You seem to have the gist of it. She doesn't seem to see the irony in: > someone who pirates the book was never going to buy it anyway, so it’s not a lost sal

You seem to have the gist of it. She doesn't seem to see the irony in: > someone who pirates the book was never going to buy it anyway, so it’s not a lost sale. Yet her whole story is pointing out that there was a point in time when a whole bunch of people were eagerly awaiting book 3 but the only actual way they could get it was to download a pirate copy of the "e-arc". She does see how the piracy on book 3 hurt her on book 4, but doesn't seem to believe that the root problem was that the only way for legitimate fans to join an ongoing discussion about the piracy-released version of her book was to also pirate the book. She didn't want the e-arc released for book 4 for the wrong reasons. It was not that she wanted to avoid a scenario where the only way fans could get a book they were eagerly awaiting was to pirate it, she just wanted to avoid the e-arc copy being the copy which is pirated. I don't see how her "proof" proves anything other than the fact that piracy exists. Neil Gaiman's experience directly contradicts her belief as well.