In a related instance, I once (back in the mid-90s) weirded out the agent for a couple of musicians. I'd heard a limited-issue (and self-produced -- no record label involved!) CD of theirs that I really REALLY liked, and wanted a copy. They were sold out. I couldn't find it new. I couldn't find one used. It was just plain flat-out unavailable...
everywhere. Eventually, I borrowed a friend's copy of the disc and burned my own. Then, I wrote a letter to the agent explaining what I had done and asking them to tell me how large a check I should send to pay for the disc and also (of course) who should get the money.
About a week after I mailed that letter I had a rather odd telephone conversation with the agent. They
couldn't believe that anyone would volunteer to pay for a "pirated" disc. Once I convinced them that I was serious—and that I'd've bought it in the market if it hadn't been made of unobtanium—they told me that they'd get back to me on it. About two weeks later, I got a formal note telling me that I should send $1 each to BMI and ASCAP (referencing account numbers X and Y, respectively), and that both musicians and agent would waive their cut if I would donate $8 or more to my favorite charity. They explained that processing the payment for a single copy of the album would cost everyone more in labor than it would bring in revenue-wise!
It seems that ASCAP and BMI are contractually obligated to collect the royalties regardless (and to then disburse them to the appropriate artists and composers, of course), so they had me send the payment referencing the appropriate account information for the album. The musicians (and their agent) chose to waive their payment because it was cheaper to do so than it would have been to take my money. And they all chalked up the time spent figuring out these details as "part of the cost of doing business"—specifically, learning how to handle such things should they ever arise again in future.
My personal ethics say that one should pay (or at least attempt to pay) full freight or do without. (Note that library and used copies count as paying full freight in this context). YMMV, of course.
By comparison, in Duiker's case, he's trying to pay the artist (author) directly. That's quite laudable, but it cuts out some others who really matter. Given that he didn't use the services of a retailer, I have no problem with not paying there. But the publisher has
- fronted advance money on the book
- provided editorial services
- provided proof-reading, layout, copy-editing, etc.
- done some advertising (maybe, maybe not)
- incurred various production expenses related to the book (different in paper and bits, but still real...)
and isn't getting paid for any of that. Nor are they making any profit on the "sale" (non-sale, really, but...).
I would argue that Duiker would have done better to tell the publisher that they lost the sale entirely but that he'd have bought at a more attractive price-point. Or, he could have approached it as a negotiation—perhaps by sending that check for $9.99 and asking them to reply with a download link if they deposit the check (thus making the transaction at a lower price).
Even with all my quibbles, however, good for Duiker for trying to do
something more than simply "pirating" (Ghod I hate that word!) the book. I simply feel that it wasn't quite
enough of a "something."
As with any question of ethics, YMMV.
Xenophon