It reminds me of what they did to Anne Frank's diary a few years ago, when they said that the father co-wrote the diary to extend its copyright.
Hm... Not that I ever was interested in that book, but surely the selling point supposedly was a teen girl wrote it herself during war. Making it part-hoax (the selling point), moreover just for some more cash, shows how little they care about the book as well :o
From what I read in the article, the profits go to various charities. And I dislike the idea that listing editors as co-authors equates a hoax in terms of how the book gets discussed, because as far as I know, the text in it is still her words.
While I do agree labeling editors as co-authors is wrong from a technical standpoint (because ALL published books go through editing), it's hard to be angry at them if the money they make is donated to charity and organizations aiding kids,
especially with so many worse abuses of copyright to worry about where we know for a fact that it's 100% motivated by greedy megacorporations.
Anyway, how well dose this sum up cats?
