Rule: If a noun has specific reference, a modifying -ing participle clause is equivalent to a finite relative clause with progressive aspect, unless the verb is one that does not allow the progressive.
Example of error:
(1) There are people using books to escape from reality.
-ing participle clauses can sometimes replace relative clauses, as in Can you see the girl dancing with your brother?, which means 'Can you see the girl who is dancing with your brother?' This is not possible, though, if there is a time difference between the actions of the two verbs, so that this sentence cannot mean 'Can you see the girl who has been/was/will be dancing with your brother?'
Being is not used in this way in its stative sense. You cannot say *Can you see the girl being taller than your brother? to mean 'Can you see the girl who is taller than your brother?' When it means 'acting,' however, it can replace the relative clause: Can you see the girl being silly with your brother? This is also possible if being is merely the passive marker with other verbs, e.g.: Can you see the girl being scolded by your brother?
Another restriction is that if the noun is specific rather than general, the -ing form can only be understood as progressive. Thus Can you see the girl being scolded by your brother? cannot mean 'Can you see the girl who is scolded [i.e., generally or regularly] by your brother?' It must mean 'Can you see the girl who is being scolded [now] by your brother?' Likewise, in the active mood, you cannot say *The boy delivering the newspaper is sick today to mean 'The boy who delivers the newspaper is sick today.' The boy delivering the newspaper has to mean 'the boy who is delivering the newspaper' [right now].
If the noun has a general sense, the -ing participle clause can also replace a relative clause in the non-progressive mood: Girls speaking to your brother will be reported = Girls who speak to your brother will be reported. It can also replace a progressive verb: Girls considering journalism as a career should apply = Girls who are considering journalism as a career should apply.
In general, one can say that simple aspect in the verb tends to correspond to generic reference in the (subject) noun phrase, and progressive aspect to specific reference in the noun, e.g.:
Turkish men (generic reference) smoke Turkish cigarettes.
That Turkish man (specific reference) is smoking a Turkish cigarette.
There are cases, though, when progressive aspect combines with generic reference in the noun:
Turkish men (generic) are smoking more these days.
and it is quite common to have simple aspect with specific reference in the noun, e.g.:
That Turkish man (specific) smokes Turkish cigarettes.
In the case of verbs that do not normally take progressive aspect, the verb has simple aspect regardless of the reference of the noun:
Turkish men (generic) like Turkish cigarettes.
That Turkish man (specific) likes Turkish cigarettes.
The same combinations of simple or progressive aspect in the verb and generic or specific reference in the noun phrase are possible in the case of nouns modified by relative clauses, e.g.:
Men (generic) who smoke Turkish cigarettes are usually Turks.
A man (specific) who is smoking Turkish cigarettes is waiting in your office.
Men (generic) who are smoking more these days obviously have not heeded the health warnings.
A man (specific) who smokes Turkish cigarettes is waiting in your office.
Men (generic) who like Turkish cigarettes are usually Turks.
A man (specific) who likes Turkish cigarettes is waiting in your office.
-ing participle clauses which modify nouns can be considered reduced relative clauses, e.g.:
The man smoking a cigarette is my brother.
= The man who is smoking a cigarette is my brother.
What the author of (1) meant to say was
(a) There are (some) people who use (i.e. in general, as a rule) books (merely) to escape from reality (and not for more edifying purposes).
But it can only mean
(b) There are (some) people who are using books (i.e. right now, at this moment) to escape from reality.
in which case it would be analogous to a sentence like
There are some people (who are) waiting to see you in your office
This restriction is formulated in Rule 1.10.4. Note that people in (1) has specific reference, referring not to people in general but only to some individuals. If we change the sentence so that people has generic reference, the interpretation is analogous to (a):
People (generic) using books to escape from reality are dreamers.
= People who use books to escape from reality are dreamers.
It is also possible, though more difficult, to find examples of generic noun reference and an -ing clause that is interpreted analogously to (b):
People (generic) waiting to see the doctor must report to the receptionist.
= People who are waiting to see the doctor must report to the receptionist.
We cannot say, then, that -ing clauses are interpreted only as (a) (i.e. as having underlying simple aspect) when the noun is generic, and only as (b) (i.e. as having underlying progressive aspect) when the noun is specific. The second part of the rule, however, limiting the generalization only to cases when the noun has specific reference, seems to be true. Here is another example similar to (1):
There is a man (specific) smoking Turkish cigarettes in your office
This sentence is not interpretable analogously to (a), i.e.:
There is a man who smokes Turkish cigarettes (in general, as a rule) in your office
The only possible interpretation, as in the case of (1), must be analogous to (b):
There is a man who is smoking Turkish cigarettes (i.e. right now, at this moment) in your office.
Thus we can say, at least, that if the noun has specific reference, the modifying -ing participle clause must be interpreted as (i.e. be equivalent to) a finite clause with progressive aspect. Since this is not the interpretation or the meaning intended in (1), the sentence is unacceptable. To this we must only add the caveat that if the -ing participle is a verb that does not normally allow the progressive, only the interpretation with simple aspect is possible, since the progressive is not allowed in any case, e.g.:
There is a man wishing to see you in your office.
There is a man who *is wishing/wishes to see you in your office.