Quote:
Originally Posted by Quexos
Then let us call it third party ingratiation as it is showing up to the community here how one is on the side of the establishment and how one is the good guy while those not agreeing with this are the bad guys.
Anyone that has a money gain that is totally disproportionate to their amount of effort as opposed to anyone working hard and making the minimum wage or a reasonable amount above the minimum wage.
I'd like to add that, he who makes a lot of money, good for him. I am not opposing that. I only oppose he who is not even quenched by his huge amount of disproportionate money made, that he has to on top, make sure nobody among the little hard working people can dare and try to get a little more if they are smart enough to get it, as if saying: not only I must have way way more than the average guy, I also must make sure they don't have a little more, not even a tiny bit if they are smart enough to do so.
It's the syndrome of the guy that only enjoys his caviar if he knows the great majority can't afford it. If one day the majority for whatever reason can afford it then it does not taste so good anymore. And that is what is wrong and that is what I stand against.
Depends what you do with it, if you say you wrote it then yes it would be wrong, if you sell it then yes it would be wrong as you'd be making money out of something you never put an effort to create. If you change words or chapters in it, you twist the author's vision without his permission.
But if all you do is read a copy of it, the author is still the author, he's still got the money he made off it and the fame if that's what his ego needs. But if he can't stand that someone does not pay him just cause that someone is smart enough to circumvent or bypass that then it's the caviar syndrome previously mentioned in this post.
|
Spoken like a true twister of words. If you say it is wrong to alter the book or sell the book or twist the authors vision, you imply that the author has rights. It is wrong to read the book without the authors permission (bypass legitimate channels such as buying or borrowing a purchased copy), and encouraging others to do the same is a small order of magnitude worse.
And copying is often percieved as wrong and shoddy behavior even if no physical theft is involved. Copying someones exam answers for instance.
As to the caviar statement, my opinion is that only someone who wants his caviar without working for it would harbour such a bizarre opinion. If you are that smart, you should be rolling in caviar.
Oh well, keep the Red Flag flying.