Weird Plagiarism Case Involving The Hustle and Harlequin

Yeah.

Hoping the HQN lawyers bust his balls big-time. If they wanted to point out Amazon's flaws and faults they could have done something other than violate an author's copyright. She's a victim in this and I feel for her - may this punk rot in hell.

*pissy mood here*

Wow. How can ye screw the pooch? Let me count the ways...

It's hilarious how proud he is of his rule-breaking, entrepreneurial business strategy, shattering the limits of convention to sell a massive ... 9 copies.

I think he's going to get a crash course in copyright, via Harlequin's lawyers.

I don't know much about The Hustle, but I would hope they would kick him to the curb as well, as it seems rather obvious he doesn't actually know much about what he's talking about and isn't bothered to do any real work or research.

So, yeah, pretty sure this guy just screwed himself over big time.

Well, that's enough internet for me for today.

*wanders off in mild shock*

I'm actually not bothered by this. I read the original post and it really sounds like he was truly doing it as an experiment. Now, granted, he went about it in a stupid way and should have thought it through better, but the difference was that he wasn't out to make money off a plagiarized book. I mean, the guy totally acknowledges that he's plagiarizing, so he also set the rule that any profits would go to charity. He was out to see if he could do this, this, and that. The other blog makes it sound as ugly as possible. (Like the Hustler author said not to knock romance novels.)

If it helps, the thumbnail for the OPs link is the real authors book cover. Might help with advertising.

But yeah, the guy's an asshole. At least the PublishAmerica stunt wrote their own novel.

Note to people: Full copy is not fair use for a novel. Ever. So whether he made money or not doesn't matter. It's a violation of coopyright and I hope he gets nailed for it. But not in the fun romance-novel way.

chompers said:

I'm actually not bothered by this. I read the original post and it really sounds like he was truly doing it as an experiment. Now, granted, he went about it in a stupid way and should have thought it through better, but the difference was that he wasn't out to make money off a plagiarized book. I mean, the guy totally acknowledges that he's plagiarizing, so he also set the rule that any profits would go to charity. He was out to see if he could do this, this, and that. The other blog makes it sound as ugly as possible. (Like the Hustler author said not to knock romance novels.)

Click to expand...

Okay. So plagiarism and copyright violation are totes all right if you acknowledge them.

What about his 'jungle fever' comment?

It sounds to me like he did a really stupid experiment without realising that he's being really stupid. I don't see maliciousness in his actions. I don't think he realised in any way what he was actually doing (hence the donating to charity and the publicly writing about it.)

It's one of those brain farts you sometimes have while drinking a glass of beer with friends and his involved the internet and so it'll have consequences... I feel a bit bad for him.

Then again, as adults, when you have a brain fart... you suffer the consequences, that's life. So, whatever.

He repeatedly uses the term "ripping off" to describe his actions.

The only rule was any profits had to be donated to charity because, as you’ll see, we were pretty much ripping people off.

Click to expand...

And there's this gem.

I was busted, and this whole thing was over. Surely I can’t publish something they know is plagiarized, right?

Wrong.

Amazon gave me 5 days to either resubmit, to confirm that the book is in the public domain, or to remove the book from submission. I resubmitted as soon as I got the email and 10 hours later “Captivating Claire: A First-Time Billionaire Romance” was up and running in the Kindle store (we’ve since unpublished).

Click to expand...

Helix said:

He repeatedly uses the term "ripping off" to describe his actions.



And there's this gem.

Click to expand...

Yeah it was pretty dumb. And obviously stupid. And he deserves the outrage he's facing.

But I don't think it was malicious. Even if the wording of his post gives away that he should probably not be speaking in public.

And OK its a tiny amount of money - but giving sales money to charity - so what? It should have been given to Harlequin and the author.

And yes - the race attitude thing was pretty "off" as well.

My main hope on all of this is it might prove educational for a lot of people - as in they get to learn from his example what happens when you carelessly tread on other people's toes.

Helix said:

Okay. So plagiarism and copyright violation are totes all right if you acknowledge them.

Click to expand...

This. Is it now OK to put someone else's novel up for sale under your name as long as you admit you're violating their copyright and claim that any money you get will go to charity?

To me, whether or not he did this maliciously doesn't matter. It's like those amateur startups in B&BC who say that they're not scammers; in fact, they have nothing but good intentions about helping authors and maybe shaking up the dinosaurs of the publishing industry. Most of the time, this is true, but ultimately, they end up taking manuscripts and authors' hopes down with them when they fail.

Likewise, even if there was no malice intended in ripping off someone else's work, the end result is that an author who spent time and effort writing the original manuscript was shocked and upset to find out what had been done to her book. That bothers me. I can imagine how I would feel if someone did that to one of my books. Especially if it was accompanied by a heaping pile of contempt for the genre I love.

Helix said:

Okay. So plagiarism and copyright violation are totes all right if you acknowledge them.

What about his 'jungle fever' comment?

Click to expand...

I said it was stupid. So obviously it's not right. But I'm not bothered by it. Maybe outraged is a better word. I'm not outraged by it. I am, however, wondering how he could have ever thought it was a good idea.

I actually didn't understand the jungle fever comment.

I agree, the money should have gone to the author.

If this had happened to me, I wouldn't be outraged. I'd be annoyed that I'd have to deal with it, but his intent wasn't malicious, so no, I wouldn't be bothered by it.

And he said he actually enjoyed the book, so I wouldn't say he slammed the genre. Besides, if he did, it's not as if everyone's going to enjoy all genres. There's been worse things said about the genre. I've got a thick enough skin that I just take it as personal opinion that I will choose to ignore.

JMO, but that makes it worse. I mean, he knows it was plagiarism, was fully aware he was ripping people off -- he just didn't consider any of that bad.

What does that say about him? I mean, what if I stole a car but it "wasn't malicious"? I still stole a goddamned car. I still fucked over the owner. The fact I never even considered my actions might be harmful makes it worse, not better. The guy even admits he has emotional problems. He realizes how insanely difficult writing a novel is, and his solution is to steal that work from someone else.

He doesn't lack awareness. He lacks remorse.

Forbidden Snowflake said:

It sounds to me like he did a really stupid experiment without realising that he's being really stupid. I don't see maliciousness in his actions. I don't think he realised in any way what he was actually doing (hence the donating to charity and the publicly writing about it.)

It's one of those brain farts you sometimes have while drinking a glass of beer with friends and his involved the internet and so it'll have consequences... I feel a bit bad for him.

Then again, as adults, when you have a brain fart... you suffer the consequences, that's life. So, whatever.

Click to expand...

Pretty much what I think, although I don't feel bad for him. When you're that stupid, you deserve what you get.

Personally, I think he should be fired from the Hustler, just out of sheer stupidity. But I don't think he should be sued for everything he's got, because his intent wasn't out to make money. He was out to prove a point.

Viridian said:

I mean, what if I stole a car but it "wasn't malicious"? I still stole a goddamned car.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe you were trying to warn people about laxness in car security. As long as you didn't try to profit from selling the car, you can claim good intentions.

I know you were being sarcastic, but you'll still end up in jail for stealing the car. It's not like the thief won't be punished. And no one is saying the Hustler guy shouldn't be punished.

I just personally don't think it deserves all that outrage, considering the intent. Save the outrage for people like Tiffany Rushton, or whatever her name is. THAT is outrage worthy, IMO.

But... but... As Havel states in the link, obviously copyright infringement is less important than the seedy underworld of amazon algorithms.

I'm not saying he should burn in hell. I'm just saying that nonchalance is not an excuse.