Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 204048" data-attributes="member: 2525">Funny.1) If there is &quot;any&quot; chance? As in a .0001% chance? No.&nbsp; If there is a reasonable chance it would harm Monte Cooks pocket book in a material way, then you have a point.&nbsp; But any chance? No.&nbsp; The odds are, by seeing part of the work Monte did, someone will want to buy the rest of it from Monte.&nbsp; But there will always be &quot;some&quot; chance they won't, and would instead skip buying the book.2) I am a writer trying to make money selling my work, and it would be fair to post SOME of my writing, for non-commercial discussion purposes.&nbsp; When Dreamer Design's books are ready for publication, I expect that will happen (because they will be good, and worthy of discussion, I hope). 3) The &quot;more reasonable compromise&quot; you mention was exactly the content I had linked to (you just didn't bother to look at it).&nbsp; I never said the link contained the entire book! It was just a small part of the book, the same small part posted.4) As far as being &quot;legally justified&quot; not being the issue, I never made it the issue. Other people here deleted it NOT because it was morally wrong, but because they felt it violated US Copyright laws.&nbsp; So yes, it was the precise issue, which the moderator focused on.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 204048, member: 2525"] Funny. 1) If there is "any" chance? As in a .0001% chance? No. If there is a reasonable chance it would harm Monte Cooks pocket book in a material way, then you have a point. But any chance? No. The odds are, by seeing part of the work Monte did, someone will want to buy the rest of it from Monte. But there will always be "some" chance they won't, and would instead skip buying the book. 2) I am a writer trying to make money selling my work, and it would be fair to post SOME of my writing, for non-commercial discussion purposes. When Dreamer Design's books are ready for publication, I expect that will happen (because they will be good, and worthy of discussion, I hope). 3) The "more reasonable compromise" you mention was exactly the content I had linked to (you just didn't bother to look at it). I never said the link contained the entire book! It was just a small part of the book, the same small part posted. 4) As far as being "legally justified" not being the issue, I never made it the issue. Other people here deleted it NOT because it was morally wrong, but because they felt it violated US Copyright laws. So yes, it was the precise issue, which the moderator focused on. [/QUOTE]

Verification