[ SECRET POST #2960 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2960 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.














Notes:

Better early than late!

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 034 secrets from Secret Submission Post #423.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

But that's part of the point. When a book goes out of print, all the copies that were made are still out there, and they can be lent out or passed around to new readers, meaning there are people reading them without the author's permission. And this is accepted, because once it's out there, and someone has it, it's out there, and there's nothing you can do about it, and some author saying "I'm uncomfortable because my old books are still at the local library" would be considered ridiculous.

Because that's what it is. Ridiculous. It's not about entitlement, it's about people thinking they can do shit in public and then make it all go away, and whining when hey, whadaya know, that's not how the real world works.

[(Anonymous)]

Your argument is completely disingenous, especially when it comes to print books.

Do you know the lifespan of a regular-lease print book in a library (i.e. a book that can be lent out without any special restrictions)? A couple of years, at the very most. That's why the "pirating is just like a library!" argument is bullshit. Libraries replace books on a regular basis.

If the book is no longer in print, then they cannot do this, and eventually the book goes out of circulation. That's why older out of print books rack up in value.

Publishing contracts can also include recall clauses, so that when books go out of print or out of distribution, all forms of authorized distribution -- libraries, bookstores etc. -- have to return any remaining copies. Depending on the publisher, these either go to the author or to the shredder.

When it comes to ebooks, you don't own the physical product in the first place -- you own a license to access the product, and an author and publisher is equally entitled to retract that permission at any time, whether you've paid for it or not.

It's not about people READING without permission, it's about people sharing, reposting, uploading elsewhere and generally keep distributing the work despite the author saying not to, and general assholish levels of disrespect, and yes, despite what you may think, entitlement.

[(Anonymous)]

Why are you entitled to take back something someone literally now owns? Just because you made it doesn't mean it's yours anymore. You gave it away. It's the height of immaturity to not be able to accept something doesn't belong to you anymore just because you put it together.

This is why the whole art and media thing is a scam. Someone who makes a product, who puts lots of care and time into it, is just as creative and has just as much right to that product as a writer has to a book, but no one would accept someone saying, "no one is allowed to have the toasters I made anymore."

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I don't think you understand the terms under which you purchase media...

[(Anonymous)]

Not truly owning something you've purchased is a shitty term.

[(Anonymous)]

You did NOT give it away, that's the fundamental lack of understanding about how the contracting of ANY form of media works.

My publishing contracts do NOT state anywhere that I'm giving anything away. They state that I am allowing my publishers, at a fee which becomes their percentage of the contract, to distribute the work on my behalf. I don't need a reason to change my mind -- I just don't renew my contract whenever it comes up for renewal, and all distribution ceases. Anyone who then newly accesses the work from that point on is doing so with an unlicensed product via unauthorized distribution channels. The people who already own it are the same as the people who've saved a copy of a fanfic, but it cannot then continue to be distributed.

What world do you live in where product recalls for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER don't happen? When TV shows get cancelled, when the food products we love stop being made anymore?

No one anywhere, in any business, is obligated to keep a product in circulation just for your benefit. When that toaster breaks, then you have to find a new and different one. When that book falls apart, then either you luck out and get an old copy on Ebay or you suck it up and do without.

[(Anonymous)]

They're not obligated to keep a product in circulation, but they can't come knocking at your door demanding you to give back the copy you bought when it was still out there.

[(Anonymous)]

No one's doing that with fanfic either. They're asking that if a writer deletes a fic that readers respect that it's their right to do that and don't continue to share it.

Because if you started making copies of a discontinued product, you can bet your life there'd be a knock at your door. It's not yours to do that with.

[(Anonymous)]

But the thrust of this line of argument came from the idea that people shouldn't save fic for their personal use, that it's wrong to do so because, if the author should choose to take down the fic, there would still be a copy out there. That's akin to still having a toaster after it's no longer being made, and someone saying that it's wrong to keep having that toaster.

[(Anonymous)]

No, actually this single thread derailed that line, but whatever...

By posting a fic, no one is giving permission for those copies to be made in the first place (unless you've agreed to whatever TOS policy a site like AO3 has, but on the same token, if they're assuming the role of distributor in that case, then THEY can revoke that permission at any time too). Like an anon said above, yes most people are doing it for personal use, but it still remains that there's a copy out there of something that no one said a copy could be made out of.

Your whole argument falls flat because you're not comparing like with like. A toaster (or even a paperback book) is NOT the same thing as a fanfic in this context. At all.

[(Anonymous)]

There is literally nothing that can be done to stop that. Nothing. Whining about people having something that you dropped into a public space is ridiculous.

[(Anonymous)]

See, yes something can be done.

People can show a little bit of fucking respect and a little less "I want it therefore I can take it and fuck anyone else" entitlement.

[(Anonymous)]

You are not entitled to respect any more than someone is entitled to a story.

[(Anonymous)]

Where did I say I thought I was?

I am, however, fully entitled to treat those who show disrespect with the contempt their behavior deserves.

[(Anonymous)]

It's all over everything that you're saying, that something is wrong if you think it's disrespectful, that you have some sort of right not to be disrespected. Creators are as entitled and sniveling as consumers. They think they're special and that they've done something special. But other people can do the exact same thing that you can, and a lot of the times, they can do it better.

[(Anonymous)]

LOL, wow there's a whole heap of bitterness in you, isn't there?

[(Anonymous)]

Only matched by yours.

[(Anonymous)]

Please show me how citing facts and dismissing misinformation makes anyone bitter.

[(Anonymous)]

And that's typical, isn't it? Anyone who dares to criticize is "jealous" or "bitter." It's a good diversionary tactic, but it's transparent.

[(Anonymous)]

Almost as typical as descending to adhominem attacks and wild personal assumptions when you can't actually argue against facts.

[(Anonymous)]

You took that bent from the outset, and twisted everything I said to fit some argument you thought I was making.

[(Anonymous)]

....what?

You make factually incorrect comments, I correct you. You make illogical derailments, I ask how that's even relevant.

Please, tell me, how does that twist anything?

...LOL, and you accuse me of diversionary tactics?

[(Anonymous)]

You somehow twisted "if someone has a product, the person who made the product shouldn't be allowed to take it back" into "if you possess a product, you should be able to distribute it" and "writers shouldn't be allowed to stop distributing their work."

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, ebook licenses are like that, but that doesn't mean is fair to the customers. And yes, I know the law supports that business model, but in this case law is supporting the writers' (and editorial groups') entitlement while ignoring the basic rights any customer must have.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, totally, how dare a writer think that the people who gladly take all the stuff they produce for free (and fawn all over them as long as the writer's doing what THEY want and providing stuff for them) might deign to show their requests a modicum of respect, that totally doesn't happen in the real world!