Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeB1972
Which is fair enough, sort of, and Konrath knows what he's talking about, however, I'm still not happy with the "If it costs more than I like I'm going to nick it" argument.
I also notice that he's changed his stance to "piracy does damage sales, sometimes signficantly" from "Piracy doesn't harm authors", seems like quite a shift to me  |
Mike. You are quoting my comments, not Joe Konraths, though I am of course flattered. I'm afraid my writing is not nearly as good nor as interesting as Joe's. I linked to Konrath's comments and then made comments of my own. I'm not sure if you noticed the link which appears above my comments but defaults to the same colour text. I have now edited the link so it is in blue and stands out a little more.
I don't think Konrath has changed his stance at all. He simply added a proviso. This is an extract from the link to his blog:
Quote:
The problem isn’t piracy. As long as your book is available, and reasonably priced, piracy isn’t going to harm your sales.
But if your book isn’t available yet, such as the case with ARCs and galleys, your fans are going to do whatever they can to get ahold of it. There is a whole market for selling ARCs, and always has been. Many indie booksellers can only stay afloat by selling ARCs. I’ve visited hundreds of bookstores and have seen this firsthand.
|
On your other point, copyright infringement is just that. Copyright infringement. It is not identical to stealing for many reasons. It is of course arguable and argued by many that it is morally equivalent. Rights holders like to call it theft simply because the majority of people don't understand copyright infringement but they do understand theft. In any case, little turns on this. The morally correct response to a price which is too high is usually not to purchase. But authors and publishers live in the real world, and must deal with the fact that if they price too high there are people who have no problem with pirating the book. Some will point to the nefarious practices of some of the publishers in their own moral equivalence argument that two wrongs cancel each other out. Others will not bother with any justification. But lamenting that some people choose to download infringing copies rather than purchase if they consider the price is too high doesn't change the fact.