Paul Coelho on Piracy and Publishing

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by karunaji

Yesterday Fred Goodwin, the former CEO of the RBS bank, was stripped of his knighthood in the UK for his role in creating recession. This is a significant case because it appears that he was not formally convicted of any wrongdoing. While the title is largely ceremonial, many think that it should reflect moral values. So much for the law implementing moral values..

This is one of the most unusual deductions I've ever seen.

[karunaji]

It is just a symbolic example. Grounded Costa Concordia illustrates it even better.

A young crew member drowned while helping passengers to escape, whereas the captain "fell" in the first rescue boat available. Actually there is no law that the captain should be the last person leaving his sinking ship but it is a sacred tradition, a moral code, and for very good reasons. And allegedly he was doing those risky maneuvers on the instructions from the ship owners.

I feel that our economy is just like that ship guided by captains without moral responsibility.

[azazel1024]

Originally Posted by karunaji

It is just a symbolic example. Grounded Costa Concordia illustrates it even better.

A young crew member drowned while helping passengers to escape, whereas the captain "fell" in the first rescue boat available. Actually there is no law that the captain should be the last person leaving his sinking ship but it is a sacred tradition, a moral code, and for very good reasons. And allegedly he was doing those risky maneuvers on the instructions from the ship owners.

I feel that our economy is just like that ship guided by captains without moral responsibility.

Except if you look at the charges against the captain, he is charged with abandoning ship.

quote, "According to Italian navigation code, a captain who abandons ship before others are safe can face up to 12 years in prison"

So, actually according to Italian law, there IS a requirement that the captain of a ship does not abandon ship until others are safe. Under the laws of a lot of other nations, the captain probably could be convicted of negligence, manslaughter, abandonment or a number of other crimes if they abandon ship before resonably attempting to ensure the evacuation of the passengers and crew first. In general a captain does not need to go down with their ship, but if it is "every man for themself, I am getting of this thing!", then they likely will be facing charges.

[Namekuseijin]

Easy for Coelho to say that after he's got his fair share of many years worth of best sellers. Piracy doesn't help putting dinner on new author's tables nor Shakespeare's.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by azazel1024

Except if you look at the charges against the captain, he is charged with abandoning ship.

quote, "According to Italian navigation code, a captain who abandons ship before others are safe can face up to 12 years in prison"

So, actually according to Italian law, there IS a requirement that the captain of a ship does not abandon ship until others are safe. Under the laws of a lot of other nations, the captain probably could be convicted of negligence, manslaughter, abandonment or a number of other crimes if they abandon ship before resonably attempting to ensure the evacuation of the passengers and crew first. In general a captain does not need to go down with their ship, but if it is "every man for themself, I am getting of this thing!", then they likely will be facing charges.

Captains are also personally responsible for regular conduct of safety drills and mapping out emergency evacuation procedures. If there's a failure, the Captain can be investigated for not conducting those drills in the manner required of him.

The housekeeping and catering staff are generally important components of these procedures. They're generally supposed to be the ones helping the crew guide the passengers according to set procedures. One of the waiters who made it back home is on record having stated that they were lucky the accident occurred when it did, and not later. Apparently, a couple of hours later the catering staff would have been drunk off their asses, because they had a private party of their own planned. They would have been in no fit state to respond effectively to an emergency. Such parties were regular and were 'institutionalised' with the knowledge of the Captain.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by karunaji

It is just a symbolic example. Grounded Costa Concordia illustrates it even better.

A young crew member drowned while helping passengers to escape, whereas the captain "fell" in the first rescue boat available. Actually there is no law that the captain should be the last person leaving his sinking ship but it is a sacred tradition, a moral code, and for very good reasons. And allegedly he was doing those risky maneuvers on the instructions from the ship owners.

I feel that our economy is just like that ship guided by captains without moral responsibility.

Also a poor comparison and conclusion.

[taosaur]

Neil Young: Piracy Is The New Radio http://gizmodo.com/5881167/neil-youn...-the-new-radio

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Easy for Coelho to say that after he's got his fair share of many years worth of best sellers. Piracy doesn't help putting dinner on new author's tables nor Shakespeare's.

That's penny wise and pound foolish. New authors more than anyone need the maximum possible exposure. If more authors were file-sharing their own works with a respectful introduction suggesting how readers can compensate them, the returns would be far greater than alienating potential readers and rationalizing one's lack of success by tilting at the windmill of lost sales because their work sits unread in a torrent of 3000 others.

[karunaji]

Originally Posted by azazel1024

Except if you look at the charges against the captain, he is charged with abandoning ship.

quote, "According to Italian navigation code, a captain who abandons ship before others are safe can face up to 12 years in prison"

Thanks for correcting me. I got my info from newspapers which only mentioned that the US laws do not require this without specifying how it is in Italy.

Actually ship and airplane travel nowadays is very safe. Costa Concordia is most likely an aberration. But it is significant because it happened exactly because the safety rules were not followed. The same about the current economic crisis. It didn't happen because of natural disasters like floods, droughts or wars but because some leading bankers got greedy and lacked moral responsibility. And when the economy run aground, they abandoned the sinking ship, figuratively speaking.

I am not for total and unrestricted piracy. There should be rules and content creators should receive well deserved compensation. But I am concerned that some big companies are getting too greedy and are lobbying for laws that will lead to decrease in original content. It can also become a recession of freedom of expression and so on.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Easy for Coelho to say that after he's got his fair share of many years worth of best sellers. Piracy doesn't help putting dinner on new author's tables nor Shakespeare's.

And part time workers are payed less than full time workers. Do you expect new authors to make as much money as best selling authors with experience and fans?

[Jobby]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Easy for Coelho to say that after he's got his fair share of many years worth of best sellers. Piracy doesn't help putting dinner on new author's tables nor Shakespeare's.

I can't imagine why any aspiring writer wouldn't want readers to be able to access their work and become potential fans.

For any aspiring artist in a thoroughly saturated marker, the problem isn't piracy, it's obscurity.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by Jobby

I can't imagine why any aspiring writer wouldn't want readers to be able to access their work and become potential fans.

For any aspiring artist in a thoroughly saturated marker, the problem isn't piracy, it's obscurity.

Yes, w'ere all familiar with O'Reilly's quotes. His either/or scenario is still wrong.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by taosaur

If more authors were file-sharing their own works with a respectful introduction suggesting how readers can compensate them, the returns would be far greater than alienating potential readers and rationalizing one's lack of success by tilting at the windmill of lost sales because their work sits unread in a torrent of 3000 others.

Extremely few readers know the opinions regarding piracy of various authors. And of that small group of readers, many are themselves against piracy. So the net lost sales to alienated readers must be few to none.

As for giving away books as an unknown author marketing tool, this will work for some. But if you can get the works of an author you know you like for free, there is much less reason to try someone new who is also free. Reduced copyright infringement and voluntary file-sharing complement each other.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by sbroome

Yes, w'ere all familiar with O'Reilly's quotes. His either/or scenario is still wrong.

Do you disagree that having your work disseminated--by whatever means--lessens obscurity, or that obscurity decreases the likelihood that your work will be spread by piracy? Or are you proposing that an author who is known and pirated profits less from his/her work than one who is unknown and unpirated? Which part of the statement is wrong?

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

As for giving away books as an unknown author marketing tool, this will work for some. But if you can get the works of an author you know you like for free, there is much less reason to try someone new who is also free.

Giving away books has been the primary means of promoting written work for at least a couple hundred years. Your second statement simply doesn't make sense. File-sharers are typically massive consumers of media, hence the file-sharing. In addition to downloading illegally, they typically spend a larger portion of their income on media than the average person, because books and film and music are important to them. They are MUCH more likely to try a new author for free before spending money on their work, or products and events related to that work.

The way ebooks are shared, more than any other media, really lends itself to exposing people to new authors. Because the files are small, they are often bundled by the hundreds or thousands, often by subject or genre. A person who has no clue who you are has now seen your name and the name of your book alongside their favorite authors--you are no longer unknown to them. They also have some sampling of your work on hand. If they read it and like it, your audience has grown by one. The odds of them spending money on your work--possibly even the same book in another format or as a gift--have just risen from zero to pretty darn likely.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Reduced copyright infringement and voluntary file-sharing complement each other.

Agreed to an extent, though file-sharing as promotion is not the only way to adapt to the current market and technology. I'm not saying authors should be giving all their work away, just that railing against piracy is misdirected effort.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by taosaur

Do you disagree that having your work disseminated--by whatever means--lessens obscurity, or that obscurity decreases the likelihood that your work will be spread by piracy? Or are you proposing that an author who is known and pirated profits less from his/her work than one who is unknown and unpirated? Which part of the statement is wrong?

The part that makes piracy and obscurity mutually exclusive as threats to an author is wrong.