Since Haskell Book doesn't give the author cash anymore just remember that it's on LibGen.https://twitter.com/argumatronic/status/1042520764136620032 …
surely it suggests that she can happily write a book with a specific different person her tweets seem to suggest that a confidential agreement has been reached this implies that her rights have been purchased or similar which isn't obviously the same as "she gets nothing"
-
-
Given that her access to her own book's website was taken away before this happened, I'm prone to feel she was coerced/left with no real options other than to give up rights, especially if you take into account the tweet right above that one, and . . .
-
. . . the various community anecdotes that've popped up against Chris since she came out with her story, by some generally well-respected people.
-
Have you seen a statement from Chris or are you just concluding from Julie's insinuations and hearsay that he's obviously at fault?
https://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1043774982029946881 … -
Yes I saw your subtweet. Other people, including some rather influential and trustworthy ones, in the Haskell community have been bringing out supporting anecdotes against Chris. A statement from Chris hasn't been given, and acting as if a statement from a 1/2
-
single person in itself, without having some proof that goes against *dozens* of trustworthy anecdotes, generally isn't going to suggest someone's innocent. Many people say "I'm not guilty!" This doesn't make them not guilty. Too many trustworthy people having negative anecdotes.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
it's plausible her *marginal* benefit from future sales may be zero however that's hardly enough to conclude she's been screwed both parties retained attorneys who probably negotiated a resolution these things happen
-
I didn't say she was screwed, I said she's not getting paid for her work going into the future IRT the book. Going solely by law, copyright-protection continues after an author's death, and even though the author doesn't get a thing, you'd still be guilty of infringement. 1/2
-
...So even though the author isn't affected, you're still 'in the wrong', legally. But the general, overwhelming /moral/ consensus on these cases is that since the author doesn't benefit/get harmed by it, it's okay. I'm just taking that notion, and applying it to this case.
-
Are Bowie Bonds immoral?
-
No, but it's not immoral to pirate music that the profits of don't go to the creator.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
