Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

I thought I had made a strong point that these are not my works.

It is obvious that you are missing the point.

For most sites, you could have legally downloaded the stories to your computer.

While your intent was to rescue the stories, the authors own the copyright to their stories. While the copyright is in effect, you do not have the right to post their works to another site without their permission. While it is unlikely, the current copyright holder, the author or their estate, could initiate a lawsuit against you for what you did.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Some around here (like on every forum I've ever frequented), right or wrong, are very pedantic about copyright rules and laws. They treat those laws like laws of physics, inviolable.

They would rather a work disappears into the ether than somebody posting it somewhere else without the non-existent author's permission, even if the intention is saving it from digital oblivion.

I'm more pragmatic. I see copyright laws as a set of tools at the disposal of authors/creator that they can use to protect their works from unfair exploitation when they need to.

The nett result of which is copyright only exists for those wealthy enough to enforce it after the fact.

These days a DMCA takedown is very easy to do and is mostly cheap.

"Mostly cheap." To whom? Cheap to a retiree surviving on a diminishing pension, or to someone earning an 'average wage/salary' ?

It's actually free unless you don't want to do the work and you hire a lawyer to do it for you. But anybody can learn how to file DMCA notices.

I've yet to see a website that tries to ignore a DMCA take down. If the site doesn't comply, a DMCA take down to the hosting company takes the site offline fairly easily if you can prove your rights.

But anybody can learn how to file DMCA notices.

And most sites ignore them unless they come from a law firm.

Law firms tend to file them properly.

In the past I've lodged DMCA notices in 2 ways:

1. The site has a form you fill in on-line;

2. They have no form so I got a template from the US government agency website about it (I forget which site as it was a few years ago).

Of the 8 incidents I lodged DMCA on only 3 incidents were acted on. One site acted on the US government agency template and the other I filled in their on-line form and got a rude reply, then I lodged the form again with the same information but included the reply to information of a friend who is a lawyer and that got immediately acted on. That made it clear how they dealt with things. The third incident was with Amazon and they refused to accept their own on-line form unless I had an Amazon account. I gave my son an authority to act on my behalf as he had an Amazon account and he copied that along with the complaint, then they acted. That was one of the plagiarism incidents where they stole stories from SoL.

Some around here (like on every forum I've ever frequented), right or wrong, are very pedantic about copyright rules and laws. They treat those laws like laws of physics, inviolable.

Copyright laws are as inviolable as speeding laws - sometimes you can get away with it, and sometimes you can't. However, without them being enforceable many people wouldn't bother spending the effort required to write stories and thus the stories are truly lost from us. I don't make a fortune from my writing, but I do make enough to ensure I and my editors get to eat a little better than if we didn't. However, I do also want to give people enjoyment with my work, which is why I make them free here; but that doesn't mean I approve of other sites just taking them and putting them up so they can sell membership subs to make them a profit without my prior approval.

However, without them being enforceable many people wouldn't bother spending the effort required to write stories and thus the stories are truly lost from us.

They are enforceable, but the pedants want everybody to simply respect those laws blindly and with absolute perfection, regardless of intentions.

Those who are like me, pragmatic, take intentions into consideration. There is context, not absolutes.

If somebody like Taoman posts something on SOL or other sites to save it from being lost, then it should be treated very differently than someone posting it on Amazon for profit. Context is important.

If somebody steals something for profit or any other nefarious purpose, then everybody involved should come down as hard as possible on them, but if somebody's intentions are good, then they should be treated accordingly.

A world of absolutes, with no context, is a terrible world to live in.

Should the police ticket a driver that crosses a red light after ensuring safety and to move out of an ambulance's way?

To the pedants: CONTEXT.

Those who are like me, pragmatic, take intentions into consideration. There is context, not absolutes.

Try that in traffic court and see how it works.

Those who are like me, pragmatic, take intentions into consideration. There is context, not absolutes.

Try that in traffic court and see how it works.

The officer writing you up is the one that needs to exercise their judgement and consider the context.

Once you reach court, context is out of the window. They take the officer's word.

The officer writing you up is the one that needs to exercise their judgement and consider the context.

Not all officers have the approval to exercise any judgement in such cases as the departmental rules are they must issue a ticket even if they want to issue a warning.

The officer writing you up is the one that needs to exercise their judgement and consider the context.

Not all officers have the approval to exercise any judgement in such cases as the departmental rules are they must issue a ticket even if they want to issue a warning.

If the infraction or non-infraction was recorded mechanically (radar or camera) then the officer may not have discretion to use. But if it wasn't, then the officer can always engage their judgement, if they can't issue a warning, then they don't issue anything. Around here it's always a single officer in a cruiser, hardly ever a pair, so nobody's looking over their shoulder to take away their decision.

But if it wasn't, then the officer can always engage their judgement, if they can't issue a warning, then they don't issue anything.

and that will often get them fired. Just about every police vehicle now has a dashcam and the cops have bodycams, so they will be pulled up if they do anything outside of the departmental rules. Thus they have no discretion unless allowed for in the departmental rules.

if somebody's intentions are good, then they should be treated accordingly.

The problem there is the definition of good. There is the case of an author who had 2 years of work on a novel in a series washed down the tubes because someone put out a fanfic that went along the lines of one of the stories he was working on. An earlier story had an obvious extension which he hadn't got to finishing yet while working along another line in the series, so the fanfic did their won story which was close to what the author was writing. Because the fanfic was out there first it would have been a confusing copyright and plagiarism claim contest so the author spat the dummy and and totally dropped the series. Great result for all - I don't think.

If an author is dead a few years and the work was only ever on-line , thus no publisher residuals involved, then I would agree no one is hurt if it gets copied and passed around. However, while the author is still alive you should re-publish without their prior approval.

I've handled this from both sides of the issue and know what it can be like.

On my Lulu website I sell copies of works by 2 other authors because they gave me permission to do so to get a wider dissemination of their works. One doesn't want the royalties and one does. Every no and then I workout the royalties and send those on to the author who wants them, the other said to send the money to the editors we both use, which I do, along with a portion of my own royalties.

I've story from one author which he'd previously posted here then withdrew because of family issues about identifying people in the story based on real life events. On his request I've heavily revised some aspects of the story to make it harder to identify the individuals in the story. He does not want the original to ever be reposted or shared about, and he gave me permission to repost the amended version when he asked me to work on it, but I've not yet had confirmation from him the revised version which I sent him is OK to post, so I've not yet posted it. If he dies before I do I'll post it then, based on the original permission to repost, but not until then because I prefer to have his approval of the finished revised version.

So you won't mind if someone steals your car so they can visit a dying relative three states away...?? After all, their intention was good.

Yes, that example is so much like what we're talking about that it could actually be used as illustrative ... 🙄

Excessive, yes, but the point is made.

No, point not made because they're not the same thing. One is a physical object that the original owner may need physically to go somewhere, while the other is about an ethereal thing that won't be felt and won't have a direct effect on the author.

If somebody takes your stories from a site like SOL where you have voluntarily posted them for free, where your immediate welfare isn't threatened and posted them on amazon and was making money off of them and you didn't know, at all, you didn't know that they did that, and you had no intention of posting them on amazon yourself. Is that the same thing as somebody taking your car? No.

There is context. One harms you and deprives you directly, the other one has no practical effect on you.

Your original post references posting of stories by authors who have long disappeared. They didn't remove their stories from the internet. They posted them to be read for free by whoever frequents the site they originally posted them on. The site in question is dead (hasn't been updated in years). Dead and soon may be completely taken off the net (when the contract for hosting expires). Those stories will simply disappear. You want to convince me that posting those stories here is exactly the same thing as taking an active author's stories, like you or Ernest who makes money from his stories and selling them on Amazon? Really? Both are exactly the same thing as what we're talking about here?

In a way that even caused a response...

Are you arguing for the sake of argument or is your world black and white with no grey or colour whatsoever?

Are you going to make sure that just before you croak, after a long prosperous life, that you come back to SOL and request your stories to be removed, just in case somebody, somewhere, somewhen takes them and posts them on some other site without asking you first?

while the other is about an ethereal thing that won't be felt and won't have a direct effect on the author.

In my opinion:

Violating an author's copyright is taking something that does not belong to you and using it without the author's permission; it's called stealing. It doesn't matter whether the author is or is not personally directly affected or harmed financially; it is still stealing.

Stealing someone's property is illegal in our society, even if the theft is not discovered. In our society, stealing is also considered to be an immoral act. Defending someone who is admittedly stealing an author's work by violating their copyright is also immoral. If you don't respect and support our laws, then you are just as bad as the thieves who violate copyright protection.

Defending someone who is admittedly stealing an author's work by violating their copyright is also immoral. If you don't respect and support our laws, then you are just as bad as the thieves who violate copyright protection.

OK, so you view the world in black and white. I don't. Nuance and context matter to me.

To me, if nobody is being harmed, then it's not a problem. To you, it seems, whether no one is harmed or not doesn't matter. To you the violation of the principle matters above all else. If you were a judge you probably would mete out the full punishment possible regardless of circumstances. Do you make the distinction between murder and killing in self defence? They're both taking a life but in different context.

In this discussion, have you even considered the original intention of the author? The author posted their work on a free site and went away without taking it down. Does it occur to you that maybe the author really wanted their work to be read forever by ever more people? When somebody cares about something, they take care of it, they don't just leave it to the wind. Maybe the author wanted to leave some legacy and their stories was their way of achieving that.

As an author posting my work on a free site, I hope that the largest number possible of people would read my work. I would be sad if SOL were to fold and my works disappear from public availability. Currently I give Lazeez exclusivity because I want to see SOL remain online and due to my friendship with Lazeez, I've seen what he had to do sometime to keep it online. So I support him with my feeble attempts at writing.

But when I'm sure that SOL is safe and prosperous, I will most likely make my stories available for free and on other sites, because I want my stories to be read. I want to leave some legacy behind and it would be against my wishes if my works were lost. And remember in this discussion we're talking about stories that available for free online with no caretakers.

The most puzzling thing I ever heard of was when Lazeez told me about Arty. Arty had asked Lazeez to delete his stories and when asked why he said that he was retiring from writing and that he didn't want to leave anything behind. I still can't understand that, it just baffles me.

Anyway: Context! Context always matters.

To me, if nobody is being harmed, then it's not a problem.

That is your problem.

You don't see how someone is being harmed, so you conclude they aren't being harmed and then spout off about no one being harmed.

You don't know everything Demille!

To me, if nobody is being harmed, then it's not a problem.

That is your problem.

You don't see how someone is being harmed, so you conclude they aren't being harmed and then spout off about no one being harmed.

I have a logical mind.

One would have to be very convoluted to deduce that reposting a story from a dead site, by an absent author to a new live site would harm the original poster. One would have to resort to extreme hyperbole and exaggeration to even come remotely into the same vicinity of the author being harmed.

You don't know everything Demille!

Hey, I'm not John Snow!

I have a logical mind.

Then use it.

Did the reposting of that author's story harm the author? I don't know, and neither do you. But you were saying Taoman's actions didn't hurt the author, and because you saw no harm, what he did was okay.

One would have to be very convoluted to deduce that reposting a story from a dead site, by an absent author to a new live site would harm the original poster.

Throughout this Forum there have been numerous posts about authors entering into agreements with commercial firms. Part of those agreements often include no posting of stories to unapproved sites. If the stories posted to SOL are discovered, the author will likely have to expend time and money to get them removed from the site. I call that harm.

See nothing convoluted about that. It is an every day occurrence for authors. But it takes the use of a logical mind to see it.

My only problem with this is it comes down to "why" was it removed.

This whole thread isn't about bringing back something that the author removed without the author's consent.

We're talking about works on a long running site that has become a zombie site. No updates and no maintenance, but still being served. Zombie sites don't live very long. So what happens to the works on those sites? Should they be left to perish when the site finally disappear? or should they be saved and posted somewhere else?

The old man who lives nearby to you dies. In his unwatered front garden for all to see is a beautiful cross bred rose he cultivated himself and is named after him. Since he's dead you take the rose bush and put it in your front garden.

First, digital assets and physical ones aren't the same. Can you easily duplicate the old man's rose leaving the original where it is and taking one to your house? No. So, not the same equivalency no matter how much you try.

Second, let's say a story is like a rose, who is inheriting the old man? If he's like most online authors, nobody know he has that house and that rose. So no beneficiaries. So we leave it to die?

"Yes officer, it did belong to that dead old man, but it's ok, I'm not a thief because he wasn't harmed."

See, you can't do it without hyperbole.

At this point you're arguing for the sake of argument. I'm done humouring the subject.

We'll never agree.

1. Wait for it to go to seed and take just a seed pod, plant the seeds.

If the rose were a species rose and had been protected from cross-pollination, that might work. For a cross-bred hybrid, it's very unlikely to set seed and even unlikelier for the seed to come true. I presume the 'unwatered' description of the front garden is intended to be relevant too, so without care the rose would be unlikely to survive long enough to set seed.

Propagation from cuttings alone is chancy, and only possible at certain times of the year. I've tried it but with a very low success rate. Grafting is the most reliable method of propagation.

AJ

In the real world this is true. In a court of law, they will not be treated as differently as you imagine.

I expect them being treated exactly the same. I'm aware of what happens in a court.

The argument here is about the morality of reposting an abandoned story on a new site. If there was anybody to take you to court, all this discussion would be moot as the owner of the story would be present and their wishes heard and obeyed.

First, digital assets and physical ones aren't the same.

Assets are assets, and they have value. It doesn't matter if they are physical or digital property. Theft is theft in both cases.

Assets are assets, and they have value. It doesn't matter if they are physical or digital property. Theft is theft in both cases.

Actually no. There is a reason that it's called 'Copyright Infringement' and not theft.

Theft of a physical object deprives the owner of the possession and the use of the stolen object. Copyright infringement doesn't. A thief takes your car then you can't use it. The author will still have their work and will still be able to sell it and make a profit from it.

For example, Ernest sells his stories for profit. Let's say Fred paid for a copy of Ernest's book and proceeded to send a free copy to ten of his friends. Is Ernest still able to sell his book to other people? Of course.

Fred didn't "steal" Ernest's book, he paid for it, but he deprived Ernest from the possibility of selling said book to Fred's friends. Copyright infringement.

The difference maybe too subtle for you to notice, but they're different.

The author will still have their work and will still be able to sell it and make a profit from it.

What the thief takes from the author is the money the author would have made from the sale of the book. That is the same a stealing the car.

The difference maybe too subtle for you to notice, but they're different

Oh, I can see the difference in the two methods of theft; there is nothing subtle about the differences. There are many ways to steal, and the bottom line is all of those ways are wrong. You can continue to rationalize stealing as not being wrong, but that does not make you right.

No one can make a man like you see what they don't want to see.

You can continue to rationalize stealing as not being wrong, but that does not make you right.

I never rationalized outright blatant copyright infringement. I made an exception for works abandoned on free sites. You refuse to see the difference.

I made an exception for works abandoned on free sites.

You assume the works are abandoned without any evidence of such.

Many of my early works are available on ASSTR, but they have not been updated or anything done to them for four of five years because of problems accessing the site management of the site. Since I've not been able to log in there for many years people may assume I've abandoned them, when I've continued to manage and control them here and on Lulu.

The issue is you assume they're abandoned without any proof of such.

The Scot isn't active in managing his stories due to health issues, yet he hasn't abandoned them at all while the last time he actively worked on any of them was 2011.

I made an exception for works abandoned on free sites. You refuse to see the difference.

What I see is you making exceptions. In one case it is wrong and in another it is right. In both cases, it is copyright violation, and you support both views.

In one case it is wrong and in another it is right. In both cases, it is copyright violation, and you support both views.

So regardless of whether the exception makes sense or not, because it's a copyright violation, I shouldn't make the exception.

Makes sense for you obviously.

Yes it does. You can't support both positions without undermining both positions.

You either support copyright protection or you don't, and if you support it, there are no exceptions.

The old man who lives nearby to you dies. In his unwatered front garden for all to see is a beautiful cross bred rose he cultivated himself and is named after him. Since he's dead you take the rose bush and put it in your front garden.

Not naming names, but members of a well-known plant conservation charity routinely do that sort of thing. They consider it their duty to keep rare cultivars in existence, beautiful or not.

AJ

If the old man in question has no will, no heirs and and no debt against the property

In that case, the state inherits.