| HN Mirror

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-rich-are-jk-rowling-jame...

therealcamino 297 days ago

According to this link, Paulo Coelho has a net worth of over $500 million and didn't get there by giving away books, so perhaps your example is not well-chosen.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20140422024114/https://torrentfr...

cobbzilla 297 days ago

I’m not so sure about that.

“In part, he puts this success down to BitTorrent, as he saw a huge increase in sales when his books appeared on sites such as The Pirate Bay.” [1]

The fact that people wanted to buy his books, when they could have had them for free, does not negate his or anyone else’s beliefs.

LOL, whatever.

skeaker 298 days ago

I can promise you that the site isn't the reason your book flopped financially. That is just what the vast majority of books do, especially ones on such niche topics.

Who fucking said my "book flopped financially" -- please, point that out. Oh, wait, you can't, because you just made that up. Fucking hell. This place sucks.

skeaker 295 days ago

If it didn't, then what exactly is the problem?

gaudystead 298 days ago

I'm sorry you feel that way and it's understandable to be frustrated by them allowing piracy of something you've worked so long on.

That being said, do you know if their offering of your material has had a significant impact on your revenue or is it more the principal of the matter?

IAmBroom 298 days ago

"I coulda been somebody! I coulda been a contender!"

shortstuffsushi 298 days ago

This strikes me as a bit ironic, if you're serious, as you list your current work as covering the entirety of the Beatles discography. Are you paying them for the rights?

I don't think this is a useful path to go down; there's a legal precedent for cover songs, and perhaps he did pay the fee: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/question-when-mechan...

shortstuffsushi 298 days ago

I actually think it's ironic for precisely that reason. Similar to covering music, there is a legal precedent for making books available in public libraries - though most cover artists don't pay the royalties, and in this case this online library is not paying the GP. In the case that GP did in fact pay the fee, I rescind my criticism.

My understanding is that libraries do pay fees to stock books, some of which goes back to the original author. Anna's Archive does not pay anything back to the authors.

kelnos 298 days ago

I think GP's criticism is valid. The toplevel poster is creating work that leverages the creativity of others. Regardless of whether or not he's paid a fee to do so, it's still funny to see the indignation about sharing, when the person's current project involves using the work of others.

There is both a qualitative and quantitative difference between covering/remixing the art of others, vs. just putting the original up for ~~sale~~ free.

Yes I fucking am. Thank you for your concern.

fundatus 298 days ago

Well, according to the publicly available stats on annas archive, all versions of your book available there had 177 downloads combined. So it's probably not the end of the world.

thomassmith65 298 days ago

We could hold all the following thoughts simultaneously...

• Anna's Archive is a delightful resource for readers

• the more widely the public reads, the better for society

• copyright law should be changed

• it would be good if society made it easier for authors to make a living

• some authors will rightfully feel exploited to have free copies of their works distributed illegally and without their permission

...or we could collapse under the cognitive dissonance, and lash out at @brianstorms instead.

starik36 298 days ago

I never heard of the site. But looking at it now, I can't see how it's anything else other than piracy.

I looked up one of my favorite authors ( https://annas-archive.org/search?q=scott+sigler ) and you can download practically his lifetime's worth of work in 5 minutes. This is not some author who lived 200 years ago - he is living and writing books now and this is his livelyhood.

I wonder if the people who downloaded it for free (has anyone actually done so?) would have ever paid for it.

rkomorn 295 days ago

The "I never would've paid for it" argument has always been entirely meaningless to me.

You wouldn't have paid for it? Fine. Don't read, watch, play, or listen to it, then.

this.

dd_xplore 298 days ago

I think they shouldn’t publish books which are fairly new. Hurts the authors…

xandrius 298 days ago

[flagged]

therealcamino 297 days ago

Pretty presumptuous to tell someone that they shouldn't be paid for their life's work, and then to tell them they should be happy someone pirated it. For the exposure!

What an asshole.

trinsic2 298 days ago

Cultures are created to protect power structures. Culture is the enforcer of authority.

Culture distorts principles in order to defend the authority of evil. Culture must convince you that it is not wrong when law subjugates your worth and destroys your freedom. Culture convinces people of this by perverting the concept of morality. Morality is liberty. Immorality is evil. The exercise and defense of freedom are moral. The destruction of freedom is immoral. This is the pure truth of morality.

Prudence is the proper application of principle. Imprudence is foolishness. Prudence is not morality. It is not immoral to kick a heavy stone with your bare foot, but it would probably be foolish. Prudence is a question of applying the principles and wisdom you have gathered in your life to achieve the goals you have for yourself. This is made possible by liberty. Without liberty, prudence is meaningless. Morality must come before prudence.

The great lie of culture is that authority is not bound by morality, and that authority can enforce its own prudence upon you. The great lie of culture is that you are worth less than law. Cultures teach that intentions of prudence can be enforced by law. In this fashion they gain excuse to control the lives of people.

In order for people to learn, grow, and find happiness, people must be free to test their understanding of principles. With freedom, they can do this by a process of faith, trial and error. In this fashion children grow from immaturity to maturity. In this fashion human beings gain wisdom.

Cultures are agents of evil. The objective of evil is the damnation of your ability to grow strong in wisdom. The objective of evil is the destruction of your worth. In order to gain control over you, culture spreads the lie that authority is not bound by morality. It teaches that authority can destroy freedom at will, and claims prudence as the reason you should willingly submit. In the name of defending you, culture claims that the destruction of freedom is morality. Cultures pretend that evil is good and that good is evil.

Prudence can be found all around you. It is found in the choices you make every day. Even when a mistake is made, you learn prudence. Prudence cannot be enforced. To enforce prudence is law. Law is lie. Without the freedom to choose, you cannot learn prudence. You cannot be happy.

Morality can be found all around you. Wherever you find it, you will find joy. Wherever you find immorality, you will find misery. Culture enforces authority by destroying freedom with law. This is immorality.. - The End of all Evil, Jeremy Locke

You have invested in an idea that has been created by power structures through culture, that you are getting harmed by someone else's freedom. The people that will/want to support your work will do so out of a desire to do so, not because law says its right.

Many people are deceived that law breakers are immoral and harmful to society, but I don't think that's the case. Most laws are created to subjugate people, (I.E, take away there agency) Law's created by power structures which are ultimately designed to benefit the creators or supporters have done a very good job and convincing the subjugated that their interests align. Those that have been deceived by a system of laws that benefit the powerful are too invested in demanding a return for their efforts. What ever happened to the priority of making the world a better place first and foremost and having faith that you will be compensated in some fashion for your efforts?

fwip 298 days ago

I think you must be using an unusual definition of culture. As I understand it, culture is, broadly speaking, the shared values and practices of a group of people.

The only way to avoid having culture, in the usual sense, is to prevent groups of people from existing.

trinsic2 298 days ago

It is unusual. We have been condition to believe that culture is created by shared values. But actually is guided and molded by authority to create the illusion that its driven by society. Obviously this isn't true in all cases, but for most, its my belief that it is.

People can exist out side of the constrains of a culture that is imposed on then by understanding their own human value and worth that they are born with instead of looking to institutions and governments to give it to them.

In a society that doesn't have a centralized governing factor where the powerful impose their will on the people, then yes, I agree that its created by a shared understanding by its people. But that's not the case for 95% percent of the worlds cultures.

fwip 298 days ago

Oh, gotcha - if you'll permit me to paraphrase: it's not culture itself that you find evil; but that the powerful tend to warp the culture to protect their own interests.

trinsic2 298 days ago

Right. IMHO culture, at least for a very long time now, is used as a vehicle to push agendas, and people should be very wary about what to believe from what society says about a great many things.

kelnos 298 days ago

I would agree if those shared values and practices grew entirely organically. But unfortunately people in power have a lot of, well, power, to shape culture.