Quote:
Originally Posted by speakingtohe
Good Grief, anyone who is unfamiliar with contracts shouldn't be posting regarding them.
Helen
|
Everybody:
Guys, it's not about pro-DRM or anti-DRM. I know that the "Amazon is Evil" group won't believe this, but it isn't. Two things played into the default language in the contract--actually, three.
- Early on, publishers were very paranoid about their works being stolen and given away for free around the 'Net. They wanted reassurance that this wouldn't happen. You all know this.
- The publishers, generally, don't upload via the KDP, and don't "decide" DRM or no-DRM on an individual, book-by-book basis. The intake process is via FTP--book file, cover, metadata sheet. The intake software bulk processes books. Obviously, having a simplified "all these books go this way" process for something automated is better than not. If a publisher says "no, I don't want DRM," I'm 100% certain that their FTP'ed books go through a different FTP channel than the DRM'ed books. That's all it is. Bulk efficiency.
- With over [mumble], nearly [mumblier mumble] decades, working on contracts, I can say without hesitation that 'tis a far, far better thing to put a standarized clause INTO a contract, and then a) negotiate over slight rewording, or b) remove it, than to have the legal reps from 50 different publishers all sending you THEIR versions of what the DRM or no-DRM clause should look like. Given the sheer vasty hugi-ness of Amazon, (Yes, that was a Firefly nod), they likely have hundreds of contracted imprints and publishers. Anyone here who has EVER dealt with contracts knows that this is true--use a standardized, boilerplate form designed to cover all the various aspects, and you nuke, delete, strikeout, reword from there, rather than reading all new text from a new lawyer. It's simply less expensive and far, far more efficient.
In the legal field, it's simply how you work. Period. It's not unusual or even slightly odd. The "everybody has to agree" language isn't about "we will deny you permission," it's about
liability. Amazon's saying that they want the Publisher to expressly state that they
do not want DRM, and they are saying that they, Amazon, want to expressly affirm that
they have received notice thereof, so that if a book gets set loose in the wild, and gets pirated, and the publisher wants to come back on Amazon, in a lawsuit, as some part of it, that they cannot.
Honestly, guys: there's nothing remotely odd about this. Given the way the liability would run, it's smarter to put the DRM clause IN, and make the publisher expressly waive it, than to remove it, and have the publisher say, "oh, wait, 9 bajillion copies of my book got out, and I thought that Amazon was
OF COURSE going to put DRM on it."
Given that the overwhelming number of publishers want DRM, it would be daft to have made the clause read that they would not put DRM on it, as the default, and then have to amend the vast bulk of the contracts.
I can see how someone not familiar with contracts might not understand this particular language, or why it's in there, but it's simply...normal operating procedure, and given the history of ebooks and publishers, I don't see one thing there that would raise even one hair on one eyebrow on my head.
Hitch