|
02 May 11 - 08:03 PM (#3146782) Subject: BS: Betascript Publishing Scam From: ChrisJBrady This is a warning about a publishing 'scam' that is sucking in hundreds if not thousands of unwitting victims. Betascript and Alphascript are automatically harvesting articles from Wiki - which are free to all - then turning the text into books which are 'printed on demand' at $45 or £26 approx. These titles are listed on Amazon and eBay in their thousands (literally) who are doing nothing to control this 'scam.' These thousands of titles are also swamping book lists of many thousands of book sellers from W.H.Smith to Barnes & Noble to even Tesco. This 'scam' also violates intellectual property rights, if not the actual copyright of the many Wiki authors affected. But the real issue is also that the vast majority of Wiki contributors have invested time and money and energy and resources to raise the integrity of Wiki as a FREE resource for all. I refer readers to the following websites: http://www.massage-research.com/blog/ http://www.massage-research.com/blog/?p=1199 http://www.realtimerendering.com/blog/best-book-title-ever-period/ http://www.chrisrand.com/blog/index.php/2010/02/27/odd-tale-alphascript-publishing-betascript-publishing/ Let the buyer beware ... |
|
02 May 11 - 09:05 PM (#3146807) Subject: RE: BS: Betascript Publishing Scam From: Jack Campin Maybe if Wikipedia started requiring contributors to sign what they write, they might have an argument. I have a hard time feeling any sympathy for gutless wonders who post their comments behind a screen of anonymity and then whine about their intellectual property rights. |
|
02 May 11 - 09:30 PM (#3146817) Subject: RE: BS: Betascript Publishing Scam From: EBarnacle Sorry, Jack, IP [intellectual property] is IP. Compare this to the frequently occuring case where a professor assigns subjects to his graduate students and then takes the papers, publishing them, without attribution, in his textbook. This practice is rightly called theft. Here, the publisher is putting out books consisting of others' labors without attributing them to, at the very least, Wikipedia. Minimal labor, maximum payback. There should have been a case about this quite a while ago. It is not fair usage and the names of the authors are deriveable from the editors of Wikipedia, just as the names of the contributors to the Encyclopedia Brittanica are available with minimal effort. |
|
03 May 11 - 07:54 PM (#3147373) Subject: RE: BS: Betascript Publishing Scam From: EBarnacle Yes, and the concept of fair usage implies that it should not be used for profit. If it is used for profit, then a transaction between Wikileaks and the publisher should take place. If you perform in a public venue, say busking, and someone takes your performance and puts it on a CD of DVD for distribution and profit, does the publisher owe you a cut? He has stolen your labor, even though it was freely shared. He has gone outside the implied contract of the usage. |
|
04 May 11 - 03:24 AM (#3147518) Subject: RE: BS: Betascript Publishing Scam From: ChrisJBrady Betascript and Alphascript have THOUSANDS of titles on Amazon and eBay. Both refuse to remove said books from their listings. The books have also swamped book sellers like Barnes & Noble, even W.H.Smith, and Tesco(!!). Even bearing in mind that many book sellers may only carry one copy of each (probably ordered automatically) that's a huge profit for B&A. I have added some 'one star' negative reviews on Amazon.com - they seem to be allowed to remain. However reviews on Amazon.co.uk are quickly removed. Apparently the book publishers/sellers are able to remove negative reviews - they simply click on Report It. So Amazon is also complicit in this rip-off scam. I was working on a couple of Wiki articles - but not now. Why should someone sell my work for $45+ / £25+ and I don't even get a cut of that, not even an acknowledgement in the printed version? |
|
04 May 11 - 05:26 AM (#3147561) Subject: RE: BS: Betascript Publishing Scam From: Jack Campin Put your articles somewhere other than Wikipedia then. Their licences explicitly allow anybody to make a profit on reproducing the material, and allowed it for years before Wikipedia itself existed - Linux distributions like RedHat and Debian were always done under the same terms. Put it on your won site and you can set your own terms. Or take a look at the terms on sites like instructables.com or scribd.com (which, unlike Wikipedia, have all their contributions signed by named authors). |
|
04 May 11 - 05:58 AM (#3147569) Subject: RE: BS: Betascript Publishing Scam From: Mysha Hi, Counter to Wikimedia claims, their content is not free. At least, not in the sense of being freely reusable. The cost for reuse, in the case of text, basically consists of two requirements: 1 the Wikimedia origin has to be named, 2 the same two requirements apply for further reuse. Depending on the situation, this can be near invisible or a major obstacle. For example, it hampers reuse is projects that are really free, while a republisher making money need only comply with the requirements, at the back of the title page. The reason redistributing for money is allowed under these licenses is that they are intended to promote the distribution of information; they only stop people from copyrighting material and thereby stopping the free flow. That means that commercial distributors are in their right. And indeed, in a way they contribute, as they allow taking parts of Wikipedia where there is no Internet. Having said that, their prices appear a bit steep, unless these books are quite large. When there's no attribution at all, the situation is different, of course. The idea of crafting copyleft licenses on existing law is that you can take indeed take someone who violates it to court. This approach has made the actual licenses very complicated, however, and as a result even most users who intend to comply can be argued to be at fault; Wikimedia a prime example. I've never been fond of this existing-law approach. In my opinion we should have gone for a simple manifest of what copyleft was, and make it accepted in community as quickly as possible. That way it could have been introduced into law as general accepted practice But, anyway, write in Wikipedia on the assumption that you're giving the world the text you write. That's the basic assumption and any other approach will cause you pain sooner or later. But if them guys are violating the license, then I hope they are taken to court. And that way we may also find out what these complicated copyleft licenses are worth. Bye, Mysha |