Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
I hate to add this, though, but part of me wonders if providing this interview with a group that acted against the wishes of the author and publisher to create electronic works, is in fact a defacto acceptance of those actions...
|
I'm quite sure this is not presented in order to accept and approve of the actions (in terms of motive, at least.. I suppose one could argue back and forth about effect).
I think that there is a lot of fascination with this sort of thing. I'm glad to get this peek inside. We wonder who would dare to do it and why, we are frustrated by Rowlings' position against e-books (because so many of us are fans of the books and want the e-books). We have vehement feelings about the levels of current copyright protection and the balance between readers' rights and authors' rights. It is a fascinating topic and very emotional.
So a story like this is all the more fascinating. I think it's common to feel empathy for both the "authors should have full control over their content and how it is used or distributed" camp and the "content should be free" camp. I suppose it's due to frustration with things like long copyright terms, onerous DRM schemes causing headaches and constant repurchase of material, and yet a strong feeling of wanting authors to be properly compensated for their work. Nobody seems to have any good answers, and it makes this sort of paradigm-bending event all the more intriguing. Especially with regard to the motives and thoughts behind it. Most of us share the "just want to be able to read it my way" feeling, but want to stay within the lines and support authors. This sort of event challenges a lot of our perspectives as we consider it and the people involved.