Terry Pratchet - The most shoplifted author in Britain? - BBC

[TheGreatGazpacho]

I haven't bought a single Terry Pratchett book. I get them all from the library. But someday I should start a collection, if only to pass them on to my kids.

[Puchuchan]

I must confess I did at one point illegally download a collection of Terry Pratchett books. Because I was halfway across the world from my physical bookshelf where I kept my copies, wouldn't have access to them for another 9 months, and I was showing symptoms of withdrawal.

It still hurts to think about it.

[miXedXxX]

@Puchuchan I did it too man.  I downloaded Night Watch, and just read few pages of it. Then I fell in love with this man, and bought the whole Discworld series, just awaiting the new book now!

[Zombieflareon]

I bet the dog with orange eyebrows stole his books, remember, you can never trust a dog with orange eyebrows

[obez5]

It's probably J K Rowling now...

[volvoxmusix]

@obez5 that's exactly what i thought when watching the first second of the video :)

[DeeSuperfly]

i love terry, the mans practically a saint, just look at him.. listen to his voice, somehow he manages to sound innocent and wise silmutaneously. makes me want to say coochi coochie cooo. His lack of bitterness says a lot about him. If he isn't sinister enough to go and kick that 14 year old in the shins, then i will; and i'll take his scanner/printer. beeatch

[madsoundz87]

For those of you who feel that once you’ve bought the book you can do whatever you want with it. You’re right you can. With the physical book you can do whatever you want. You can hold a ceremonial book burning if you truly hate it THAT much. But you don’t own the idea. Not unless you come up with it and you obviously didn’t. The main reason for copyright is to prevent lazy people not interested in doing the work from claiming someone else's work as their own.

[madsoundz87]

Authors don’t get anything unless their book sells to a publisher and publishers won’t buy books that won’t sell. They’re a business whether you like it or not. Even if they weren’t businesses, how are you supposed to buy paper and ink with no money? Imagine the quality of books if no author got paid and had to write in between their day job/s. We’d either have crappy books or good ones that took an age to write.

[Handitar]

@madsoundz87 There are some good self-published books though.

[madsoundz87]

@Handitar Agreed. I don't think all good books get picked up by publishers and at the same time there are books we wish had never been published. So the saying goes, "in an ideal world..." LOL

[emanym]

@madsoundz87 Well said.

[madsoundz87]

For all those people who think that you shouldn't be able to copyright a string of words or numbers, copyrighting the number 0123456789 is completely different to a novel of over 100,000 words (I realise this will vary according to the author). There is no way someone who had never read the novel could ever write their own version WORD FOR WORD when it is that length.

[amiserable]

I nicked one of his books today. Love reading his works, just brilliant.

gg

[Kerbooodle]

WHERE'S MY COW!? ..... IS THAT MY COW!?!?

[timelordtenfan]

@Kerbooodle IT GOES "NEIGH"! IT IS A HORSE! THAT IS NOT MY COW!

[loki1066]

WAS THAT INTERVIEWER MADE TO SHAVE HIS HEAD , JUST TO MAKE LORD TERRY FEEL AT EASE ???????

IT'S A FUCKING OUTRAGE!

[Kyle1072]

The beautiful thing about the internet is that we don't need publishers any more. E-books mean easy self-publishing, which in turn means cheaper books, which probably would mean less filesharing.

[AuntieOphiucha]

@Kyle1072 Joy, no publishers, no editors, self-publishing. As if it isn't hard enough to sift through the piles of shit that get published, now I'll get to deal with anyone and their mother's publishing some glorified name swap Harry Potter fanfiction. At that point, I think I'll just stick to Project Gutenberg and bask in our past glories instead of trying to deal with the mess that is the present.

[Kyle1072]

@AuntieOphiucha The good stuff will filter to the top. Take Youtube as an example, you don't really have to filter through all the 154-view posts or fan Justin Bieber music videos. Good videos have a habit of filtering through, the same with books.

[Goldkehlchen20]

@Kyle1072 Well unfortunately you forgot that this also means no employees to check your work for grammar and spelling flaws and nobody to tell you when while developing the storyline you have hit a wall or left a giant loophole somewhere.

[notthere83]

i hope all the media giants will crumble and result in something where greedy middlemen are largely cut out of the picture, no huge ad budgets any more, no overblown budgets for projects and artists are supported directly, getting most of the earnings instead of the least.

[notthere83]

when it comes to books that already pretty stupid copyright debate, filled with made-up shit by huge companies, becomes downright stupid. why? one word: libraries!!!

should all public libraries be shut down because they offer lending books for free?!

that IMO demonstrates what things of cultural importance have become. it used to be "buy it but if you can't afford it - borrow it for free", now it's "buy it but if you can't afford it - fuck off you bum!"

[Hashishin13]

Intellectual property is bullshit, nobody has the right to tell me what to do with the book once I've bought it, same goes for everything. You can't own ideas, and you shouldn't try to. He would still make a ton of money from loyal readers, those who want it on the first day so they don't have to wait for pirates, gifts, etc.

IP just makes work for lawyers and limits our freedoms in strange ways. I can talk about the book, but not copy it? Do I need permission to quote? That is copying...

[bibhuna]

@Hashishin13 I did my GCSE exams just this summer. The answers I wrote were my intellectual property. I got all A stars. I spent hours revising and then I wrote my ideas, MY ideas onto the answer sheet. What if everyone thought like you, that intellectual property is bullshit? The two people either side of me could have copied me, and got the same results, because, according to you, I have no control over the contents of my own head!

[Hashishin13]

@bibhuna That is a complete mis-application of what I said/believe. I believe in personal property rights for PHYSICAL things, such as your mind or paper. I also believe in the absolute right of contracting, which means you can enter into any sort of agreement you want. It's true that they could look over as there aren't any laws against looking at things, but it would be against the agreed upon rules(a contract basically) of your exam to "cheat".(their definition of copying)

[Hashishin13]

@bibhuna You have it backwards, under IP you technically don't have control over what is in your head. Think about it, If you know an entire novel word for word and want to write it and sell it/make your own edition, you can't because of IP. The government gives other people the right to sure you for writing something you were thinking.

I believe in absolute control over what is in your head, once an idea leaves you head it's yours only so long as you can get other people to agree.

[Hashishin13]

@bibhuna Lastly, it leads to strange theoretical situations(probably real ones too I haven't studied this closely) For example:

What if someone writing immediately after you somehow wrote the exam EXACTLY the same as you did but without copying/see/knowing of your paper at all? Do you have intellectual property over his work because you thought it first? Even though he thought of it by himself?

Well it may seem like an impossible situation but I' bet it is the basis for some copyright arguments.

[bibhuna]

@Hashishin13 Yet by your own definition, if someone looked at my paper during and memorised it word for word, they could sell it on without my permission, which is clearly morally wrong. The same applies to Pratchett. If he writes a novel, it is his property through 'personal property rights for PHYSICAL things' as you would put it. Just memorising the novel does make it your intellectual property, however you don't have the RIGHTS over it because you didn't create it.

[Hashishin13]

@bibhuna What I am saying is that NOBODY has the right to claim a certain string of words or a symbol as their own. Imagine if I tried to copyright 1234567890, I claim that I was the first to use this string of numbers or at least the first to get the copyright so now ALL keyboard manufacturers owe me money. Think this is absurd? It is almost exactly what happened with the Cotton Jin. Some guy added one more widget to an already complicated machine and claimed them all as his own, he is famous.

[Hashishin13]

@bibhuna What I meant about physical things is that terry owns his books, and the ink on the page, but if I remake his book out of my own paper and ink then boo hoo for him. This isn't as devastating as some people would make it out to be, for starters he has the jump on the market by being the originator, so he can keep his novels secret, in his house where people can't see them and then when they are ready to sell release them everywhere, the copiers have to catch up.

[Hashishin13]

@bibhuna Also I forgot to mention that everyone who actually likes him and is happy that he is making these books will also see the purpose in supporting him, Nobody is going to wait months to rip off Terry Pratchet by buying a knock-off that is probably only marginally cheaper and almost certainly lower quality.

Lastly his book is so damn cheap already that there isn't much profit motive for people to try to make a knock-off, reading on a screen sucks, everyone prefers books.

[bibhuna]

@Hashishin13 I have to say, you clearly know a lot more about this than me! However, I would say that many of the examples you have used are very extreme. You need to remember that there is a difference between copyrighting a book and copyrighting a genetic code - if not legally then at least morally. Where I DO think you're wrong is when you say that Pratchett only owns the paper and ink copy of his book. How can that possibly be morally correct? Any author invests a huge amount of CONT'D

[Hashishin13]

@bibhuna A genetic code or a chemical are only sequences of atoms/molecules. It is almost exactly the same as copyrighting words. With novels it is just harder to see how fucked up copyright is because there is so much that is unique to each novel. You are fixed on this idea of what is morally correct so I will try to speak to it:

I personally think it would be immoral to claim another person's work as your own, as that would be fraud, the law reflects that.

[bibhuna]

@Hashishin13 I understand that genetic codes and novels are legally the same but obviously they are - aha - 'morally' different. A chemical however is different. Think of DuPont patenting kevlar. The creator of a new chemical should have rights of distribution over his creation. You are forgetting about what copyright prevents - innocent authors/scientists getting screwed over by unscrupulous businessmen.

[Hashishin13]

@bibhuna I don't see how it could be immoral to copy someone else's work and sell it. It's not like I am trying to replace him in the market, I am just competing with his distributor. His legitimate distributor has a built in edge over the competition by saying that a cut of their sales actually go to the artist, so any loyal readers would go to him. I think the only net effect of having these cheaper novels would be a very slight loss in his sales and a great decrease in theft.

[bibhuna]

@Hashishin13 I have to respectfully disagree with you here. Competing with the distributor is totally fine, but in doing so without the author's permission, you hare effectively exploiting the author's work for personal gain. giving a cut to the author isn't a marketing ploy, it's the legal recognition of the fact that credit has to go to the original creator of the product being sold.

[Hashishin13]

@bibhuna Your right giving a cut isn't a ploy at all, it is in fact the only way the book will get to market at all. You are so obsessed with this right that he should not have (the right over a string of words) that you are missing the real meat of the issue, namely that it won't affect his wealth nearly as much as you seem to think. He gets to choose who makes the official copy, he gets to be the first into the market and everyone will know that buying a knock-off isn't nice to the author.

[Hashishin13]

@bibhuna Also I think you are ignoring the actual IP laws themselves. He doesn't have rights to his book forever you know, after 25-50 years it goes into the public domain anyway, so where are his rights then? I think he should have absolute right of claiming it is his work and absolutely no rights over the printing, except those he contracts to uphold. Ip laws are only put into place to ensure he has a fair run in the market with his ideas and I am telling you that he has a fair run regardless.

[grahamkeithtodd]

@Hashishin13 small point of british copyright law foryou old son a Author retains full copyright until 50 years AFTER HIS DEATH!

just ask Bart's childrens hospital

(they got the copyright to Peter Pan after JM BARRIES death)

[rebelanarch]

@grahamkeithtodd

that's not too bad. USA companies and lawyers are trying to make copyrights last FOREVER!

[Hashishin13]

@bibhuna Also he is concerned about online copies so I would suggest to him to release online versions of his own at a reduced price before anyone can copy his work. Stealing is impossible to prevent, cheaper books make less crime. Since this accusation of being the most shoplifted author obviously is hurting his reputation, I think providing his books at a cheaper price to those who won't be giving him money anyway isn't really immoral.

[bibhuna]

@Hashishin13 into writing a novel, and therefore he DESERVES the right to ban anyone from producing their own copy of his book. I agree with you in that some cases of copyright are ludicrous, however in the case of novels, it is morally justified.

[Hashishin13]

@bibhuna Also what I have been trying to say is that even in a no copyright scenario he has a HUGE edge in the market simply BECAUSE he is the artist who created it. Being the originator gives him the chance to be the first person into the market, and the competition has to catch up. As I have stated before all his loyal fans would still support him. Since the bookstores/lawyers/police are obviously not preventing theft from his un-loyal readership, maybe a free market can prevent some crimes.

[bibhuna]

@Hashishin13 No! Being the originator is not a marketing tactic! That's isn't the point of copyright! The point is that he put the work in, so he should get a cut of ANY copy of his work! Think about this example: if you did memorise one of his novels and print your own copy, then all you have done YOURSELF is create a string of meaningless letters. You need Pratchett's brain to print a specific sequence of letters that constitutes the novel. Copyright is just a legal recognition of that CONT'D

[bibhuna]

@Hashishin13 fact, as well as a way of remunerating Pratchett's influence on your print.

[bibhuna]

@Hashishin13 Your example here is also wrong, because once again you mistake having the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY of something with having the PROPERTY RIGHTS for it. If person X copies me in an exam, we both have the answers as intellectual property, but only I have rights over it, as it's creator. If both person Y and I have the same answers, but he got them by a fluke, we both have property AND rights over the answers, making it a whole different scenario.

[Hashishin13]

@bibhuna Except that if you filed copyrights first under the latter scenario then you have the RIGHT (according to gov) to ban him from using his ideas, that was my point.

Also he doesn't have the right to use your answers in an exam, as I tried to explain. If you both went into the exam under the expressed rules that cheating is not allowed, well then he contracted his way out of being able to use your answers. Copyright law is unnecessary because he broke a rule that he agreed to.

[Hashishin13]

@bibhuna Look authors may have one of the most legitimate claims to copyright law, but it is still illegitimate. Especially when you look at the other applications that are really screwy and almost outright evil. Monsanto and other chemical companies/bio-engineering firms are LITERALLY copyrighting GENETICS. They add some little thing here or there and they OWN that genetic code. Also the pharmaceuticals are copyrighting chemistry, they literally own certain chemicals, you can't make them.

[bibhuna]

@Hashishin13 Your 'exam' example and your 'word for word' example are therefore different, the difference being that between cheating and a fluke.

[GuacamoleKun]

holy shit. I HAVE shoplifted a Terry Pratchet book. (Only because someone stole my copy and I was pissed and didn't wanna buy another..)

[LordZentei]

@jabbernaut

I doubt that the "middle man" gets all that much really, at least not for books. Music OTOH, that may be another matter.

[qqs764]

@LordZentei You don't know much about publishing do you?

[juzt156]

I can honeslty say every pratchett book I own, I bought or was bought for me as a present. I never even contemplated getting them for free of the internet.

[tk9780]

Authors don't produce knowledge; they just assimilate the information and knowledge down to a level that we mere mortals can understand.

Never believed in copyright laws for -Non-fiction books very rarely is the knowledge or the primmest they use an original one.

Books of fiction is totally another mater, yes authors like Mr Pratchett need protection over copyright infringement. Maybe an authorised 'digested' version of works like the "Disc-world" could release onto the internet.

[LEETOMLINSON68]

Without Authors there would be no book without books there is no knowlage without knowlage there is no humanity... without humanity there is no point in living...

so to steal his books eithe in paper or digitally undermines the whole being..

Nothing in life is free.... it costs somebody somewhere... i advise you read or watch going postal to get the core understanding of this..

[LordZentei]

The problem with copyright theft is that fewer people are going to be able to make a living writing books or songs, etc. If Terry Pratchett could not have made a living writing Discworld, there would have been a lot fewer Discworld novels for us to read. Same goes for all other creative people.

Getting stuff for free is not a constructive ideology, and just because you can download something for free doesn't make it ethically right. No one expects laborers or scientists etc. to work for free.

[DarkElfMairead]

@LordZentei

I agree but when you can't afford to buy it, you aren't getting it either way.

[qqs764]

@LordZentei There's nothing wrong with acquiring a product for free. The problem lies with then keeping the product because you enjoy it but don't wish to pay for it. Anything I've downloaded and I've kept I eventually bought. Anything I didn't keep I usually never kept past the first few hours. On one occassion the game lasted all of fifteen minutes before it was deleted.

[LordZentei]

@qqs764

There is plenty wrong with getting something for free if you're not being offered it for free. Going out and buying it later doesn't change the fact that you took it uninvited.

[qqs764]

@LordZentei Actually, there's plenty wrong with stating that someone must buy a product before they've had any opportunity to try it.

[LordZentei]

@qqs764

Bullshit. If you've tried a product which technically only needs to be used once, then you have no incentive to pay for it.

[qqs764]

@LordZentei And that would be their fault for not prodiving the demoes and samples that used to come out so freely when I was younger.

Music, games, books, you could a taste of all of them at your local newsagents for free, or for as little as $1.00, before buying the full product.

Secondly, yes there is incentive. If you like a product, then you'd want to see more of it from that producer, so you'd buy the product to support them. Simple logic, really.

[LordZentei]

@qqs764

LMAO. So the fact that you steal is the fault of the people you steal from? Look, if you want to know what books are like, you read book reviews; that's what they're for.

As for your second argument: bollocks. If you've decided to steal once, you'll just steal again.

[qqs764]

@LordZentei Nice to see you're so incredibly backwards that you don't see the value in supporting comapnies who's work you appreciate. I, however, actually have a brain.

Secondly, book reviews? lol. Yeah, because the smart thing to do is to have somebody else tell you what to think instead of forming your own opinion.

[LordZentei]

@qqs764

Piss off. I don't care whether you feel like donating money to a company whose product you have stolen after the fact. I can only surmise that you don't give money to a publisher whose books you didn't like and yet whose products you stole, correct? It is not "backwards" to note that you have not compensated these people for their work. Otherwise, why do you not pay for it to begin with? "Backwards", lol.

"You don't know much about publishing do you?"

More than you, apparently.

[LordZentei]

As for book reviews, they contain summaries of the content, and you can read several reviews, forming an opinion based on your trust of each.

[thefairlysimple1]

the love of money is the root of all evil.

[natmanprime]

lol global clampdown

you can't stop the revolution!

And it's aaaaaaaaaaaaaall right

: )

: )

[TwitchXk90]

This man is great he makes great books and the fact that he ended up devoloping Alzheimers is a terrable shame. And who would want there hard work stolen? I wouldn't.......However downloading music is fine because any one can make music in an hour. Books, movies and Games deserve to be brought.

[TheDave000]

What makes you think "any one can make music in an hour"?

[whiteer]

i think he/she is referring to the crap we hear in the charts, not real music.

[Tarvi]

@TwitchXk90 Tosh. "An hour"?! It takes years to get to a standard where people want to hear one's music!

[TwitchXk90]

@Tarvi

That maybe true, but how much does it cost to make a song and get it heared? Not as much as a game or movie, eaither way my point still stands, anyone can do it.

[andyr798ken]

your an idiot

[happyhappy85]

You can borrow them from a library lol. I don't mind people downloading music free if it's major lable music but i do prefer people to buy things by bands that are more underground and need the money to keep going. As for games and movies i don't mind either.

[w0lf101]

Not going to have a pop at Terry, but for someone who never expected to make a living from his writing or expect to be a millionaire...he's certainly unsettled by the thought of a "free" version to read online.

Personally I love his books, and no character beats Death... great guy!

[sazzlysarah]

I can imagine that he wouldn't be worried if he gave he permission for them to made available online. I get the impression that it's because it occurs without his consent.

[DelicateWolverine]

@sazzlysarah Except he hasn't given his permission for them to be available online. For free, anyway...

[ElMoss64]

Well, of course, just because he didn't expect to do as well as he did doesn't mean he wants to lose money from people not buying them.

[w0lf101]

@ElMoss64

There's more ways to measure happiness than the numbers in your bank account. He's achieved a massive following and written some fantastic books...

Do people write because they enjoy it? Or do they write only because they want £££ ? If its for the money, they're in the wrong business - go play in the stock markets

[bobzilla211]

pratchett is not just 'in it for the money' or he would have retired already. but after spending HALF A YEAR writing a book is it asking too much that he wants people to pay for it? for a professional author the only way of validating the huge amount of time and effort expended in writing a novel is in reviews and sales figures.

[w0lf101]

@bobzilla211

Yep, totally agree. If you're writing a book and you know its going to be published you want your readers to enjoy it and of course they should put their hand in their pocket for the pleasure.

However, did Tolkien write his books for money?

Does Simon Cowell do X-Factor for fun or copious amounts of cash I wonder?

Money is the root of all evil, so in my view that im entitled to (thanks)...millionaires that get annoyed about money issues need to have some perspective.

[DelicateWolverine]

@bobzilla211 The thing about people that are 'in it for the money' is that they are always wanting more. He does not believe, according to the video, that online copies are even putting a dent in his sales figures. Whatever compels him to search for 14 year old kids online is not money.

[255ad]

@bobzilla211 that being said I remember being really annoyed when read John and the dead at the thought that I was been given an anti big busyness anti capitalist message from what is a the end of the day a self made multi millionaire

[bobzilla211]

@255ad i don't think its necessarily an 'anti-capitalist message' to suggest that the bulldozing of graveyards and their replacement with office complexes is a bad thing. also, being vaguely lefty in your political views really does not mean that you're a hypocrite if you make money.