impossible to obtain. Try to get a search warrant for that! It would probably be considered a nuisance lawsuit.
Reposting and claiming credit for, or selling another author's stories without permission is another subject entirely.
Stating what the law is defines copyright. Knowing the law may give you a warm feeling, but like pissing yourself wearing dark pants, nobody notices. Knowing the difference between a windmill and a real giant is important.
I would propose that a legal complaint based on the case of a single copy of a free story downloaded from a website that invites readers to download stories that was freely passed to another single individual would be hard pressed to win a legal judgment in the scenario I presented.
Difficult yes, not quite as difficult as you seem to imagine. The truly hard part under US law will be showing damages. However, US law does allow for suits for nominal damages, and injunctive relief is also available
This is also not quite the scenario that others have been discussing. The main case under discussion is a case where the story was withdrawn from the free site and is no longer freely available from the author.
Hard evidence would be difficult or impossible to obtain. Try to get a search warrant for that! It would probably be considered a nuisance lawsuit.
Hard evidence is unnecessary. This would be a civil suit, not a criminal case, the burden of proof much lower than for a criminal case.
Also, being a civil case, there would be no search warrants no matter what the circumstances of the complaint. Search warrants are only available to government agents for purposes of criminal investigations.
It's not half as easy as you seem to think under US law to get suits dismissed as nuisance lawsuits.
The main thing that would protect someone from a lawsuit in the situation you describe is that it's expensive to pursue such a lawsuit. It's simply uneconomical for the author to pursue it.
However, none of that makes such sharing moral/ethical.
Would it be easy to "get away with it"? Sure.
Does that make it okay? Hell no.
Does that make it okay? Hell no.
There are far too many things in the world that are illegal and unethical taking place every day that are of far more importance than someone sharing a free story file. All the righteous indignation seems a bit misplaced to me.
here are far too many things in the world that are illegal and unethical taking place every day that are of far more importance than someone sharing a free story file
Those other things you mention may me more important to the world at large, but for most of the authors here, the issue of stories being shared without permission is high on the list.
A lot of those other things don't impact us directly, this one does.
there are authors here who had their stories removed from this site and stopped posting here for exactly this sort of thing. If readers drive all the authors away by doing this, there is no SOL.
If an author had their stories taken down, it's because they didn't want them freely available anymore. Respect that.
If an author had their stories taken down, it's because they didn't want them freely available anymore. Respect that.
Since SOL is a free site where downloads are encouraged and made easy to do, it seems a bit like trying to close the barn door after the horses got out. I absolutely respect the rights of authors to protect themselves from theft. This particular circumstance just does not seem like theft to me.
This particular circumstance just does not seem like theft to me.
And that's the very problem with electronic piracy. Instead of giving people electronic copies which are against the law, why not just give them the URL and let them read the story on the site, and thus help with the site's membership numbers, thus there's a chance some of those you tell about the site may become paying members for the extra services.
As well as being on Sol / FS / SCiFi all of my 125 works are available through my Lulu site for a few bucks, except for 7 which are on Lulu as e-books for free and are also distributed free through Lulu to B&N, Amazon, Apple, Kobo, etc. However, 3 of the freebies are help guides not on SoL etc. because I want them widely distributed, but they aren't stories. While I don't mind people sharing those 7 items because I encourage that, I do object to people making and passing around e-copies of my other works without approval.
Hard evidence is unnecessary. This would be a civil suit, not a criminal case, the burden of proof much lower than for a criminal case.
I would have guessed that, even in a civil suit, the person doing the suing would have to prove ownership of the copyright. Simply asserting it, I would have thought, would be insufficient. Registering the copyright probably would be evidence.
Registering the copyright probably would be evidence.
except not every legal jurisdiction has a registration process. However, providing evidence of authorship can be done through a variety of means by showing the site it's on and the right to change it along with early versions the same way they do with the academic journals would suffice.
Edit to add: most countries have a Legal Deposit system and if you lodge a legal deposit copy when you first post a story you have a clear government record of the authorship and ownership of the copyright.
Edit to add: most countries have a Legal Deposit system and if you lodge a legal deposit copy when you first post a story you have a clear government record of the authorship and ownership of the copyright.
Question: How many of you bother to do that? Or do you just put a CW notice at the front and fake it? Just curious.
Question: How many of you bother to do that?
Probably not many. I doubt it's free, though authors should consider it. And US authors should think about registration. While it's not free, it's not that expensive. And if you do need to enforce the copyright, with statutory damages available, you might be able to find a lawyer willing to take the case on a contingent fee basis.
https://www.copyright.gov/about/fees.html
Basic Registrations
Registrations online
Single Application (single author, same claimant, one work, not for hire) $35
Standard Application (all other filings) $55
Registrations on paper
Paper filing on Form TX, Form VA, Form PA, Form SE, and Form SR $85
Or do you just put a CW notice at the front and fake it? Just curious.
What the heck is a CW notice? Do you mean a CR(CopyRight) notice? For people who are posting their own original work, what the hell makes you call that faking it?
Technically, the Legal Deposit is a requirement of the publisher who publishes the book in the country it's published in. Because I'm and Australian and I'm an Australian publisher but I publish via a US print house and site, Lulu.com I can legally say I'm not required to do a Legal Deposit in either country. However, because I am and Australian I do lodge a Legal Deposit here in Australia and that serves a few important purposes:
1. It establishes a clear copyright ownership of the work.
2. It allows me to avoid having to jump through the hoops to lodge a Legal Deposit in the USA.
3. It helps to justify my position as a recognised author to the courts if I need to at any time.
4. It helps publicize my works for next to no effort because they show in the library databases. Heck, I've even had a couple of sales I can trace back to people becoming interested via the library entries.
So I see the lodgement of Legal Deposit as a positive thing that all authors should do. Mind you, most authors don't know about it because it's handled by the publishing house they use, only us independent authors need to be personally concerned about as we don't use established publishing houses.
the person doing the suing would have to prove ownership of the copyright. Simply asserting it
True, but that's actually relatively easy, even without registration.
If it were registered, that makes it much harder on the defendant, because not only will the courts generally accept registration as absolute proof of ownership, it also relieves the plaintiff from having to prove actual damages because it makes statutory damages available which even for a single instance of 1 on 1 sharing could be into the 10s of thousands of dollars.
Going back to the original subject for a bit, AssTr + Wayback Machine won't help in this case.
I found the story under pleasureboy_1, the index had all the chapter headings in place. The actual content stopped after Chapter 5 and the comment at the bottom of the index:
Note: This story is complete and available for download on storiesonline.net. I will continue to update the chapters here as I finish editing them.
is not encouraging. Having looked at several Wayback Machine snapshots for the index - and only 8 are available in total - he simply stopped updating after Chapter 5.