Thread: Dealing with Barnes and Noble
View Single Post
Old 01-21-2010, 06:09 AM   #29
Pardoz
Which side are you on?
Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.Pardoz once ate a cherry pie in a record 7 seconds.
 
Posts: 370
Karma: 1964
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Variable, currently Czestochowa, Poland.
Device: Kindle 2 Int'l
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga View Post
OK, so let me get this straight. John Doe gets a copy of the "Harry Potter" books via bittorrent; the author gets zero compensation for her work; these are the people I refer to as "pirates." Sounds pretty spot-on to me.
Except for the part where you can't prove any economic loss to the author (and, in this particular example, JK Rowling has made a deliberate and conscious choice not to be compensated for electronic editions of her work. Which is entirely her right, of course, however silly it may seem to me.)

When John Doe begins selling copies of (in-copyright) books, whether electronic or paper (and yes, paper book piracy is big business in some places) without compensating the author, that's piracy. The Great Amazon 1984 Fiasco? That was all about piracy. When publishers decide that a contract written before the issue of electronic rights permits them to sell ebooks without notifying the author or paying royalties, that's piracy.

The demonization of file-sharers? That's just a smokescreen to try to distract people from the real pirates.
Pardoz is offline   Reply With Quote