Since Haskell Book doesn't give the author cash anymore just remember that it's on LibGen.https://twitter.com/argumatronic/status/1042520764136620032 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @gypsy_panther
I've heard both people's sides of this and I don't think this is likely the correct take.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot
You've already said that once, and this tweet isn't a "take." It's just a statement ("The book is on LibGen") relevant to the situation, the author not receiving currency for her work anyway.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @gypsy_panther
there are two authors and the context for one not receiving royalties going forward are plausibly not well-represented by her tweets
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot
The only ethical reason she wouldn't receive royalties would be if she didn't write the book. Given that Chris Martin's working with her on *another book,* and seems to be quite happy with how it's going, this implies she's capable of and actively does write books.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gypsy_panther
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"
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @gypsy_panther
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gypsy_panther @eigenrobot
...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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Are Bowie Bonds immoral?
-
-
Replying to @eigenrobot
No, but it's not immoral to pirate music that the profits of don't go to the creator.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.