Legitimate Publishers using Pirated Ebooks as Source

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by theducks

When was the last time you saw a working CPM machine (not in a museum)?
Did it have 8" floppies or 5.25" floppies?

I would be surprised if data was recoverable without extraordinary (expensive) means.
Old Early floppies tend to jam in their sleeves. If it does, the disk is now toast
Data print through/bleed-over is another lurker.

Not saying ALL will fail. I have many open reel tapes (some Quad). The Mylar ones play nicely, the acetate ones ) Good quality media, treated nice can survive.

Also, I wouldn't assume that the file could be read even if it could be recovered from the storage medium.

[HarryT]

Probably Wordstar format on CP/M. You would struggle to find something that would read that today.

[GeoffR]

Whether it is legal or not I don't think publishers should do it. Any association with pirates can do only harm to the publisher's reputation and undermine their own appeals to readers about buying from legitimate sources.

[cromag]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Probably Wordstar format on CP/M. You would struggle to find something that would read that today.

I'll lend you my Epson Geneva PX-8 -- it's got a version of Wordstar and it still works! But, you'll have to put the files on microcassettes since I never got the disk drive for it. Back in the 80s and 90s I transferred files to a Unix computer with a direct RS-232 connection.

[cromag]

Originally Posted by GeoffR

Whether it is legal or not I don't think publishers should do it. Any association with pirates can do only harm to the publisher's reputation and undermine their own appeals to readers about buying from legitimate sources.

Most of the pirate copies I've encountered have been offered for free via anonymous download/filesharing services. I was making my suggestion based on the pirate getting no monetary compensation -- or publicity, for that matter.

But if they provide a source that a legitimate rights holder can utilize as a step towards a finished product, I'm okay with that.

[GeoffR]

Originally Posted by cromag

Most of the pirate copies I've encountered have been offered for free via anonymous download/filesharing services. I was making my suggestion based on the pirate getting no monetary compensation -- or publicity, for that matter.

But if they provide a source that a legitimate rights holder can utilize as a step towards a finished product, I'm okay with that.

The publisher is in effect saying: We will use a pirated version to avoid paying someone a wage to scan/OCR the paper book, but you should buy the ebook from us even though you could get a pirated version for free.

I think that undermines the publisher's message, even if they are not paying the pirate anything.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Probably Wordstar format on CP/M. You would struggle to find something that would read that today.

If I recall correctly, he used a program called pencil or something like that. It was a program that as he put it "got out of the way and let him write".

I'm pretty sure that Pournelle was very conscientious about backups. I seem to recall him mentioning that he had a backup machine that had all his manuscripts on it. I have both his books that were collections of his Byte columns and I'm pretty sure that he mentioned his work flow and changing formats. I also remember that piracy was somewhat of a sore spot for him.

Yea, here is one of his blog posts where he mentions early word processing and the various programs he used

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosm...rd-processing/

He also mentions elsewhere that he got his Z-80 in 1976.

[murg]

Originally Posted by GeoffR

Whether it is legal or not I don't think publishers should do it. Any association with pirates can do only harm to the publisher's reputation and undermine their own appeals to readers about buying from legitimate sources.

Originally Posted by GeoffR

The publisher is in effect saying: We will use a pirated version to avoid paying someone a wage to scan/OCR the paper book, but you should buy the ebook from us even though you could get a pirated version for free.

I think that undermines the publisher's message, even if they are not paying the pirate anything.

Nothing in the legitimate ebook identifies the source.

I had to compare it to the un-authorised version to come an opinion regarding the source of the legitimate version.

Very few people care about the mechanics of production in determining whether or not to get the legitimate pirated versions of a books.

As things stand with some books, the publishers aren't doing the proofing at all. That doesn't seem to affect sales.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Of the original manuscript, perhaps (and would that old file still be readable?). But the finished, edited, proofed, and published book?

Probably not. Book publishing didn't really start going digital until, what, the 1990s? So it's possible that a lot of his early work had to be scanned before it could be released digitally.

Yup.
Even after tradpub "went digital" they didn't.
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.

(We've all seen the result of the typical backlist workflow: scanned, OCR'ed and shoveled out without proofing.)

What went digital in the 90's was typesetting, btw.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Yup.
Even after tradpub "went digital" they didn't.
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.

(We've all seen the result of the typical backlist workflow: scanned, OCR'ed and shoveled out without proofing.)

What went digital in the 90's was typesetting, btw.

Why would the publishers keep editable copies of all their books? They don't own the copyright. It's the author's property. If the author doesn't keep copies and backups of the final manuscript, that's the author's bad, not the publisher. Oh, I forgot, the point is to bash the publishers.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Why would the publishers keep editable copies of all their books? They don't own the copyright. It's the author's property. If the author doesn't keep copies and backups of the final manuscript, that's the author's bad, not the publisher. Oh, I forgot, the point is to bash the publishers.

How about the basic principle of good business records? How about the files could be useful again one day?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

How about the basic principle of good business records? How about the files could be useful again one day?

Why is that good business records. Perhaps it might be wise to keep a copy of the manuscript for the duration of the contract, but why would you expect a publisher to maintain the manuscript of a property they no longer have the rights to, but don't expect the owner (i.e. author) to keep a copy?

[Tarana]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Why would the publishers keep editable copies of all their books? They don't own the copyright. It's the author's property.

In many cases, the publisher DOES own the copyright, very often for the first or second book of a now well known author. It's those tricky contracts. A law came not long ago (in US) that forces the copyright to revert to the author after some decades.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Why would the publishers keep editable copies of all their books? They don't own the copyright. It's the author's property. If the author doesn't keep copies and backups of the final manuscript, that's the author's bad, not the publisher. Oh, I forgot, the point is to bash the publishers.

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?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Why would the publishers keep editable copies of all their books? They don't own the copyright. It's the author's property. If the author doesn't keep copies and backups of the final manuscript, that's the author's bad, not the publisher. Oh, I forgot, the point is to bash the publishers.

The publishers should keep editable copies for as long as they own the rights to the book.
So, not quite forever, but for practical purposes pretty close.

Oh, "they don't own the copyright", yeah right, technicalities either way it isn't exactly illogical for them to keep an editable digital copy of the books they are currently selling/have the right to sell.
It is not the author's bad, or not exclusively. The publisher is also (only?) the one losing money when they can't sell the book they have the right to sell.

Honestly, I am not sure I could come up with a worse argument if I tried for a very long time.