Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate the great
I think we've passed the point of no return with debating pwalker8. He's using straw man arguments because he can't think up better ones and he doesn't want to concede the debate.
The post you're responding to is a straw man, plain and simple.
|
Hardly. I quote fjtorres post from earlier in this thread
=======================
Their idea of archival copies were pdf files, one per edition. At most. That is why many paperbacks were reduced size replicas of the hardcover. Version control? Non-existent. Revision tracking? Feh! Keeping editable versions exposed them to authors demandijg changes be walked back.
Besides, if it was good enough for Dickens...
As recently as 2011-12 publishers complained that doing ebook editions of the backlist was expensive because they had to recreate the file from print copies. Apparently, they deleted the pdfs after a few years. Or the floppies got corrupted.
====================
When I asked why would publishers keep editable copies of all their books you replied
========================
How about the basic principle of good business records? How about the files could be useful again one day?
========================
So you, yourself actually said what you call a straw man.
Then Cinisajoy agreed with you
======================
Because they do own the publishing rights. The Big 5 authors have their books published when the publisher says too. The publisher says how many and in what format.
Most probably have very long contract times.
So I agree with Nate.
Amazon for example does not pay the big 5 authors. They pay the publisher.
The author may technically own the copyright but the publisher owns the rights to put it up for sale.
So why shouldn't they keep a copy?
======================
So, no straw man. Both of you said that publishers should keep electronic copies of all the books they have published.