Quote:
Originally Posted by HansTWN
That is just the point --- if you are using a shared copy you are profiting. You didn't have to buy one yourself. Why is personal greed acceptable for you and an author trying to make money to pay his/her family's living expenses or a company trying to make money to pay their employees wrong?
|
I presume that you are using greed in the traditional sense which encompasses taking more than your equitable share. I don't subscribe to the greed is good philosophy. In your above examples I believe that the author is usually the only person where greed arguably plays only a minor role. Publishers generally do not share profits with authors on a very equitable basis, though some innovative new models are emerging, usually in specialist areas. Whilst being lucky enough to be born and live in Australia, and also an avid reader for most of my life, I have lined the pockets of greedy, mostly British publishers, who have taken advantage of parallel importing legislation to artificially inflate the costs of printed books. Book prices here remain ridiculous, and publishers recently lobbied Government successfully to ignore recommendations dispensing with this ridiculous legislation. It is hardly surprising that I have little sympathy with their plight now. It is interesting to me that press releases always focus on the plight of the author, who usually receives a relative pittance, or on alleged fostering of local authors by the existing system, but never on the plight of publishers. Perhaps this is because to do so would invite scrutiny of the existing system and the way profits are divided.
People obtaining Pirate EBooks can be said to be greedy in that they deprive the author of even the small share that they ultimately receive for their work, and deprive the Publisher not only of a reasonable profit but even recovery of their costs. However, given the profiteering by such publishers in the past, I think many end users, whilst no doubt breaking the law, feel justified in doing so. The author is dismissed as a necessary casualty as there is no mechanism for such end users to pay the author whilst bypassing the Publisher. This of course amounts to "two wrongs make a right" and is certainly fallacious. However, it is very much human nature.
I would also point out that publishing company's do not exist for the purpose of paying their employees, which is a necessity if they want to trade and make a profit. It is nevertheless sad but unavoidable when people lose their jobs essentially because of changing technology. There is not much demand these days for drivers of horses and carts, or for collectors of night-soil. There are, however, jobs for taxi drivers and bus drivers and truck drivers and chauffeurs etc. Likewise there are many jobs in maintaining a proper sewerage system. It is up to these publishers to adapt. If they don't do so they will perish. They need to stop lobbying for ridiculous new laws to protect them and try to see the opportunities rather than the problems. ITunes is now so successful due in a large degree to the failure of the record companies and retailers to adapt.
Courtney Love's article, though in the context of music rather than books, which I linked to in an earlier post, remains very enlightening.
http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/