Article: The Publishers are as bad as Amazon.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by TCSimpson

I don't underestimate it, which is why I said that is the reason I would sign and that the contract must also allow me freedom to be hybrid. Publisher already owns the right to a certain set of works but I don't want them owning me.

And the problem is publishers *want* to own you.
That's the reason for the non-compete and over-broad first-refusal clauses.
And the life-of-copyright contracts that require the author to do their own promotion.

They need to take a cue from Michael Douglas in ROMANCING THE STONE.
"I can be bought... but I don't come cheap."

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Isn't that what reversion clauses in a publishing contract are for? Not that publishers don't play games with those sometimes.

Modern reversion clauses are well-nigh useless.
No publisher will sign one that can actually be triggered. All that the clauses require is that an (ebook) edition be offered somewhere, not that it be generating actual income for the author.

In the old days (pre-2010) an author could make themselves enough of a nuisance to force the publisher to revert a title or even bring in a lawyer and take them to court but nowadays they play games all the time.

Mind you, there are worse things that can happen to a tradpub author than a publisher holding a title hostage. Just ask the NIGHTSHADE authors or the ones caught in the DK bankruptcy.

Edit: Brain cramp. It was the DP, Dorchester publishing, bankruptcy.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Modern reversion clauses are well-nigh useless.
No publisher will sign one that can actually be triggered. All that the clauses require is that an (ebook) edition be offered somewhere, not that it be generating actual income for the author.

Have any examples that have been made public?

I know they can be somewhat hard to put into action at times, but haven't read this specific complaint yet. I have read about authors with older titles getting stuck because their publisher ran a few POD copies to keep a book in print.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Just ask the . . . ones caught in the DK bankruptcy.

Can you expand on this? Googling:

dk bankruptcy

isn't finding it.

[AnemicOak]

When I see DK I think Dorling Kindersley. Perhaps it's in reference to when they got in trouble back in the late 90's(?) when they way overprinted on the Star Wars books (something like didn't even sell half of what was printed) they were publishing and as a result were taken over by Pearson/Penguin? No idea about what if any bankruptcy was involved in that.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The first paragraph accuses the big five of hypocrisy, but never got back to it -- unless one thinks that hypocrisy and treating authors badly are identical.

One thing that really is hypocritical is Amazon's history of disrespecting price maintenance agreements on merchandise it sells (see The Everything Store, which is IMHO essential reading for threads like this) when it's obvious that Amazon itself exercises price maintenance on eInk Kindles:

http://the-digital-reader.com/2012/0.../#.U82mXvldU14

P.S. What about Amazon fighting Hachette on agency while forbidding serious discounting of eInk Kindles? I'm not accusing Amazon of hypocrisy there, in part because I haven't found overwhelming evidence that the dispute between Amazon and Hachette is over agency. It probably is, but maybe they agreed on agency on day one but disagree on something else.

Um, because as Nate immediately pointed out, the dynamics for ereaders are very different from ebooks?

Ereaders are sold at or near cost. Stores can discount them -- if they don't mind losing that money. As there is no real incentive for them to sell more Kindles (they make no money off ebook sales) they simply decide not to discount.

Amazon has been known to discount Kindles -- since they want more people to own a Kindle and then buy books from Amazon to stock it.

Why don't you suggest a reason why any store (staples, Best Buy, Office Depot, etc.) would want to seriously discount Kindles?

[Josieb1]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You shouldn't underestimate the value of that, though. It sounds as if you're doing everything in a thoroughly professional manner, but there are an awful lot of readers out there - myself included - who don't buy self-published books simply because the overwhelming majority of them are unmitigated crap. I buy my fantasy from publishers like Baen or Tor because I trust them to only publish decent books.

Maybe I'm lucky in the romance genre I read but I don't get the bias against self published books. I read authors that are published with (for example) Samhain and Dreamspinner that still self publish along side that. They pay for editing, proof readers and decent covers. The self published books are as good as the published ones, and some of the best I've read have been self published.

Yes there is crap out there, I can usually tell by the cover tbh, and the preview I can get from Amazon. But I'd never refuse to buy self published books. For some authors self publishing is a way to pay the bills and allows them to continue to write while they wait for the publisher books to release. I've even bought paperbacks from self published authors as well.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Josieb1

Maybe I'm lucky in the romance genre I read but I don't get the bias against self published books. I read authors that are published with (for example) Samhain and Dreamspinner that still self publish along side that. They pay for editing, proof readers and decent covers. The self published books are as good as the published ones, and some of the best I've read have been self published.

Yes there is crap out there, I can usually tell by the cover tbh, and the preview I can get from Amazon. But I'd never refuse to buy self published books. For some authors self publishing is a way to pay the bills and allows them to continue to write while they wait for the publisher books to release. I've even bought paperbacks from self published authors as well.

The "bias against it" is simply the time it takes to find the few gems amongst the overwhelming mass of complete crap. I like the job that publishers do as "gatekeepers". For my SF/Fantasy reading I mainly rely on the monthly book bundle released by Baen. I've been buying this every month for over 15 years, and experience has taught me that I can be sure of enjoying at least 90% of the books in those bundles. I know of no method of selecting, with zero effort on my part, self-published books which I'll be equally sure of enjoying, so I avoid them. It's not as if I'm short of books to read.

[Josieb1]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The "bias against it" is simply the time it takes to find the few gems amongst the overwhelming mass of complete crap. I like the job that publishers do as "gatekeepers". For my SF/Fantasy reading I mainly rely on the monthly book bundle released by Baen. I've been buying this every month for over 15 years, and experience has taught me that I can be sure of enjoying at least 90% of the books in those bundles. I know of no method of selecting, with zero effort on my part, self-published books which I'll be equally sure of enjoying, so I avoid them. It's not as if I'm short of books to read.

I must admit I don't just pick my self published books out of thin air. I go by recommendations from authors I follow and trust, plus of course I buy the books self published by authors I already know and like. There is far too much rubbish out there.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I guess the best answer is if you don't like the contract, don't sign it. It kind of sounds to me like the author wants to have his cake (up front money, etc) and to eat it too (not be tied to a contract when he can make more elsewhere).

But it might be in the publisher's interest to make their writer happy -- that is, if they want to keep their writer after the contract runs out. Greed is the great "stupidfier," it short circuits the brain.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Ereaders are sold at or near cost.

I doubt retailers will agree to sell a fixed price item at their cost. Staples does need to make money when they sell items at a consistent full price. Near cost? Relatively low markups are typically associated with price maintenance.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Why don't you suggest a reason why any store (staples, Best Buy, Office Depot, etc.) would want to seriously discount Kindles?

The same reason they periodically deep discount every popular item not under price maintenance. It brings people into the stores where they will buy other items that are profitable.

What do you call a store that loses X amount on one third of sales and makes the same amount on two thirds of sales? Profitable. While the fractions I state are too simplified to be real-world, that's the basic strategy of Amazon's US reseller community -- when they are allowed to apply it.

[shalym]

SteveEisenberg, do you have any real verifiable source to say that Amazon doesn't allow discounting of it's devices by the resellers? Because I just don't believe it. I just put "kindle sale" into a google search and see a few Kindles on sale, but even more important is this: https://source.amazon.com/#/welcome I looked all through that site, and couldn't find anything stating that Kindle devices aren't allowed to be discounted. Maybe you have some other source that I couldn't find?

Shari

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Can you expand on this? Googling:

dk bankruptcy

isn't finding it.

Dorchester publishing, sorry.

Here's a link from 2012:

http://deborahmacgillivray.blogspot....-backlist.html

The company went under and since the contracts were considered corporate assets, the titles couldn't be reverted even though many authors were owed big sums in royalties. The authors were treated as unsecured claimants, say like an office supply vendor, and were at the bottom of the list for payment. Worse, the contracts remained in force and were auctioned off. By the letter of the law, the new owner of the contract owed no back royalties but since the buyer was Amazon publishing, they paid the money as a good will gesture (and inducement). As part of the bid terms, they offered to revert the titles if the author preferred not to sign with AP. They did not have to do either.

When Nightshade went under, this was exactly what the authirs faced: either they agreed to the new, reduced royalty contracts enmasse or the buyer walked away and they all ended up in bankruptcy court.

When you look at the backlists of the BPHs and their myriad imprints you'll find tons of books (and associated contracts) that have been transfered from one entity to another over and over with absolutely no say from the author. The new owners may live up to the contract and actively promote the title or they might just squat on the rights but in no way does tge suthir have recourse.

A publishing contract isn't a partnership agreement, it is an outright sale and assignment of IP rights so, effectively, the publishers do own the author's career.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

A publishing contract isn't a partnership agreement, it is an outright sale and assignment of IP rights

Absolutely. And the author needs to be aware of this when signing such a contract. An author who signs a contract without having all its implications explained to them by a lawyer is acting somewhat unwisely.

I experienced something very similar myself many years ago with my software business. I had a very good US agent who published my software in the US, and provided an excellent service. He was bought out by a much larger software company, and all the titles he published went with him. My product was a bit of an oddball which didn't really fit in to the larger company's portfolio, and it was basically put on the back-burner, not advertised or supported. My US sales fell through the floor.

Luckily the company accepted that this had happened and sold me all the rights back for a nominal $1 sum.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by rcentros

But it might be in the publisher's interest to make their writer happy -- that is, if they want to keep their writer after the contract runs out. Greed is the great "stupidfier," it short circuits the brain.

Given that a number of authors are quite happy with their publishers, perhaps the real issue is that maybe the author in question might be a bit on the greedy side, or simply doesn't understand why his books didn't do as well as he thought they should. Remember "the publishers" is a pretty big and diverse group of people, not the monolith that some seem to think they are. Publishing contracts aren't the monolith that some think they are either.