Paul Coelho on Piracy and Publishing

[Beryll Snyder]

Originally Posted by AlexGrama

I was referring to the idea of downloading the book and after that buying it because of its awesomeness. IMO, this is just a scam. If we would come up with an experiment which would consist in not buying any of his books for one or two months, you will rapidly notice a change in his mind. Why? Because with no profit, the idea of illegal downloading it's not so appealing.

Of course, this is my opinion. Maybe and certainly I'm talking nonsense.

My question was why an author who has made tens of millions and certainly does not have to sell his books(ebooks) make a living, does not give them away freely(download straight from his site) in the first place.
Would that not be appropriate attitude of an author who wants to change humanity for the better?

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by karunaji

I think that movie theater visitors definitely should have "money back" option. Why is it that I can buy any other item online or in a regular shop, try it and then return it if I don't like it but not for movies? If I left the movie theater before the movie had ended because I didn't like it, I should be able to receive a full refund.

The same principle could apply to e-books bought online although I have no idea how to implement it practice.

I think that folks like you would be absolutely hilarious to observe trying to run these businesses.

[karunaji]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Maybe you think an employer should have the same option? You work for a few months and then when you haven't performed up to the company's standards then the company fires you and you have to pay all your salary/wages back. Makes just as much sense.

Guess what, I am a self-employed person and if I do not perform accordingly, I do not get paid.

[karunaji]

Originally Posted by sbroome

I think that folks like you would be absolutely hilarious to observe trying to run these businesses.

You don't seem knowing much about running a service business. In fact, it is the basis of most businesses that you can get money back for unsatisfactory service. I know that even in the US even a waiter earns money mostly from tips (it is different in Europe where it is mostly included in the price of food). So, if people genuinely are not satisfied with the service they don't tip the waiter. As I can see the business model of paying voluntary succeeds quite nicely.

[karunaji]

Originally Posted by Beryll Snyder

As most movies tend to get worse towards the end I could watch an endless amount of movies and leave 5 Minutes before the end without paying.

I can imagine that they would quickly refuse service to you just like Amazon in some cases decided to cancel account of those who returned too many items when it appeared to be done in bad faith.

But if some products gets returned more often than usual, it may indicate a poor quality which then is a fault of a manufacturer and not the customer. Why should movies be an exception if it works even for e-books:

"Amazon kindle ebook return rate and policy
www.wetknee.com/.../Amazon_kindle_ebook_r... - Diese Seite übersetzen
25 Sep 2011 – Amazon allows customers to return ebooks within 7 days, and authors report return rates ranging from 0.5% to 6%, with more around ..."

Thanks for sharing this information.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Maybe you think an employer should have the same option? You work for a few months and then when you haven't performed up to the company's standards then the company fires you and you have to pay all your salary/wages back. Makes just as much sense.

Have you ever returned a defective item for either cash or store credit?

It wasn't that long ago I used to be too timid to do such things because I would read forums from people who work in customer service or retail who post scathing and insulting posts about "freeloaders" who expect such things, and didn't want to be one of "those people"....

I've put up with, and kept, uncountable amounts of crap due to being a people-pleaser.

This is the one thing I appreciate about libraries. I've sampled tons of books and music and movies and only bought the stuff I *really* think is worth my money. I've never needed to ask for my money back for "This stuff".

I've veered slightly to quite a bit
apologies in advance.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by sbroome

The point is whether or not you paid to consume something that people are charging customers to access. If a movie theater has empty seats it doesn't mean people "deserve" to enter the theater without paying just because you weren't going to go if it wasn't free.

I have free access to libraries. I don't pay for the book that I'm reading from the library and that makes me what?

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I have free access to libraries. I don't pay for the book that I'm reading from the library and that makes me what?

It makes you a user of something that is provided by your city as a legal service. Do you feel like pretending to be a lawyer right now and acting obtuse intentionally, as if you can't tell the difference between that and piracy, which rather than offering physical copies in limited supply via legal means, offers unlimited copies via illegal means?l Is that an accomplishment for you?

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by karunaji

You don't seem knowing much about running a service business. In fact, it is the basis of most businesses that you can get money back for unsatisfactory service. I know that even in the US even a waiter earns money mostly from tips (it is different in Europe where it is mostly included in the price of food). So, if people genuinely are not satisfied with the service they don't tip the waiter. As I can see the business model of paying voluntary succeeds quite nicely.

You should DEFINITELY run a movie theater like I said. I'm sure you'd do extremely well and a whole chain would spring up. Let me know when it's open.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by sbroome

It makes you a user of something that is provided by your city as a legal service. Do you feel like pretending to be a lawyer right now and acting obtuse intentionally, as if you can't tell the difference between that and piracy, which rather than offering physical copies in limited supply via legal means, offers unlimited copies via illegal means?l Is that an accomplishment for you?

You said:

Originally Posted by sbroome

The point is whether or not you paid to consume something that people are charging customers to access.

The point is not whether you paid or not, because you can legally read books without paying. I gave the library as an example of that.

Whether a book was paid for or not is not the main indication of whether it infringes on copyright or not. You can get books for free if the author gives freebies, you can borrow books for free from the library, and under some conditions borrow from friends and family without infringing on copyright. You can buy a book from an unauthorized seller and you are infringing on copyright.

[cjr72]

Originally Posted by sbroome

I think that folks like you would be absolutely hilarious to observe trying to run these businesses.

I can't help but wonder how many times John Wanamaker was told that.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You said:

The point is not whether you paid or not, because you can legally read books without paying. I gave the library as an example of that.

Whether a book was paid for or not is not the main indication of whether it infringes on copyright or not. You can get books for free if the author gives freebies, you can borrow books for free from the library, and under some conditions borrow from friends and family without infringing on copyright. You can buy a book from an unauthorized seller and you are infringing on copyright.

No it's not an analagous example, because in the case of a library the item was not intended for sale from them, it was intended to be borrowed if you have a valid membership.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by sbroome

No it's not an analagous example, because in the case of a library the item was not intended for sale from them, it was intended to be borrowed if you have a valid membership.

1. Analogous to what?

Originally Posted by sbroome

The point is whether or not you paid to consume something that people are charging customers to access.

It seems to escape you that I wasn't making an analogy, I was giving an example. A books is for sale in various shops and I can legally consume without paying for example by going to the library.

2. There are libraries who also sell books.

3. There are libraries where you only need a membership to borrow, but you can read there for free (all of the ones that I went to have this).

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

1. Analogous to what?

It seems to escape you that I wasn't making an analogy, I was giving an example. A books is for sale in various shops and I can legally consume without paying for example by going to the library.

2. There are libraries who also sell books.

3. There are libraries where you only need a membership to borrow, but you can read there for free (all of the ones that I went to have this).

Everything is semantics, I could memorize a book either in my head or by copying it by hand and then reciting it to you, Am I a "pirate" for doing so?

The answer is no.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by karunaji

You don't seem knowing much about running a service business. In fact, it is the basis of most businesses that you can get money back for unsatisfactory service. I know that even in the US even a waiter earns money mostly from tips (it is different in Europe where it is mostly included in the price of food). So, if people genuinely are not satisfied with the service they don't tip the waiter. As I can see the business model of paying voluntary succeeds quite nicely.

This does not apply in the same way to a movie theater. And I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who managed one for ten years.

When someone sat through an entire movie then decided they wanted a refund because "I didn't like it", what they got was a polite NO.

A movie theater's job is provide a certain type of experience. Whether you will like any given movie is outside of their control - it's totally a matter of your own personal preference. Watching the whole film then wanting a refund is the equivalent of eating a complete steak dinner then wanting a refund because you decided you apparently don't like steak.

Now, if someone came out 30 minutes into the film and said, "You know, this isn't what I was expecting. It's just not my type of film" then we would happily give them a free ticket to another film of their choice, or a free pass to return another day.

And of course, if there was a technical issue that effected the viewing experience, we would give refunds or passes because things like that ARE the responsibility of the theater. But "I sat through a two-hour movie I did not like" is all on you.