出版与作家生涯2012aprillhamilton.blogspot.com
恭喜：你们杀死了 LendInk，还剥夺了同行的借阅版税
Congratulations: You Killed LendInk And Denied Fellow Authors Lend Royalties
导读
LendInk 是一个让读者互借电子书的服务，一批作者误以为它是盗版站点，在社交媒体上发起围攻，最终把网站逼停——而本文作者身为同行，批评这种不经核实的集体愤怒反而断送了作者自己的借阅版税。对写作者来说，这是一则关于「你到底授权了什么」和「网络舆论如何反噬创作者」的现场案例。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
发声前先核实：搞清楚对方究竟做了什么再动笔，情绪化的集体围攻往往伤及无辜也伤及自己。
- 02
向读者或合作方描述你让渡的权利时，要把范围和规模讲清楚；模糊的「借给朋友看看」会被技术和平台放大成完全不同的经济模式。
- 03
写批评文章时给对方留出合理动机——把对手写成「被误导的普通人」而非「愚蠢的暴民」，论证会更站得住。
- 04
用具体对比拆解抽象概念（比如把借阅平台和图书馆在地理与规模上的差别摆出来），能让权利与利益问题变得可感。
- 05
读者会记住谁在无理取闹；对正当使用的过度打压，损耗的是作者与读者之间的信任。
- 06
读者会记住谁在无理取闹；对正当使用的过度打压，损耗的是作者与读者之间的信任。
HN 评论精选
网络围攻的根源是没人核实事实，社交媒体时代需要教普通人先查证再发声。
我支持 LendInk，也觉得那些作者表现得像小孩，当时气得都写了博客。但我想唱个反调：前阵子 Ryan Holiday 靠撒谎混进主流媒体（ABC、MSNBC、纽约时报）的报道，记者没核实所谓专家就照登；几个月前 ABC 还发推说穆巴拉克死了，其实人还活着，记者花了二十分钟才发现。记者本就是干核查这行的，却屡屡无意间传播谣言。社交媒体今天很强，但如果我们不教会普通人「先核实再动手」，它迟早会变得毫无用处。有没有办法让用户在类似情形下克制一点？
hluska查看英文原文
First off, I support LendInk and think these authors behaved like children. Heck, I was outraged I even blogged about it. However, I'd like to play devil's advocate for a moment. A few weeks ago, the Ryan Holiday fiasco went public. If you don't remember this, he was the guy who lied his way into coverage in mainstream media (ie - ABC, MSNBC, the New York Times, etc.) This was a situation where journalists didn't check their own facts (in this case, they didn't vet their expert) and they printed lies. A few months ago, ABC tweeted that Hosni Mubarak had died. Turns out he was still alive (and it took journalists about twenty minutes to figure that out). Journalists are in the business of fact checking, yet they've been caught many, many times unknowingly spreading hoaxes. Social media is incredibly powerful (now), but it will become useless if we don't teach civilians how to check their facts before they start lynch mobs. Anyone have any ideas how we can guide users towards showing some restraint in similar situations?
平台把「借给朋友」放大成全国范围的无限借阅，改变了作者当初同意的条件，作者的愤怒有其合理性。
换个角度想：作者当初同意「让书可借」时脑子里的场景，确实被 LendInk 改掉了。他们的第一反应是愤怒，不算理性，但人本来就不理性。作者想的是「借给朋友？当然好，口碑传播嘛」，很开明。但 LendInk 让借阅超出了正常社交圈：你可以找到任何想看的书，从此不再买书，每本书都会被借到上限次数——性质完全不同了。你可以说「图书馆不也这样，买一次借一辈子」，可图书馆受地理限制，而且数量众多，一本书能在全国范围被借，仍然意味着你卖出了很多本。所以这网站虽不是盗版、该付的钱也付了，但它确实违背了作者当初同意的条件，而且是明知故犯。我能理解内容创作者的不满。这事大概是个好主意，也不可避免、无法阻挡，但不代表它必须沿用旧模式的经济条件。
waterlesscloud查看英文原文
Thinking about the other side of this for a moment, it does seem pretty obvious that LendInk changed the situation the authors thought they were getting into when they agreed to make their books lendable. Given that, it's not surprising their first reaction is anger. Perhaps not rational, but humans are not inherently rational beings. The authors thought "Lend my book to a friend? Sure, why not? Good word of mouth always helps!" A nice, forward thinking perspective. But what LendInk makes possible is for lending to extend beyond normal social connections. You could go look for any book you wanted, never buy another book again. And each book would be lent the maximum number of times. There's a fundamental difference at work there, the dynamic changes considerably. You could say "Well libraries work the same way! Buy once, lend forever!" But libraries are geographically constrained. And there are a lot of them. So being able to be lent anywhere in the country still means you sold a lot of books. It's fundamentally different. So while this site certainly didn't promote piracy and authors were compensated when appropriate, it did subvert the terms they had agreed to, and it did so willfully. I can see where the content creators are coming from there. This is probably a good idea, and probably inevitable and unstoppable. But that doesn't mean it has to be on the same economic terms as the previous model.
过度打压正当使用，反而会削弱公众对版权的尊重。
当你限制人们对版权作品的正当使用时，他们只会更不把版权当回事。干得漂亮，权利人。
njloof查看英文原文
When you restrict people from legitimate use of copyrighted work, they respect copyright less. Nice going, rights holders.
读者会用钱包投票，过度维权的作者会失去读者。
有没有一份参与关停这个网站的作者名单？我大概不会读那么糊涂的人写的书，但以防万一，还是想知道该避开哪些作者。
jlarocco查看英文原文
Is there a list of authors who worked to shut the site down? I doubt I read books by anybody so clueless, but just in case, I'd like to know which authors not to buy.
同类还值得读
写书：值得吗？
Writing a book: is it worth it?
Martin Kleppmann（《设计数据密集型应用》作者）复盘写书到底值不值：金钱回报低、耗时极长，但带来了可见度、信任和职业机会。
出版与作家生涯2020 · 642 分 · 287 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写书并不是个好主意
Writing books is not really a good idea
这篇文章讨论靠写书谋生的现实难度，评论区从版税数学、收入预期和写作目标三个角度补充了作者视角。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 577 分 · 609 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何自助出版一本书：实用资源清单
How to self-publish a book: A handy list of resources
这是一份关于「如何自助出版一本书」的资源清单帖，涵盖从编辑、排版到 ISBN、销售渠道的实操工具与花费。
出版与作家生涯2018 · 558 分 · 88 评4 条写作要点编辑精选我自助出版一本Ruby on Rails书，赚了7万美元
How I Made $70k Self-Publishing a Book about Ruby on Rails
这是一篇 Ruby 开发者自述：他把一套 Rails 性能课程（书＋视频＋答疑）自出版，一年毛收入约 7 万美元，并总结了选题、定价、营销等经验。
出版与作家生涯2017 · 539 分 · 175 评4 条写作要点编辑精选石黑一雄警告年轻作家因“恐惧”而自我审查
Sir Kazuo Ishiguro warns of young authors self-censoring out of 'fear'
石黑一雄提醒年轻作者因“恐惧”而自我审查，即这条帖子讨论的核心。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 396 分 · 641 评5 条写作要点编辑精选