4 ms·
I like what the author did here - it was a more-than-reasonable response. But the blog post author's response is interesting to me, particularly: "Actually go
by GrinningFool 13y ago
I like what the author did here - it was a more-than-reasonable response.
But the blog post author's response is interesting to me, particularly:
"Actually going after one of these sites legally is not likely to work out well for most self-published authors: It’s like playing whack-a-mole: another one will spring up in its place if you manage to get one.You don’t have the resources big publishers do, and those guys still aren’t able to shut this stuff down."
What he seems to be missing here is that whether your response is to try to shut these things down, or whether you're going to each site and humanizing yourself - the cost is the same: you're spending time doing things that aren't writing, and aren't working.
It seems to have worked out (possibly) for the author in this case, but it's not scalable as we like to say here. You're still playing whack-a-mole, you're just doing it with a feather duster instead of a sledgehammer.
- davidw 13y agoFair point, but the 'nice' approach seems like it may be a little bit more of an investment, in that the author at least got herself listed on the 'authors to support' list of that particular site, and maybe changed a few minds. It's probably still a drop in the bucket, but at least she came away feeling like she did something, rather than sitting still while someone was ripping her off. (I'm the one who wrote the blog post, by the way)
- GrinningFool 13y agoThanks for responding. "It's probably still a drop in the bucket, but at least she came away feeling like she did something, rather than sitting still." Valid point. This is just something that's always frustrated me as someone who creates work with value (to those who need it), but which is also easily copied. Since sometime in my mid-teens, I've consistently failed to understand the entitlement mentality that allows people to justify the behavior that compels authors and publishers to spend time and/or money combating the behavior. I suppose, ultimately, efforts like the one the nearly-pirated author made are the probably the most effective as they at least have a chance at educating people as to the effects of the actions they take. Doesn't make it less frustrating though
- chongli 13y agoNo, the outcome is not the same. Going around with a feather duster, as you call it, can have positive effects. In the most general sense, it's a form of grass-roots marketing. you're spending time doing things that aren't writing, and aren't working. People spend a lot of time doing things that aren't directly related to putting source code into the repository. That is pretty irrelevant to this issue.
- GrinningFool 13y agoAgreed on both counts, on further thought. Speaking mostly out of frustration - see reply to original author (above) for a more detailed response, but the gist was: yes, education via feather duster is going to at least have a chance at changing behavior, whereas splattage via sledgehammer will have the opposite effect.