Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fjtorres
To prevail, Harlequin merely has to convince the court that licensing an ebook that sells for US$4.99 for $0.50 is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
|
No, they have to convince the court of their interpretation of events. It is utterly irrelevant if you think the authors got a bad deal.
The plaintiffs are not saying that the contracts were unconscionable. They're saying the correct royalty rate ought to be 50% rather than 3% or 6%.
Oh, and yes, a 10% royalty rate may be a bit low, but it's really not that awful. Especially since Harlequin pays halfway decent advances.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fjtorres
As wikipedia notes, Harlequin practices have been frowned upon for years....
|
In 2009, they started a vanity press called "Harlequin Horizons." (Yes, so many people wanted to be published by Harlequin, that they were willing to pay for the privilege and no real distribution.) The RWA and others called them on it, so in less than a month they renamed themselves "DellArte," and removed all references to Harlequin on the website.
That's hardly an example of "practices frowned upon for years."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fjtorres
The real issue here is not so much whether Harlequin's practices are legal (unless you are one of the affected authors, poor souls) but that the practices are now public.
|
They've been public for a long, long time.
Romance writers blog; prospective and practicing romance authors participate in web forums. Thousands of authors have worked with them, and plenty are willing to talk about their experiences.
Even authors who are critical of Harlequin recognize that they have excellent editors, a good art department, high sales volume, pay advances, and do a lot of the sales work for you.