Now - first week 10,000 people buy it, read your article and after forming their opinion do what all of us do with press - leave their respective glossy magazine copies on train, let workmates borrow it for toilet read, put it as a wrap for hamsters cage or simply throw it away in the bin.
Imagine now that publisher goes through their numbers, discover they sold 10,000 copies first week but only 5,000 second week and speculate they actually lost revenue because X copies were POSSIBLY made available to "second reader" on train, left behind for free to workmates sharing lavatory or consequently pushed down trousers by hobos plundering rubbish bins in search of insulation. And you have police and lawyers out there, kicking toilet doors to dust those half wet by now glossy magazines left on windows sills for prints, send CSI to recover half munched pages from hamsters pens and go on stripping homeless people in dark alleys in search of the "shared out" glossy magazine contents. They then write down the names of all the workmates, all the hobos and all the hamsters they could prove had access to your article within last week then leave them with letter demanding retribution of £300 based on possibility of them adding further to the "recycling chain" of that glossy magazine.
Ridiculous right? Well this is exactly what happens in this case.
