When Publishing Contracts Go Bad 140
drmofe writes: "It's not just recording artists who are getting screwed over royalty payments and publishing rights. MediaChannel has an op-ed piece asserting that standard publisher-author contracts are now so restrictive that they might in fact be "restraint of trade" under the US anti-trust laws."
Brutalization like this... (Score:3, Interesting)
Open Content License (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Open Content License (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree on the vanity press with a small quibble. Vanity Press generally (though not always) refers to a publisher for hire. They may take the rights to your work and pay you on a royalty basis. That kind of Vanity Press can rip you off as thoroughly as any other publisher. Self publishing is a slightly different thing. You contract with a press for the purpose of printing up your books, but you retain all rights and do (or arrange) all the actual publishing work. You get paid based on a sales - costs basis, not on a royalty basis.
Whatever you call it, going your own way is an increasingly attractive option. If I ever finish my book instead of vying for the "world's longest gestation" award, I will most certainly self-publish. (As if I have a choice: Hemingway I ain't
You are absolutely right: If I'm not going to make any money on the thing, at least let me retain ownership and not be ripped off in the process.
terms were misused: it's not vanity publishing (Score:2, Informative)
Pmancini said some interesting things, but he confuses self-publishing with vanity presses. There's a big difference between the two. In a nutshell, self-publishing is for smart people and vanity presses are for idiots.
With self-publishing, you pay for book design and printing, which sets you back less than two bucks a book. When you hire a vanity press to do that, they deliver the books to you for perhaps ten bucks apiece. At that price, you can't afford to give standard wholesale discounts, and you lose your shirt. Most vanity books end up in a big pile in the author's garage.
This obviously isn't an exhaustive summary of how self-publishing differs from vanity publishing, but I wanted to set the record straight since the term was misused in the above post. I'd suggest people read Dan Poynter's books if they are interested in self publishing.
Re:terms were misused: it's not vanity publishing (Score:1)
Thanks,
--Peter
Re:Open Content License (Score:1)
Re:Brutalization like this... (Score:2)
Heh. Too late now.
Re:Brutalization like this... (Score:2)
Not quite. Check out McSweeneys [mcsweeneys.net] to find out where the best new lit in the world is coming from.
That's great... unless (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you like getting paid for your work?
Re:Brutalization like this... (Score:4, Interesting)
No, what is needed here is a standard way to do accounting, a contract writing that is fair and just, and a transparent system for publishing. Those with the most lawyers wins is how the media companies are playing the game - and then they barrow a page from the banks and nickel and dime everyone to death.
This is pure naked avarice (greed) here, and if the Writer's Guild can make it more palatable to their members then they will. But lest not forget that if they can screw the publishers and get away with it, they would.
A perfect solution: the internet. (Score:5, Interesting)
If the Internet is supposed to free musicians to produce without the middlemen of publishers with unfair contracts, just imagine what it can do to writers to avoid contracts like these.
I've been an online-only amateur author for the last ten years (here's my current project [pixelscapes.com], in fact). I do all my work on the web, which gives me huge advantages in terms of reader feedback, online draft publishing to get comments and criticism, and as much graphical/multimedia extras as I feel are appropriate to each product. I haven't felt the need to seek out a publisher yet -- the Internet gives me a much richer experience as an author in every respect except for money and mass-audience exposure.
It makes good sense. Writing is a form of content that's perfect for a text based web medium, and it runs up lower bandwidth charges than indie musicians manage with MP3 libraries. There are no distribution costs whatsoever except for bandwidth; all you really need to spend major money on is promotional muscle. The cons are the typical "I want a real solid paper thing in my hands" attitudes, but print on demand services would take care of that.
I'll admit, right now, there is no economic model to make it happen. Gotta be practical about it; I couldn't start making the kind of money off my work that I could be by publishing traditionally. But I see the potential there, and once a good system is developed, this could be the way to free authors from the constraints of publishers once and for all.
Re:A perfect solution: the internet. (Score:4, Insightful)
My brother has recently published a book. If he had published it online, noone would have read it. But now the book has been read by much more people.
I, personally prefer getting my books online (or from the local library). But I won't read a book that wasn't recommended.
Re:A perfect solution: the internet. (Score:4, Insightful)
Heck, you have the same issue with the various scientific articles being published on the internet: such usually require peer review to validate the conclusions, but the sites that are offering the run-around the traditional journal publishers found a way to still allow this.
Re:A perfect solution: the internet. (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the key to Internet publishing is patience. If your work is a roar, you won't get a big exposure to it as fast as with a printed edition. On the other hand, if you slowly, patiently wait for a following to form, and defer publication offers until you feel you have the upper hand, you may come up the winner.
(Of course, always keep in mind the MathWorld [mathworld.com] fiasco.)
I find on-line publishing much more satisfying than, say, vanity press. I write short fiction, which is pretty much an unpublishable genre today; but the Web lets me review and revise in an open-ended fashion, control the presentation aspects (not very well, admittedly), editorialize ad lib, etcetera. And it doesn't need more self-promotion than a well-landed link in Open Directory [dmoz.org]/Google and/or an affiliate link program. The latter can be even informal: find a site you like, convince them that they like your site, and swap links.
That's how the Web was supposed to work five years ago.
Re:A perfect solution: the internet. (Score:2)
That doesn't mean it wasn't a good movie, and that I wont go see it. But it isn't award worty either.
On the other hand, just because a movie is technically perfect or groundbreaking doesn't mean it is any good.
Thats why there a movie reviewers. The reviewers talk about if a movie is enjoyable. The oscars (while now highly commericalized and used as something to drive sales) are really for the industry to rate themselves - it has nothing to do with what the audience thinks (Or shouldn't)
Simmilarly, the book world has the Hugo awards, or a bunch of other literary awards that I can't think of. John grisham, Tom clancey, Ann Rice et al are never on these award lists. They are fun books to read, but they arent anything spectacular WITHIN the literary circles.
However, I disagree with your point that book reviews tend to be like the oscars. The point of the review is to tell you how you will like the book. Not analize its makeup. I usually find book reviews pretty on the money, unless they come from a pseudo-intelectual tripe mag. However what I really find helpfull is the readers comments, which is why Amazon is such a nice place.
Re:A perfect solution: the internet. (Score:2)
http://www.pixelscapes.com/twoflower/fwls/
So, there's your quality control: Peer recommendations.
Re:A perfect solution: the internet. (Score:1)
Publishers won't publish any junk you send them.
Some of the tripe that does make it into print makes me doubt the truth of this assertion.
Maybe the way forward for disillusioned authors is something like /., where authors could submit stories, and readers could rate and comment on submissions. Hell for all I know, such sites already exist and I just haven't found them
Perhaps authors would submit only sample chapters and outlines (like they sometimes do to traditional publishers) and an indication of how much money they think their works are worth. If readers like the samples, they pay up and download the full work.
Re:A perfect solution: the internet. (Score:1)
That is true but, it does give you the reader much more power. YOU become the publisher, you decide whats good or bad. You become more discerning about what you read and you are never hampered by someone else's decision.
How many good authors out there were screwed by their publishers and their work never to see the light of day I wonder?
Re:A perfect solution: the internet. (Score:2)
How do publishers, even if they are evil incarnate, make any money for themselves or anyone else by not publishing someone's work?
Re:A perfect solution: the internet. (Score:1)
I could try to write it in a GPL-type way allowing readers to contribute "patches" with me acting as the benevolent dictator. Presumably, since I would be teaching the class, I'd be adequately qualified as a benevolent dictator. If not, then someone else can take the parts of my book they like, and "fork" it into a different book. As an instructor, I'd be delighted if every time I taught a class, I could go online, and "build" my own text book by choosing chapters like they were kernel modules.
This situation is different from a web novel because the subject (differential equations) is fairly objective. There may be stylistic disagreements between contributors, but all should agree upon (correct) mathematics. In this way, such a book would be very similar to code. Programmers may not agree on coding style, but either the code works or it doesn't, and that is objective.
I suspect that this is one possible direction that the OpenCourseWare [mit.edu] project at MIT might be heading. Does anyone know of any similar "open source" text book projects?
Re:A perfect solution: the internet. (Score:2)
However it is perfectly possible to have direct review from other writers and readers where something is published online.
Publishers won't publish any junk you send them.
Some people would claim that publishers; be the book, music or film; most definitly do publish "junk".
Re:A perfect solution: the internet. (Score:5, Informative)
It's his latest fantasy story, but he's publishing it online - completely on his own, no publishers involved. ($18 for a subscription of a year (first 5 episodes can be read for free), for which instead of proprietary formats used by far too many epublishing projects, you get regular HTML files - it's so good to be able to grep through your local copies to quickly find other references to characters or events.)
And although he's making far less money with it than with regular books, from what I know the site should be paying for itself. Which makes this a very interesting development for all authors wanting to do without publishers. Once you're a big name author, it is possible.
And I'm thinking, the more projects like this that will actually be somewhat succesful, the sooner people will be willing to give less known authors a try as well. Every satisfying experience will create more demand for similar projects, and will make other authors consider doing this sort of thing as well. Who knows, we might just not be doomed to eBooks after all...
As you also mentioned, the almost immediate reader feedback on what he writes was one of the major reasons to start this project. And I as a reader just love seeing how remarks and suggestions made about previous episodes have a noticeable impact on new episodes.
Re:A perfect solution: the internet. (Score:2)
Thanks for the link - very interesting website. It will be interesting to see whether the site makes money given that there's no copy protection involved. I suspect it will - because fans tend to want to support the authors they're fans of.
What I wonder about is if he's making money but there is a lot of unpaid for distribution - will he feel that he wants to introduce copy protection in order to make more money or will he be happy with what he's getting?
At the moment he seems to be saying that if he can't make money he'll stop the project - which is the only non-Honour incentive not to distribute his work on a large scale. I get the feeling he's pretty relaxed about sharing copies on a small scale though -
We're very willing to try this as an experiment. But if people start passing too many free copies of the Shadowmarch story around and we get to the point where it doesn't pay for itself anymore, then I'll have to stop doing it, and nobody (me included) will get to find out where it's going. But I don't want to put too much emphasis on that. Most net-users are honest folk anyway, and my readership has always been the best of the best in all ways.
Note he says "passing too many free copies" rather than "passing free copies" - very enlightened and realistic I think.
I'd like to see this kind of thing succeed. I may even subscribe - think I'll read the free chapters first though.
Re:A perfect solution: the internet. (Score:2, Informative)
I wouldn't say that. Rather, as you also mention, he's simply realistic and knows that no matter how much he might hate it, it'll happen.
Though I don't actually think it happens all _that_ much. Perhaps a few copies between friends, but I've just searched in various places and haven't found any mention of the episodes so far. Then again, I probably don't have a clue where to look anyway.
I may even subscribe - think I'll read the free chapters first though.
Always a good idea.
1) Don't be put off immediately by the present tense used in the story. Yes, it makes for quite strange reading at first, but you'll grow used to it, and it adds a great sense of immediacy.
2) Something I hope you'll be willing to take my word for (and for that matter, I hope people here are willing to forgive me for going slightly offtopic like this), the first five episodes do not do justice to the story. They're great for introducing the world and the characters, and showing a bit of the magic in the world, but after having read only the first five episodes I was fearing the story itself would be somewhat mediocre and cliche. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that only becomes apparent after those first few episodes.
Luckily they should be able to convince most people to want to read further anyway, but if after having read them you're doubting whether or not to subscribe, and the quality of the story is a major part of that, then you know now there's at least one person
*ponders* Hmm, maybe I should write a full fledged review for Shadowmarch for use here at slashdot... 's kinda hard with the project still running though. Hmm, I'll have to think about that.
Re:A perfect solution: the internet. (Score:2)
I like Tad, and I have read most of his books, so I was excited about the prospect of an online Tad Williams novel. I dutifully read the prelude and the first couple of episodes and I even liked what I read. What's more, I am a recent convert to the joy of reading books on my Visor Handspring. I love being able to carry around an entire library wherever I go.
But a quick bit of math told and some quick Emacs functions told me that I would be paying $18 for an estimated 190K words (or about two books worth). In my mind that is a little steep for a book that I has almost no marketing, publishing, or delivery costs. The fact that the text is available as plain text helps a little, but not enough. If the book were already finished, then I might be tempted, but I am not interested in paying a premium to read a chapter ever two weeks for several years.
Maybe when I have worked through the books at www.baen.com (many of which are available for free) I will be interested in half-hearted attempts like Shadowmarch.
Re:A perfect solution: the internet. (Score:1)
Re:A perfect solution: the internet. (Score:3, Interesting)
Right now, if you are paying for 'bandwidth' in terms of a shared connection (going through DSLAMs, modem concentrators, etc.) it is not in the providers' best interest that you use the bandwidth. The flat rate is priced according to the 'average' usage across all users (so the people who use it less get screwed out of their money by the people who use it more) -- if the average usage increases, the provider loses money. The provider starts throwing these things like usage caps and blocking incoming server connections, etc., to throttle down the average usage levels.
This is a bad situation all around. The users are paying for a service which the providers make the most money on when the users don't use it. Work out the logical conclusions. The users *cannot* win, because the providers control the wires and can limit service accordingly. (NAT, application level firewalls, private networks, etc.) Websites have advertisements and subscriptions to cover the cost of their network connections.
Now, let's flip this around so we have a pay-for-play model where the providers make money for usage/bandwidth. That the more the network is used, the more content is used the more money the provider makes -- give the provider motivation to encourage use of the network. This has a far, far more interesting set of possibilities.
What does this have to do with publishing of music or writing online? Everything. The more content there is out there, the more *good* content, the more people would use the network in a pay-for-play situation, and the more money the providers would make. Potentially, the situation could be reached where it was in the network providers' best interest to sponsor or provide patronage to writers, artists, musicians, programmers, etc. that generate content -- *without* restrictions. The more the content is restricted, the less it could be sent over the network, which means the less revenue the provider would earn.
This would make search engines and services like google all the more important, of course, as in this model the users would be much more careful about what they looked at -- the need for promotion and quality control of content generation would increase.
Imagine a scenario where if you put a web server up on your DSL connection it cost you nothing -- that people who viewed your pages were paying for the bandwidth they used to view it. Providers would be doing their darndest to encourage people to set up web pages, put up content, exchange view points -- generate traffic. If a provider could make $14 a month from someone connecting to a $10 a month MMPORG, perhaps it would make sense for them to pay the $10 themselves, and earn extra revenue from the increased user base. Laws which chilled free speech or free exchange of information would suddenly be very much not in their own commercial interests.
Heck, perhaps the network provider could give you a cut of the revenue you generated for them by getting people to connect to your website. Then self-publishing could take on a whole new meaning -- it would take literally no more than a computer to host the content, be it music, text, software, movies, etc.
This is not to say the situation would necessarily work out that way, of course, but it seems a much more positive scenario than the one where the providers have to actively work against their users using their services in order to stay in business -- it makes them more interested in working with folks who do content control and restriction than against them.
(A bit off topic: VoIP should be an interesting disaster -- if it actually takes off among broadband users and raises the average bandwidth usage significantly, then all the broadband providers are going to start losing money verses the flat rate fees. Of course, the first one to raise their rates will lose, because all the users will jump to the ones who have not... While it's true that the costs of providing bandwidth go down every year (in theory), so do the prices of cars, but most people cannot afford new cars every year, and neither can most providers afford to upgrade their entire networks over night to lower costs (sic). If growth increases faster under a flat rate system than a provider can pay off the equipment, rates will have to rise or the provider goes out of business. In a pay-for-play system, the provider ends up paying off the equipment costs faster and can potentially upgrade sooner.)
too many authors (Score:2, Insightful)
Not terribly surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
Whenever somebody asks a "Why..." question that involves a large corporation, the answer is always "Money." If you start with that premise, everything a corporation does is 100% logical.
An Alternative: Choose a Small Press (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, publishing contracts are exploitive. And they are probably exploitive no matter who you sign with.
One way to reduce your exposure to exploitive contracts is to sign with a small press. If you're a first-time writer, you're likely to get a level of support and effort behind your book that is better than what you get with the big houses.
And there's another advantage. If you sign with a small press, you develop a close relationship with the owner of the company. My first book was published by a small press, and I've since become good friends with my publisher. There's (sometimes) a limit to how badly you can be screwed by a contract, when you're not dealing with a monolithic corporation, but a person who knows you -- a person who signs your royalty checks and has to look you in the eye.
I've had pretty good success with my first book (25,000 copies sold.) For any writers out there, I strongly suggest you find a competent and energetic small press, or, better yet, publish the thing yourself.
Re:An Alternative: Choose a Small Press (Score:3, Insightful)
I know for a fact that technical books work vastly different from traditional books. You typically have an agreement for your book to be published before you write any of the actual content for the book.
I can't actually discuss the terms of my contract, but lets just say writing a tech book is good for your name, some money, and not much else.
You tend to lose most or all of your rights to your work with a typical contract for a technical book.
Jeremy
Re:An Alternative: Choose a Small Press (Score:2, Interesting)
What else do you want? I, too, am a technical writer. I write about programming languages. The information is constantly changing, so such books are "perishable goods." Both author and publisher need to make a few bucks while the books are still relevant. I made some decent money off one book, some side chapters, some on-line articles. I see each piece as stepping-stone to the next. My rates have gone up as I get more experience and more exposure. Do I excpect a lifetime of earnings from any single work? No. It's a job, and I'm fine with that.
If I can make a living as a writer, where I can set my own hours and live where I want, then I've achieved at least some of my goals. Text-for-hire is no worse than code-for-hire, but you don't hear quite the same commotion from programmers wanting lifetime royalties on their daily output of Java.
You tend to lose most or all of your rights to your work with a typical contract for a technical book.
In most cases it doesn't really matter. Today's technology is outdated fairly quick. If you're writing a book that's more abstract and has a pontentially longer shelf life, then one hopes you really know what you're talking about, have a decent reputation, and can negotiate a better contract.
Re:An Alternative: Choose a Small Press (Score:1)
It would still be nice to have more control over your own work. And I have found several books that have had a lot of staying power on my bookshelf.
Most programming language specific books don't last long. Just off the top of my head the following books have become more or less permanent on my bookshelf: Code Complete, K&R C, TIC++, a C99 language ref, and several project management books. I think the staying power of a book depends on the subject and how good it is.
If you write about
Yet if you write something like Code Complete and your book is *good* it should have more staying power. I guess it is context sensitive, but a little more control over your work is nice in the cases where you know you can write a really good book with a lot of staying power. I have found you have to "pay your dues" and become known for your writing ability before you have that kind of negotiating power.
Jeremy
Re:An Alternative: Choose a Small Press (Score:3, Funny)
Ah, another one, eh? Maybe we can boost the literacy rate of slashdot. Heh.
Same deal here. Basically, the stuff I have written is a work for hire, the same as the stuff I have written for my company. The contract is sort of strange, for reasons I can't get into.
And really, I'm not too worried about this. For the vast majority of technical books, the lifetime of the work is far, far shorter than what copyright allows. Unless you happen to write a classic (such as Knuth's works) your book will be out there a year, perhaps two. If you are lucky, you'll be asked to do a revised edition or two. But ultimately, the "long term" rights for these sorts of books are moot.
Also, from talking to people, technical book publishers seem to treat their writers with a bit more repsect than general publishers. This probably comes from the fact that these publishers do have to have a high turnover in their publishing cycle, and thus value the relationship with he author a bit more. You'd figure it would be the same for the general publishers, though.
Of course, there's still that risk of them making "Using Foo: the Motion Picture", and we'll be screwed out of royalties!
Re:An Alternative: Choose a Small Press (Score:1)
How long do I expect my book on PHP 4 to actually be relevant? Until PHP 5
Jeremy
Why put up with it? (Score:2)
I know, it is easier said than done, but the only solution is to fight. If people sit around and accept whatever contract is forced down their throat, then that will not help solve anything.
Re:Why put up with it? (Score:2)
1) An individual piece of music is a chapter in a book. A book is much more effort is more like a symphany or a good album.
2) Listening to music on an MP3 player is feasible. Reading a book electronically is not possible or at least not easily and not that nicely. More time needs to pass before this will work.
Music and books are two totally different animals. Even though both deal with intellectual creativity. Until points 1 and 2 are addressed sadly authors are screwed!
Re:Why put up with it? (Score:1)
As for 2)... it works. I have read many novels on my PalmIIIx while sitting in darkish trains going to places all over Europe. (Thank you project Gutenberg.) I read bbc world news instead of a newspaper and I do read all kinds of stuff on my screen on a PC. It does work, it's just not very common. But the point of my proposal was less to sell the books in a convenient way, but to give the publishers a virtual finger.
Besides, it could be argued that if a lot of high quality electronic books became available at a low price or for free, decent readers would follow soon. Why am I not buying eBooks? Because they come in fscked up formats and cost as much as physical books, without the physical book to justify the price.
It's really a chicken and egg problem.
Re:Why put up with it? (Score:2)
Perhaps because we like to eat?
Max
Re:Why put up with it? (Score:2)
It's a human failing (Score:1)
A way to get the artist to work for next to nothing to make some other dude rich
It has happened throughout history and continues to happen. Just stop bitchin' about the musicians who "sell out" and make money... true artists rarely make money, and rarely care. Everyone else seems to care about it, but the artists themselves just expressin' demselves.
Sure, it hurts when someone else makes money out of your work. But unless you are a money hungry selfish bastard there will always be a hungrier, more selfish bastard who will take what you have made for the entertainment of others, make money out of it, and devalue it.
Difference between written and recorded media (Score:1)
Next thing they'll be campaigning to close the libraries...
Re:Difference between written and recorded media (Score:4, Interesting)
Because people have learned, in Old Media, all the way they could have screwed the author, the consumer, and the public, if only they had known. But they accidentally let all these roadblocks, legal and social, arise that raise expectations in Old Media. Ahhhh, but in New Media, there are no such blocks.
Precedent will be allowed to apply only and exactly to the extent it helps maximize the profits of the corporations. Otherwise, it will be used and discarded -- just like those artists, those consumers, and that public.
Re:Difference between written and recorded media (Score:4, Interesting)
Because people have learned, in Old Media, all the way they could have screwed the author, the consumer, and the public, if only they had known. But they accidentally let all these roadblocks, legal and social, arise that raise expectations in Old Media. Ahhhh, but in New Media, there are no such blocks.
Actually, there's a slightly less pernicious possibility. Lots of companies are scared pea green that something they don't anticipate will slap them upside the head and destroy them in one fell swoop.
The only way to be able to handle the unforseen is to have all the power yourself, allowing you to react as necessary. Don't want to find out that new "mind-imprinting technology" that didn't exist last year is going to render your multi-billion dollar investment in books and movies worthless? Then make damn sure you own the rights to use the the content you publish in any new medium. Make certain you have the right to make any changes necessary in order to make the content compatible. Make certain you have clauses that can allow you to dump the content that is now valueless without forking over any more money than you've already paid...
Old media was based on the assumption of long-term stability. Technology has taken that away and made it possible to turn huge assets into so much waste in a matter of months.
[Of course, that's complete bunk, but have enough people yelling at you that you're going to go bankrupt because of this or that new technology and big suprise, you protect yourself.]
Of course, once you've got that power, it's pretty tempting to corporate executives (who now hold a lot more power over editors than in the past) to actually use it to boost profits. Absolute power and all that...
Restraint of Trade is good for the economy (Score:1)
Michael Moore managed to get around the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, his publishing company was either a) gonna reprint the book (at Michael's expense) with more PC language or b) sit on it forever. There was nothing he could do about it, legally speaking. A letter writing campaign by a bunch of librarians (and the promise of considerable bad press) evidently forced Harper Collins to capitulate.
As regards the argument that the publisher was right, and that the book was fundamentally flawed, the onion seems to agree [theonionavclub.com]. I am not saying that the Onion would condone censoring it on that basis, merely that they agree with the substantive portions of the publisher's complaints, and that POV deserves to be aired, as well.
I'm think that Michael Moore would agree that it his notoriety that saved his book, and that a less-well-known author would have had no such recourse, since their reamed-being would not have made a splash in the press.
Re:Michael Moore managed to get around the problem (Score:3, Funny)
Wow. An argument that Michael Moore isn't PC enough? I *have* seen everything.
Re:Michael Moore managed to get around the problem (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Michael Moore managed to get around the problem (Score:3)
Weezer getting screwed [ot] (Score:1)
A little off subject, but right now rock band Weezer is getting screwed by their label.
This site [uwftm.com] has a good history [uwftm.com] of the story.
Re:Weezer getting screwed [ot] (Score:1, Offtopic)
See bad things in the future (Score:2, Interesting)
For content authors it's a really scary hearing something like that. Major companies in the publishing (literature or music) industry are all together on it and as the article says it's choose your own poison.
/.errs are probably going to go on about the net publishing and micropayment revenue structure but I don't think there are decent companies out there who actually are doing this stuff (and suceseding).
It hardly makes sense to say that authors and musicians do what they do because of passion. A lot of the process in creating is skill that has to be developed and refined and if it's going to compete with the author's time for other things that make the author's living.
I just see bad things in the future. The large number of musicians and authors are probably going to disappear once the best that could happen isn't that great.
Negotiate (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't just accept these terms. Without authors, publishers have nothing.
Re:Negotiate (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, they do have something -- a pool of people who may not be the "best", but who are willing to work cheaper and give up copyright.
Up until the late 90s, I was always able to politely ask, "Can I retain copyright, and can we strike the 'future works' clause?", and the publisher would kindly modify the contract. That has since changed.
The world is changing, and it isn't for the better...
Why I Gave up Professional Writing (Score:5, Interesting)
I've published 17 books professionally, through everyone from McGraw-Hill to Microsoft to the old (and recently resurrected) M&T Books. Five years ago, I ended a successful ten-year career as a full-time write to re-enter the "regular" workforce. Draconian contracts were a major reason for my career detour.
Modern publishing is about the control of intellectual property.
Publishers want to own copyright (i.e., control), something I am unwilling to give up. I wrote the damned thing, and for better or worse, it is my intellectual property. I would rather give away my work than sell it into corporate slavery. Once, the relationship between author and publisher was one of mutual benefit; now, writers are largely treated as property by corporate publishing houses.
And, to be less idealistic, the pay rate for writing sucks. Even the magazines pay pitiful amounts for articles that take considerable effort. I was doing pretty good as a writer -- 40-60K %US in a good year -- but I doubled that going into industry. And the paychecks now arrive with some reasonable regularity. I can't begin to enumerate the ways in which corporate publishers (every one I've worked with, with the notable exception [so far] of O'Reilly) rip off authors, by twisting terms, demanding future rights, selling books through third parties, and "forgetting" things. Ugh... the "freedom" that comes without a day job was great, but at least now I know how much I'm being paid and when!
Not that I wouldn't sign with a publisher who was interested in a mutual relationship. I just haven't met one recently.
I love writing; I love sharing with my readers. Today publish through the web and other venues, where I can write what I want, when I want, about what I want, without ignorant marketers, semi-literate editors, and corporate lawyers mucking about in my product. My readers decide what they like and don't like; I can update material as necessary, and no one is telling me to change what I write for "marketting" purposes.
In the end, giving up "professional" writing has given me unexpected freedom -- and that's a Good Thing.
Re:Why I Gave up Professional Writing (Score:1)
Of course, I am under NDA to even discuss to the terms of my agreement!
Based on what others have told me about technical writing contracts I have learned the following: you sign away most if not all of your rights to the publisher. I have determined from my experience writing technical books that there are a few good points to it. Writing is good for your name. Writing will put a *little* money in your pocket (if your good). Uhm, thats about it.
You can always try and go with a smaller press, but.. that eliminates some of the other advantages of writing a tech book. (Name/Publisher) recognition being the big one.
I really enjoyed the experience of writing so much that I don't think I can stop writing and sharing all the knowledge I have rattling around in my brain. The alternative to this of course writing on my own. I have decided to start my own application development portal and develop a site where I can easily share my writings on technical subjects. Doing it for the love of it is more rewarding in the end anyways. Oh well, live and learn ehh?
Jeremy
Re:Why I Gave up Professional Writing (Score:2)
Just about all publishers appear to want this, regardless of the media. People appear to have forgotten that the US constitution (and the Queen Anne copyright statute on which the clause in the US consitution is based on) removed the practice of giving copyright to publishers.
National Writer's Union - Contract Advice (Score:4, Informative)
Grievance & Contract Division [nwu.org]
of the
National Writer's Union [nwu.org]
Well worth it.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Get an agent (Score:5, Informative)
GET AN AGENT.
Yes, the publisher will screw you if you sign that contract. That's because they don't seriously expect you to sign it; it's the first step in the negotiation process. If you get an agent, that agent will know all about this, and will get you a much fairer contract in practically no time. That's what the agent is for.
A good agent can get you a far better deal than you can. All professionals use agents. (Unless they're lawyers writing in their spare time... does happen.)
GET AN AGENT.
(Disclaimer: IAmNotAnAuthorIJustPretendToBeOne.SeeALicensedProf essionalIfSymptomsPersist.)
Re:Get an agent (Score:4, Insightful)
This is absolutely essential advice. Once you have a contract in hand, it's not terribly difficult to get an agent. (It can be very difficult to get one without a contact. It can also be very difficult to get a publisher to read your book without an agent. Both sides want to use the other as a filter. Catch-22!)
However, to elaborate on that advice:
Find an agent with experience in your field.
The best bet is to try and find out the agents of people who are publishing with your prospective publisher (most authors are very forthcoming, and industry publications often list author's agents...)
The clout of an agent lies with the number of clients he has with a given publisher. The agent's angle is that if the publisher tries to force an outrageous contract on a weak author, the agent will decide to yank more established authors away from that house. No editor wants to be on a powerful agents black list. (And almost every agent has a few houses they won't deal with because they damaged one of their clients...)
Your job is to find an agent who your prospective publishing house doesn't want to anger (and then persuade him or her to represent you).
Of course, an agent will cost you between 10-15% and there's a good chance that they won't make it up by increasing the advance. However, they can usually get most of the ridiculous conditions removed. They've been playing this field for a long time, so they know what's recent foolishness and what's "time-honoured" contract conditions.
Re:Get an agent (Score:2, Informative)
For one thing, though I love selling books to small presses, their contracts are always more restrictive, more draconian, more money-grabbing than the corporate publishers' versions. That's because running a small press is a far more financially difficult endeavor (it's a true labor of love), and small presses need to eke every dollar they can out of the books they publish. Do I like these contracts? Do I feel that they are "the best" I can do for my client? No, but the situation may make more sense overall than dealing with the big corporate publishers (what we call the "trade" houses) for a particular author.
Secondly, many of the concerns raised by the MediaCentral article are legitimate -- but as david.given wrote above, agents not only routinely change the boilerplate on many of these topics, but publishers essentially have different boilerplates they use for agented vs. unagented manuscripts (as well as different negotiated boilerplates for the various agencies).
Yes, the electronic book issue is a sore one for many of us in the agent's and author's community. And other technologies (print-on-demand, direct sales via publisher websites) offer opportunities for profit that under the current contracts authors will not share. It's a conflict that won't get resolved this year. But I'm betting that within the next few years, as these technologies become implemented to a greater extent, we'll see the authors and agents communities even the scales. I certainly will fight these issues fiercely once we see real revenue being generated from them. Part of the problem is that without revenue, it's hard to develop economic and fiscal models that make sense of how to divide the pie. When there ain't no pie, you can't cut it wisely. Once the pie starts to be real, and not a figment of hope and fantasy, you'll see these issues addressed far more aggressively by authors and their agents.
Do I think that publisher's contracts are generally not friendly to the author? Of course. But, within reason, there are things that a good agent can do to mitigate these problems. Not fully, but enough to make contracts more equitable. On the other hand, I can assure you that the agents I know would more than welcome some changes to the standard clauses we view as being draconian and unfair. For example, everyone I know is eager to see the results of the class action suit against HarperCollins regarding the royalty it pays for sales through its Canadian sibling -- many of us view the royalty currently being offered as being both inequitable and substandard in comparison to that offered by the other major publishers. The point is, there's stuff in there that isn't exactly author friendly, but with a good agent, you can sign a reasonable contract and make good on the investment of your time and your intellectual capital.
at what point did this happen? (Score:2, Funny)
Unfortunately, this has been proven otherwise.
Article Author to be reached by fax (Score:1)
I love that. No email, just a fax number for interacting with him. hihihihi
Engineers' IP (Score:3, Informative)
At times when engineers have more clout, they can do something about it (although I think most people just shrug and sign the forms without any negotiation, which could be part of the problem), but if you need the job, and they have it, you have to sign.
Re:Engineers' IP (Score:1)
Patent vs. Copyright (Score:2)
Just because the employer owns the copyright to works for hire does not mean that he employer owns the right to patent intelectual property which an employee devised while employed by said employer.
Patent vs. Copyright (Score:2)
Just because the employer owns the copyright to works for hire does not mean that he employer owns the right to patent intelectual property which an employee devised while employed by said employer.
Self-publishing can be the way (Score:4, Informative)
The most successful self-publisher I know about is Edward Tufte [edwardtufte.com]. He has sold hundreds of thousands of copies of his three books. There is an interview in which he tells why and how he self-published [ercb.com].
An excerpt from that interview follows:
It turned out that all self-publishing required was a really good book designer, some money, and a large garage. For capital, I took out another mortgage on my house. This also concentrated my mind, in part because interest rates were 18% at the time. The bank officer said this was the second most unusual loan that she had ever made; first place belonged to a loan to a circus to buy an elephant!
My view on self-publishing was to go all out, to make the best and most elegant and wonderful book possible, without compromise. Otherwise, why do it? If I wanted to mess it up, I could have gone to a real publisher. And I also wanted a reasonable price so that the book would be widely accessible. It all worked out, dreamlike
Re:Self-publishing can be the way (Score:2, Interesting)
Some bad, not all (Score:2, Informative)
Most of the profits don't go to the publisher, but to the shops who sell them. True they have a risk in carrying all this combustible material that may not sell and has to be shifted if it doesn't, but publishers can get a relatively small share. Not all, but some. Find a relatively small publisher, like O'Reilly or Wrox for IT books, and negotiate a deal. If they really want to publish your work, then they will strike a deal.
Copyright was invented for writers of printed material, to protect both the author (and his family) and the original publisher. Make it work for you.
Re:Some bad, not all (Score:2)
Point of fact: Copyright doesn't protect publishers in any way. Thats why they want you to sign it over to them.
Article is TWO YEARS OLD! (Score:2, Offtopic)
Grumble, grumble - To Michael Sims: I know it's an interesting article, and it's not censorship that all my recent anticensorware reports [sethf.com], as well as Jonathan Wallace's research [spectacle.org] have been rejected, maybe because of What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
But isn't it just a little absurd to be reposting two-year old editorials as "News", while good research ends up trashed suspiciously because of grudges?
Re:Article is TWO YEARS OLD! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Article is TWO YEARS OLD! (Score:1)
So what did happen to the Censorware project?????
What a surprise... not. (Score:5, Interesting)
There are three rules that I have learned in business... they have helped me a lot. One of them applies in this one.
Currently one is in effect in my life right now. I am in a restraint of trade situation myself right now. My company made me sign a non-compete contract after I spent the money and effort to move, two days into the job, and I couldn't afford to walk out on those bastards. What do I do that warrants a non-compete contract? I'm a news photographer, figure that one out. I always thought of my job as interchangeable with others. But I couldn't afford to not sign and take my stuff back hundreds of miles. As usual with contracts, one signs reluctantly or under duress, while the other one smiles all the way to the bank.
Anyway, the three rules:
Rule #1. Any high profit industry is made high profit off of the backs of others. Expect lawyers. They are the luxury of high profits. The reason being that the people who get money in high profit industries immediately spend money on lawyers to insulate themselves and to rope in a permanent, high profit solutions against their customers and against their employees. Look at cigarettes, entertainment, alcohol, pornography, and the auto industry (personally, I am not surprised if soon cars come with waiver forms for the purchaser to get them out of the f'n lot... so an irresponsible company like Ford can so obviously produce top heavy, gas-guzzling deathtraps of excess that the American public so desires).
Anyway, the other two rules of note that will save you trouble:
Rule #2: Never work high up in a family business. If you are the same level as a family member, you're screwed. You will work forever. The family member will work to incompetence with 100% job security. You will make mention of it and get fired. Your options? Keep your mouth shut in an increasingly bad situation until you go nuts, think less of yourself and your life and continue working, or quit. Of course, never getting in that situation is the best. This rule also works for any business that works similar to a family business, meaning if your boss plays favorites a lot, say with a cute girl or something similar.
Rule #3: Good products and services sell themselves; it is the junk that you push. This is the most important rule of them all, one that after learning, makes you see the whole world of business differently.
You should be immediately suspicious of all sales tactics. If anyone is trying to sell something to you, you don't want it. REPEAT AFTER ME, "Salesmanship is the added cost to an inferior or overpriced product." If it was good, and you wanted it, no one would have to sell it to you... you would meet them at the checkout line with it in hand. Think about it. You are actively searching for things you like and want. This works in all things... including gettting jobs, cars, and yes, even dates.
Re:What a surprise... not. (Score:1)
"Good products and services sell themselves; it is the junk that you push."
Not so. Nothing "sells itself". It's true that good products are sold by word of mouth, but people still have to know the product exists and that it has certain advantages that they may appreciate.
A well-advertised and more widely distributed inferior product will often sell better than the superior alternative, simply because the better product is unknown to the customer or too difficult for them to obtain, or simply too expensive. Not that that's always a bad thing; an "inferior" product is often good enough for the purposes at hand, especially if your task is not demanding or the time for researching the alternatives is limited.
Re:What a surprise... not. (Score:2)
A well-advertised and more widely distributed inferior product will often sell better than the superior alternative, [sic emphasis mine]'
You are right. I understand that is a simplistic statement. It is simply a personal rule of mine, and from that you add your own knowledge to that idea and make a conclusion.
Please note that I was talking about "salesmanship" and not "advertising." Most businesses know that distinction so implicitly that they have two seperate departments for it, Sales AND Marketing. One gets the word out. The other pumps people for money. Pumping for money is what I am wary of. That is excessive, unless your business model is built on poor products. Then sales is all you have.
Also... if a product fills all of its requirements (including time and acceptable cost of alternate research), it is not considered "inferior." It is considered well placed. Then the other standard alternatives are "overpriced." Using the cheapest tool to function is simply cost (meaning opportunity, time, and price) meeting demands.
Non-compete, AKA monopoly employment (Score:2)
IARNAL
IARRNAL
That having been said, your non-compete clause may not be binding everywhere. In California, for example, non-compete clauses are considered an impediment to fair trade in the technology industry and are therefore not binding. This may be true in your industry. It wouldn't take much to convince a judge that news photography doesn't involve the risk of dissemenation of industry secrets and that there isn't something else you can reasonably do.
If it becomes a problem, speak to a lawyer familiar with laws in different states. You may have to move to get out of your non-compete, but it is better than not working just to please the F***ing man.
(This is from a technology law course taken last year at the University of California, Irvine. It is not intended to plot a course of action but to give you a direction for your discussions with a certified lawyer.)
This has existed to some degree... (Score:4, Informative)
As far back as 1975, Frank Herbert (a very successful author) and Ben Bova (a fairly ethical editor) were telling young authors never to sign the first contract a publisher offered you. The contracts always included all kinds of outrageous clauses. (Well, maybe not all kinds, since this article points out some new ones.) Herbert said that even with all his experience the publishers were still sending him exploitative contracts and his agent was still crossing out sentences and sending them back.
Bova claimed that the publishers knew the contracts were outrageous, fully expected them to be rewritten by the authors, and continued to send them out in hopes of achieving the indentured servitude of a major talent. Some first-time writers told them they were afraid they wouldn't get published if they crossed out things on the contract. But Bova maintained that the publishers would agree to any reasonable change because their editors would already have decided they wanted to publish the book.
This last seems to be the thing which is changing, according to the linked article. Which seems strange to me, given the fact that writers have never been in a position of greater power. It has never been easier to self-publish, let alone the possibilities of publishing your own work on the Internet.
In summary, when you get an outrageous offer:
1) Read the Writers Union advice linked in an earlier post, cross out the things you should cross out, and send it back.
2) If you're not comfortable doing this yourself (or if you're tired of doing it yourself every time you get an acceptance), get an agent. Again, this is explained in an earlier post.
3) If your publisher refuses to comply, get another publisher or self-publish.
Life is too short to allow yourself to be enslaved by immoral cretins.
Print on Demand (Score:1)
I'm thinking about using them for a couple of small books I'm working on. They use a print on demand technology so there's no upfront costs to you, plus you get to keep the rights to your works. It's worth taking a look at.
Oh Whine Whine Whine (Score:1, Interesting)
Seriously though, it's next to impossible to get a start in that field. When you're just starting out, you often end up paying the publisher to publish your work. And just like any of the other entertainment genres, you never know what's going to be the next big hit.
Most of the writers I've met aren't in it for the money (Though the money is nice if they hit it big.) Given that, internet publishing could be an option for a lot of them. Doesn't take much to set up a web page these days, though a guy I'm hosting at the moment tells me the free hosting services leave a lot to be desired.
So what do you do about quality control? Sifting through 80 tons of crap to uncover a few good stories doesn't appeal to a lot of people. Perhaps some sort of reader ratings system would work. I'd tend to trust the readers to rate a good story over the publishers anyway.
Re:Oh Whine Whine Whine (Score:2)
Some provisions not so new... (Score:3, Informative)
In the past, when an author signed a contract with a publisher, he or she could safely assume that the book under contract would be published. However, as a general rule, most publishers now insist upon a clause that relieves them of that obligation. More specifically, if a publisher chooses for any reason not to publish a given book, the author can keep the portion of the advance that has been paid. But that's all. And in some instances, if the author resells the book to another publisher, even that partial advance must be repaid. In other words, the standard publishing contract today is nothing more than a one-sided option to publish--obligating the author, but not the publisher.
Actually, a clause like that has always been there. The difference is that before it took a catastrophe of major proportion to make a publisher actually invoke the clause. Nowadays, when a publisher is in peril (or at least its profits are), it invokes those clauses much more easily. A favourite for fiction publishers is the due date clause. Most fiction authors are perennially late, and this clause (which has always existed) can allow you to can a substantial number of books for only half their advance.
Of course, publishers that play dirty games soon become publishers of last resort among those in the know. The name of the game here is to keep up on industry gossip! Join any author associations that you can and mingle with established authors.
Also note that the rules for bestselling authors are so different from beginning authors that there's not much to be learned from them. Find a midlist author (or three) who's work you like (most authors are very amenable to heartfelt complements
Re:Some provisions not so new... (Score:1)
Not always. Until about twenty years ago it was quite common for a book contract to obligate the book publisher to publish the book, as long as the writer met all of his obligations.
This sold me on not writing a book... (Score:2, Informative)
Favorite quote: Five percent of retail is fair if you abandon one erroneous assumption: that the publishing industry exists to compensate authors.
Same ideas as the linked article, just more in depth.
Who should own copyright? (Score:3, Insightful)
This sort of system would actually be more in line with the US Constitution, which says, The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts . . . by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their
respective writings and discoveries.
IMHO, the current US copyright system is in violation of the US Constitition due to the fact that it does not exclusively secure the exclusive rights for the author. Copyright legislation should be revised to prohibit outright sale or transfer of copyright to any other individual or organization. The author(s) should be required to own the copyright themselves. The only exception would be to voluntarily place the work into the public domain.
And getting into the limited times issue. Obviously the highest limit in such a system consistent with the Constitution would be the lifespan of the author, since transfer, inheritance, etc. would be prohibited. Copyright could also not be limited to less than the life of the author, as this would violate the Vth Amendment: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. It would be most consistant just to make copyright endure for the life of the author, period. Any other solution puts the author at the mercy of the publishers.
As to the argument that copyright should be inherited by the author's heirs, I say this is complete and utter rubbish. Let the author invest the income from his/her copyrights, and will the results of those investments to his heirs, like anyone who earns money by employment has to...
Tell me about it (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't news to me. I'm a novellist looking to get a first novel published, and have been hearing the same things. Publishers have realised that they can sign up more books than they can actually sell, and then keep some of them as perpetual bankers to fill slack spots. It's not really anything sinister, it's just that commissioning editors are more keen to justify their existence by signing up books than marketing managers are to dilute their budget stuffing the channel with no-namers. It's simple supply and demand: book buyers make their decision mostly based on the author name, then in decreasing order of importance, the cover art, the title, the cover quotes (from authors in the same stable, naturally), then the cover blurb and finally the author bio. Consider the shelves groaning under the weight of Koontz, King, McCaffrey and Pratchett, and anything featuring Josh Kirbyesque artwork for that matter.
I have been advised that my options for a first novel are:
I'm going for the multi-book option. If publishers want to sell trilogies, a trilogy they shall get (with outlines for five more). I stopped book the first a little prematurely at 90,000 words, and am 30,000 into book the second. I've pretty much accepted that I have to write another 120,000 words or so before I can approach a publisher from anything like a position of strength. As I said, this isn't a problem for me, writing is a hobby at the moment, and the long term payoff will be better. But this would be impossible for someone wanting to write for a living.
This is quite apart from the problem of stopping your work from going straight off the top of the slush pile into the outgoing mail (or the round file). What's making that situation worse is that many publishers are looking for The Next Harry Potter, which means they're prepared to throw their slender resources at promoting a very few new "personality" authors in the hope of making it big, while treating the majority of their current stable as shelf padders and rejecting the rest of the new authors out of hand. Publishers don't accept books any more, they accept authors and series. A slush pile submission really has to be accompanied by a colourful and illustrated biography; you're not submitting a well written novel, but an attractive sales pitch for an ongoing cash cow.
Bear in mind that I'm still optimistic enough to believe that if I put in the work up front, I can be one of those lucky breakthrough authors. Get back to me in a few years, and I might have even more reservations about the whole process. ;-)
Actual Quotes from A Book Contract (Score:1)
"Contributor hereby assigns to Publisher
It's not enough to transfer copyright for the written word -- they want me to sign over the right to make, what, the holographic 22nd century version?
"Should Contributor become unable or unwilling to perform
Okay, I'd be at fault for this provision to happen, but how exactly is someone else going to finish my work? It's not entirely clear that I'd get credit for any of it if they appoint someone to "act as Contributor."
And my personal favorite: "... Contributor agrees not to divulge, disseminate or publicize the terms of this Agreement
which, of course, I'd be breaking right now if I'd signed it.
Be careful what you agree to in black and white!
Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Termination clauses
Contracts are a two-way street. The publisher promises to publish the book as long as the author delivers what he promised to deliver. There are a few set ways in which a contract can be terminated:
- The author fails to deliver the book. At all. Every contract stipulates a delivery date, and there is usually a grace period for extenuating circumstances, or the contract is renegotiated. If the author still doesn't turn in the manuscript, there really isn't any way the publisher can publish it.
- The author delivers something substantially different from the book that was proposed and agreed upon. In this case the author is pulling the old bait-and-switch on the publisher, and there should be no obligation to publish a different book from the one the publisher thought they were contracting for.
- The author can also terminate a contract if he has delivered everything according to the contract but the publisher fails to publish within a certain time frame (usually a year to 18 months -- typical lead time for a fiction/nonfiction work is 9 months from delivery of manuscript to publication). The author does have some recourse against the big evil company.
Termination clauses are never invoked casually -- before the contract is even drawn up the publisher has decided they like this author and their book, and they want to publish it. They've scheduled it for some future date and they're counting on the revenue it'll bring. So they may be amenable to stretching deadlines, or reworking a manuscript that doesn't come in as they expected, but they're rarely going to ditch it altogether. They've invested in the book, and if they terminate the contract they're out the money already paid to the author. Sure, the author has to pay it back if they manage to sell it to another publisher, but it's only fair since the second publisher will no doubt have paid him another advance.Options
The case presented in the article is one of many possible option clauses; not all are so "Draconian". Rarely is the entire manuscript required before the publisher needs to decide whether to take on the next book or not, though it's true they're unlikely to commit to another book from an author before they see the sales record of the first one. But then again, how often is the next manuscript all finished before the first book is out? In the case where another book is already in the works and destined for another publisher, there are often amendments to the option clause to allow for it. As for putting an author's career on hold indefinitely, that author'd be a fool to agree to an option clause that didn't give the publisher a time limit to make an offer on the option work.
Royalties
Book royalties may not be that impressive, but the truth is most books don't earn out their advances in the first place. So for all the haggling over royalty rates, most authors won't see a dime after their last royalty advance, and the publisher swallows the difference. In those rare cases where the book does earn out, the author will almost certainly negotiate a better rate next time.
Yes, you can negotiate the terms. You can even get an agent to do it for you if you're willing to part with 10-15% of the earnings in exchange for a better deal and most likely a better relationship with your editor, one that isn't soured by a rough contract negotiation. Don't want your book excerpted somewhere embarassing? Ask for approval on licensing; you may get it.
If you want to point out problems with publishing, look to the conglomeration of publishing houses into massive corporations that care only about the bottom line, guaranteeing that the majority of potential authors never get offered that contract in the first place. (Ironically, that approach doesn't seem to have made any more money for the publishers than simply putting out the books they love.) The focus on commercialism paired with the increasing ability of Barnes & Noble to drive the book industry from the creation of books through to sales is a bigger part of what's wrong with book publishing today.
This is good stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
I was not aware of the language in the Sherman Anti-Trust act that the article quotes:
the Sherman Act has a second component aimed at shared abuse of power. To wit: "Every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade is illegal."
That's dynamite. The question has long been raised, why isn't RIAA a monopoly, why doesn't someone file an anti-trust lawsuit against RIAA. The answer invariably given is that RIAA is just a trade group, an industry association that acts on behalf of many recording companies but itself doesn't really do anything.
Screw fighting RIAA...they are a multi-headed hydra. We are pissing away time and effort trying to fight the Hillary Rosen beast.
I think we need to focus on the real target, the recording companies themselves. We need to work towards anti-trust investigations of BMG, Sony, AOL Time Warner, Virgin, etc.
Who could not look at their actions toward online music in the past five years and not see a compelling restraint of trade? In concert (read: conspiracy) the major groups have all withheld licensing from any third-party group that wished to create a value-added-service based on record company products.
This would be like Dell refusing to sell me hardware because I charge people to set the hardware up for them. Dell also sells installation services. So I would be robbing Dell of money while at the same time gaining profit based on Dell hardware.
The argument above is ridiculous. But somehow the argument makes sense when we are talking about intangible intellectual property instead of real physical property...even though the economics of the situation should indicate that there is less risk for the intellectual property!
After all...if Dell were to experiment with promotions...give away servers to try and encourage future business...that represents real risk and real, on the book, loses. But if a record company decides to experiment with the same promotion, give away electronic copies of music to try and encourage future business...there is no risk and no real loss. Oh sure they would argue loss of future profits while at the same time ignoring that this is exactly what radio has been doing the past fifty years.
So then, if there is no real, reportable on the book, losses, shouldn't a record company be MORE willing to engage in unproved or far-sighted enterprises, like online music? But they haven't. They, in concert (read: conspiracy) had their trade group shut down any online company that would seek to gain a profit by adding some new value (search engines, recommendation engines, collections, remote cacheing) that is based on record company products.
That is restraint of trade.
- JoeShmoe
.
Who signs a standard agreement? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do not try this at home, folks. In addition to helping you to be alive to issues that the plain language does not clearly raise, an experienced professional "knows" which terms are truly written in stone, which are routinely dropped when you ask for it, and which are going to require some degree (or a lot) of negotiation depending upon the circumstances.
Get an agent. If its a big deal, get a lawyer just for you, as well as the lawyer the agent uses. Don't give this a second thought -- the costs of negotiating these properly makes all of the difference in the world. Get an agent. Really. Just do it.
Competent representation can alleviate much of these issues. As recently as my last book deal (two years ago), publishers were still following pretty much the standard "dance," with terms no more egregious after negotiations than you might responsibly expect. On the other hand, without advice of counsel, substantial research or experience, you may find the agreement something of a minefield.
Er, article could be a bit outdated... (Score:1)
The article paints an interesting and informative picture of the publishing industry for us wannabe authors, but did anyone else note that it's over two years-old (posted Feb 3, 2000)?
Are there any agents or published authors out there who can update us? Do the facts and figures in this article still hold true today? Based on the comments that I have read so far, it seems that the article still stands, but I could be wrong...
No more indentured servants (Score:1)
The truth is on your first contract you are going to get screwed. You have very little experience or bargaining power. That's just the way it's going to be. However, after you've proved yourself to be valuable, you should be able to negotiate a much better deal for your next work.
There may be illegal reasons why this may not work. (The cartels may simply agree not to offer better contracts even to their competition's valuable authors or artists). However, this would be a great step in the right direction.
Seek IP Attorney to review (Score:1)
The $1000 or so dollars spent on an attorney is more than made up in the end.
Mathworld (Score:1)
What is the goal, an author's point of view. (Score:1)
The thing is, if you dont' have a name, you are just some slob putting in a submission. If you do have a name then you can't get yourself considered by the agents and editors who you need.
The back-end stuff, the books that purport to help you get published and so on, are pretty much a farce and they prey on this very impulse. Teh desire to be read/heard. And there are worse scams. "Send me $8.00 per month per 10,000 words and I'll put your work up on my site where real editors will see it and maybe buy it." Like any editor or publisher needs to look further than the slush-pile to find millions of words to look at.
Now that is a money making scam that sucks the life out of the prospective authors pocket.
The thing that really needs to be changed is the kind of accounting that lets a company take home millions of dollars and still "not make a profit."
Evil has many guises...
Article entirely one-sided (Score:2, Informative)
First for you technical writing copyright hounds: It is usually very easy to retain copyright for your work - just ask for it. The shelf life of your content is so short all the publisher really cares about is who gets the licensing rights. Even if you assign copyright to the publisher you will more than likely get that back when your book is taken out of print.
Authors are not screwed on royalty.
If you've ever seen a fully loaded P&L for a book you'll realize that in the end the publisher and the author basically split the pie. And that's if the author is getting a 10% royalty. The difference is the author gets most of their money up front while the publisher waits 18-24 months to get theirs.
Why you might get half royalties for electronic content:
Every online site wants the material in a specific format. It costs money to get your content put into that format. There is no revenue going back to the publisher in that market. Publisher's do it now in hopes the market may one day take off. The Publisher is assuming virtually all of the risk in entering that market and deserves the lion's share of the paltry returns. In the future, as the market grows you'll see more equity.
No kidding... (Score:2)
Where she got completely screwed was overseas rights. The company sold the rights to various company around the world... and the only thing my mom got was courtesy copies of the books. (It's kind of neat having the same book in about 10 languages though.)
She and her co-author took them to court but by that point the company had gone belly up and had little to give. She ended up with a cash settlement instead of all the back royalties she was owed.
Re:Are we really suprised? (Score:1)
After my experiences writing technical books I would *never* try and make a living from it unless I was a well known figure to a lot of people.
Jeremy
Re:Find alternative publishers (Score:1)
At the current time we publish only established professional authors. You can be writing out of your established category, however. In other words, if you're an established magazine writer seeking a publisher for a first book; or a successful novelist seeking publication for a nonfiction book, or a science-fiction writer with an historical novel to submit, we're interested. Please do not submit proposals or outlines of incomplete books. We offer contracts only for finished books.
so this limits the "first time" author from ever being published. My question is...if I can't get published because I am a first time author...how does one break out of that mold? I can see why the publishers have a strngle hold on the authors and limit what they are and are not responsible for. If you are a publisher, and you invest money in a first time author, you are putting a lot down as a risk. Same with the Music company. I guess my argument about that is that the contract should only appliy to that initial book. rather than stretching out the options the way it appears the publishers do. It turns from the publishing of information or the exchange of ideas to a mere exchange of money from the buyer to the publishing house.
Just aoppears lately that all the news has been geared towards these big corporations getting caught (or their practice of extorting the artist) and being exposed. Yet, nothing seems to be done once the light has been shown.