This week's book giveaway is in the OO, Patterns, UML and Refactoring forum. We're giving away four copies of Refactoring for Software Design Smells: Managing Technical Debt and have Girish Suryanarayana, Ganesh Samarthyam & Tushar Sharma on-line! See this thread for details.
Hi, I am sending this because I thought No Starch Press' story of copyright infringement would be of interest to you. Recently, we discovered that two of our books have been illegally circulated on the Internet. Because this was the result of anti-copying circumvention by the perpetrator, we could have pursued legal action under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. However, we have chosen not to, and we outline our reasons why in the story immediately following this message. Please contact me with any further questions. Thanks, John Mark Walker Marketing Manager No Starch Press 415-863-9900
PUBLISHER'S BOOKS SO GOOD THEY GET HACKED No Starch Press Chooses not to Prosecute Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) San Francisco, April 3, 2003 -- Apparently, No Starch Press' books are so good that others see fit to illegally distribute them. The independent computer book publisher announced today that two of its books, "Absolute BSD" (ISBN 1886411743, July 2002, $39.95) and "Crackproof Your Software" (ISBN 1886411794, November 2002, $34.95) were illegally circulated by a cracker, mostly likely in eastern Europe. The cracker, who goes by the moniker "EEN", probably downloaded them piecemeal from an online reference site and converted them into PDF format with no copy restrictions. He then placed them on various bulletin boards on the Internet. A spokesperson for the online reference site (which hosts works from many other major publishers) claimed that this was the first time anything of this sort had happened. Bill Pollock, President of No Starch Press, had this to say: "Clearly, this act violates copyright and is patently illegal. It's also very difficult to prosecute, especially since there is no smoking gun. While some might say that we should pursue both the online reference site and the maker of the tools likely used for the conversion, I disagree. The legal issue is with the copyright violator, not with the maker of the file conversion software." Pollock added that there may even be a welcome side-benefit: "I am in no way encouraging people to post illegal copies of books. But the funny thing is that having that illegal copy floating around may actually serve to increase print sales of the books by making them visible to a wider audience." Pollock noted, however, that in this case, all references to No Starch Press were removed, thus curbing the amount of extra notoriety to be gained. No Starch Press is not opposed to releasing books for free online. In fact, the company has successfully published three books under open licenses in the past. "Readers can view or download the complete editions of No Starch Press' 'Programming Linux Games', 'Linux in the Workplace', and 'The Linux Cookbook' online," says Pollock. Thus far, the online availability of these books does not appear to have hurt print book sales, despite popular fears to the contrary. However, as Pollock added, "We like to leave the decision to publish free versions of books up to our authors. In this case, however, the wishes of the books' authors were not respected, and that is of great concern to us." While the case could be prosecuted under the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), Pollock will not pursue such action. "The act of copyright infringement is illegal, but file conversion tools have legitimate uses and should not be criminalized. We support the Digital Choice and Freedom Act, which would reform the DMCA to recognize the rights of readers." The irony of one of the cracked books being "Crackproof Your Software" is not lost on Pollock, either, though that book is not about securing online books. "One of our bestselling titles is 'Steal This Computer Book'; perhaps someone took the title a little too seriously, though they've yet to hack that one." ###Contact: John Mark Walker firstname.lastname@example.org 415-863-9900
First, I applaud the decision not to use a bad law in a good cause. But using the word "hack" in this way really dilutes the meaning of the word even beyond its current degraded use. Originally, hackers were people who did clever and unusual things. Then, because of media phobia of people who are clever and unusual, "hackers" came to mean people who used such abilities to break into computer systems. Here "hacking" is reduced to plain copying of text. Next we'll hear of people "hacking" texts with Xerox copiers, I suppose.