Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherCat
Is that so? I actually just asked if the person did what I described would they become a "benefactor" and that question you did not answer - I made no claims whatsoever about how frequently such a case would arise that would warrant your response.
|
And--what? If I said, sure, in this hypothetical situation, the pirate whose friends run out and buy it, "benefitted" the author, as a benefactor, what's the response to that? So what? What would you then say? That it's likely that all the pirates are doing just that? That some percentage are? Etc.? So that we should not consider pirates to be bad, or morally compromised, but instead, unpaid Street Teams, for self-publishers?
This is the Robin Hood thing--that it's okay to "steal from the rich" and give to the poor. Same exact mindset, if you think about it, that doing something "good" with stolen property negates the initial bad act, right?.
It's "alright" for the pirate to take the book, because by using it, s/he "benefits" the author, because others buy it. How's that different from saying that it's okay for Roger to steal cash from the bank, and give the money to the local Priest, to buy a bus for the parish. The priest then uses the bus, to take poor parishioners to the bank, wherein they deposit their money--benefitting the bank.
Is Roger now a
benefactor of the bank, because the poor parishioners are getting to the bank in the bus paid for with the stolen funds? Will the jury that sits on Roger's trial, let him walk free, nullifying his deed, because the bank is now making "more" money, from the poor parishioners? And if that's not okay--if Roger should still be held accountable, for his bad acts--why should the pirate be treated differently?
Quote:
|
But I see where you are coming from as you apparently have a vested interest in the copyright trough so very defensive it seems to me.
|
I felt this way long before I had a business that works in publishing. It's hardly rocket science to know that people don't write books and publish them, for love. They do it for MONEY. Sure, lots of artists wax eloquent about how they create their art for love--but they sell it for
money. Those 5-6 million self-publishers on Amazon might claim that they published for love, but if that were true, they'd put their books up for free on Wattpad or Smashwords. They hope and expect money, not "only" accolades.
Publishing is a BUSINESS, like any other.
Publishers--the businesses that bring books to the buying public--take enormous risks, and publish a lot of books that will never earn out--never earn back their costs, much less profits. Of course, they want a longer period, by which to try to earn that money. And I'd point out that there are vastly more mid-listers, authors that desperately need those years, to try to earn money on a given book, because they're NOT getting 6-digit signing bonuses or advances, but instead, more like $1,000 or $5,000, for assigning the rights to a book.
I'll never understand this mad hostility toward the very people that write the books that other people wish to read, nor the publishers (and other companies) that make it happen.
Hitch