Vocenoctum said:
I think both sides have presented basically the same story from their sides.
Except that one of us did not try to exploit the other.
The publisher was trying to get stuff published and was new and made mistakes.
You could call it that. I might call it, "something I would have called the cops about eventually if I'd lived in the same region as Neal." You just don't seem to understand the severity of the situation.
The product didn't do as well as expected. The writer didn't have a contract, didn't know it was going to publishing, and after trying to get money, finally settled for less. The publisher probably paid the lesser amount both to get the writer gone, and also because he thought the material was worth less than originally discussed.
And here, you continue to really, really not get it. I wonder how often I have to say this:
When you sell somebody else's work without permission, you are stealing.
When you sell somebody else's work without permission, you are stealing.
When you sell somebody else's work without permission, you are stealing.
Do you get it yet? Do you understand that if I take something you write, transfer it to .pdf without telling you and sell it, it's tatamount to stealing something you own and fancing it? Can you yet comprehend that the only reason Neal's actions are not criminal is because I was nice enough to offer him a way to avoid being a crook?
It was a bad deal, the publisher admits it. The only thing I can say about the situation from an outside source is that the writer is acting like it just happened, painting the publisher as if this is common behavior and demonizing him as a thief, rather than understanding that perhaps the publisher wasn't experienced in the matter.
It sure is easy for Neal to be humble. Those words are a small price next to a token fee and four years of sales, aren't they?
In my view, he deserves to be demonized. Neal Levin's behaviour speaks for itself, from even releasing the book in question without permission to evading numerous attempts at email contact, to failing to even pay even a reduced amount by wire transfer until I had made further requests for him to get on the ball and even delivered a veilied threat here on these boards.
Plus, I'm not alone. Joe Carriker's also did work for him. Joe's opinion on what happened after that is unprintable here.
It seems like a simple misunderstanding and a bad business deal, the only malisciousness IMO is the name calling and attacking.
If you really believe that politeness more important than an ethical imperative to avoid lying, stealing or cheating, I have nothing in common with you.
