Review of Hyperink's "Understanding SOPA and PIPA". Short version: Not good.

This was the second book that I was supposed to write for Hyperink. The book Hyperink ended up publishing is not a very good book and in fact is far inferior to the book that I turned into them.  That's what I get for trying to explain that fair use isn't plagiarism. But I do intend to self publish that book that I wrote, written by a guy who knew what the fuck he was talking about. Oh, I spent my 2.99 on the book and you know what? There is a reader response section. Well, I'm a 12 year member in good standing over there at Amazon...I think I'll make a comment or two...Do you have any idea how I wished I had this tool of the Internet when I was beginning my career? You have no idea...(On the other hand, I wouldn't have appreciated this power! This would have been something that I would take for granted as things I could do. You have to remember those days to value the present...)

Oh look. My Amazon review was approved! And here it is:

  Poorly researched "objective" book written for dumb laymen, not "hackers"., March 26, 2012

By Philip Shropshire

This review is from: Hacker's Guide To SOPA and PIPA (Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act) (Kindle Edition)

Well, first, the book that I delivered to you was a much better, much more intelligent, much better researched book than the "book", and I use that term loosely, that you actually decided to go with. Its a very good study of why the corporate mentality doesn't produce writing of interest, intelligence or vitality.

Two, the book is written for four year olds, not hackers. For example, there are workarounds to SOPA and PIPA, everything from browser encryption protocols to the old TOR network to virtual private networks. None of this is even hinted at in this poor excuse of an effort. It's not even stylishly written. Joshua should stick to code.

Three, there are a total of about seven links in this "book". (What's the nonfiction term for "short story"?)and there is almost nothing verified about any of its declaratory statements. For example, when he talks about how  "The Acts were primarily aimed at preventing U.S. Internet users from accessing illegal content", well, everybody who's anybody on the Internet disagrees with you Joshua. What's actually really really amazing is that Marc Andreessen, the guy who gave Kevin Gao, the founder of Hyperink, over 1 million in funding(!), also hates the bill! Look up "An Open Letter to Washington" on the Google...I believe Marc's exact words were that these bills would "give the US Government the power to censor the web using techniques similar to those used by China, Malaysia and Iran..." Perhaps Marc should have a good talking to with Kevin about the kinds of harmful laws that can destroy everyone's business model, including Hyperink's!

Four, it totally misses the point that the war continues with both the ACTA and TPP treaties. Inexcusable. These treaties would accomplish what SOPA and PIPA failed to do. Again, something that real hackers would want to know and that real writers would write about. Not info found in this 2000 word essay.

Five, it's "gizmodo" not "gizomodo". What do you pay your editors for anyway?

Bottom line: not worth nine cents let alone $2.99. You would be better off looking at Wikipedia entries. Pathetic. And you know what? I don't even blame Joshua. I blame his editors and his publisher. You get what you pay for. There's a difference between "objective" and "advocacy" journalists. Here you needed an advocate for your own damn business model.

 Sincerely,

Philip Shropshire