Quote:
Originally Posted by delphidb96
It is *okay*, morally, for the publisher to deprive the customers of the ebook title - potentially for years - but it's *not* okay for the customers to find another source??? Right.
|
Frankly, just like everyone ELSE, a person who owns something has the right not to sell it or give it to someone else. Authors aren't any different. This whole argument is akin to the egregious idea that you're "entitled" to an author's work (property). You're not. Not one whit more than if I decide that I "need" your car and take it, just because I can't get it elsewhere.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by delphidb96
If the title is withheld for no practical reason, then the copyright holder has only him/herself to blame for lost sales. "I can't be bothered" isn't a valid moral excuse for taking a book off the market and waiting to re-release.
|
Extremely often, nowadays, this is flatly inaccurate. The publisher--who has the rights for x years, usually 7 or 10--decides that the midlister author's books aren't selling well enough to warrant another printing, and doesn't put it up as an ebook. The author has no right to issue that ebook while the publisher has those rights.
During that time, every time you download an illicit darknet copy, you're stealing from that author, period. It's not that the author "can't be bothered;" there's no "moral excuse;" it's a contractual issue. You're not stealing from some multi-billion dollar, faceless corporation; you're stealing from the author, directly, because he certainly isn't earning from those darknet copies. And because of the darknet copies, the publisher has no way to gauge demand, because it isn't getting those Amazon "clicks" or consumer emails telling it that the public wants that book in an e-format. AND they don't know enough about that demand to reprint it, either, when "alternative sources" are used, so the whole scenario is a self-fulfilling prophetical ourobouros.
Quote:
Now if the copyright holder doesn't have clean copy and must take the time to re-input, copycheck and e-format from dead-tree, that is a valid reason for delays. And having to wait for a while to buy is expected on backlist titles. But when a publisher takes more than a year? Especially when it's the case of one title missing in the middle of a series that has been released? Nope. There's NOTHING immoral in finding an alternative source.
Derek
|
Again, this assumes the the copyright holder has the rights reverted to him at the time.
All of these arguments are rationalizations. It's not about "conservatives following the rules" or "liberals thinking rules should be bent," or the availability or lack thereof; it's about justifying thievery. Someone wants it, doesn't want to wait, or can't be bothered to buy it properly, so they TAKE it. How is this any different than the guy who breaks into your house and steals your TV, because
you didn't make it available to
him? If it's not immoral to "find an alternative source" to steal someone's property--his book--then it's not immoral to rob your house. Period.
The endless rationalizations and specious "arguments" justifying the theft of intellectual property never cease to amaze me. IP is constantly under assault from people who would have a crap-fit if their TVs or iPads or cars were stolen, but think nothing of stealing someone else's work, or, more accurately,
their paycheck. Somehow, everyone thinks it's harmless because it's "ideas," not a physical
thing. If you have some rationalization about book theft, substitute the word "car" or "iPad" or "tv," and see if your arguments are still valid. No? Then they don't apply to BOOKS, either; in-print or otherwise.
You can blow smoke up your own butts if you want to, but thievery is thievery. Covering it up with some bizarro-world discussion about how the
publishers are immoral for not making the work available is mind-blowing. It's like the kid who murdered his parents throwing himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan.