Legitimate Publishers using Pirated Ebooks as Source

[fjtorres]

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.

The cases we've noted involve authors who are tech savvy and understand that old school ebook piracy was often a labor of love and the most beloved titles got proofed to higher standards than the publishers ever used.

The files are out there anyway; it would be foolish of the author to put out an inferior product out of "high minded" principle.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Tarana

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.

Unless it's a work for hire, the publishers don't own the copyright. Depending on the contract, they may control the publishing right as long as certain criteria are met, for example, making sure the work is not out of print for more than a given period of time. Not terribly different than record contracts in that there are a lot of authors out there who don't care what the contract says, they just want to be published. That's why authors ought to have agents and lawyers. It's no different than any other business.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Unless it's a work for hire, the publishers don't own the copyright. Depending on the contract, they may control the publishing right as long as certain criteria are met, for example, making sure the work is not out of print for more than a given period of time. Not terribly different than record contracts in that there are a lot of authors out there who don't care what the contract says, they just want to be published. That's why authors ought to have agents and lawyers. It's no different than any other business.

I notice you only answered the post that you could safely answer on a technicality without disproving your claim.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I notice you only answered the post that you could safely answer on a technicality without disproving your claim.

To quote a great man, the great man once said something about some people being blind when I was in a discussion.
That was back when I was new here.
See I was paying attention to you great man.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I notice you only answered the post that you could safely answer on a technicality without disproving your claim.

And I note that you don't respond to the point at hand, which is why should it be the publisher's responsibility to maintain an electronic copy of the finished manuscript rather than the author's. Of course, it's much easier to snark at someone, rather than try to present facts to support your opinion, assuming that you have an opinion and you just aren't snarking for the sake of snarking.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

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?

It totally depends on the contract, which varies quite a bit, even when the same publisher is involved.

Here is URL for some of the things that the authors guild thinks you should negotiate as an author, including making sure that rights revert back to you in various situation.

https://www.authorsguild.org/member-...book-contract/

It is a contract and for the most part, if the publisher wants to publish your book, they are willing to negotiate. The idea that book contracts are a take it or leave it is about on par with the idea that the first offer on a car at a car dealer is a take it or leave it. Everyone should take a course in contract law, just to know what is what. I took my first one back in high school, way back when.

Do you know of any current books, not backlisted, where the publisher doesn't have an electronic copy of the book? This conversation started discussing backlisted books. Many of the "rights in purgatory" stories that I've read from various authors can be traced to the original publisher/imprint going belly up. I've seen stories where the contract passes hands three or four times.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

And I note that you don't respond to the point at hand, which is why should it be the publisher's responsibility to maintain an electronic copy of the finished manuscript rather than the author's. Of course, it's much easier to snark at someone, rather than try to present facts to support your opinion, assuming that you have an opinion and you just aren't snarking for the sake of snarking.

That's an odd thing to say

I posted twice:

Originally Posted by eschwartz

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.

Seems pretty clear to me -- the publisher is responsible for maintaining digital copies for books that they expect to make money on.
They can of course abdicate responsibility to the author, who has no expectation of making money anyway. But no one said the publishers are legally obligated to make money...

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I notice you only answered the post that you could safely answer on a technicality without disproving your claim.

You are correct, this post did not address the point at hand. I humbly beg your pardon.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Do you know of any current books, not backlisted, where the publisher doesn't have an electronic copy of the book? This conversation started discussing backlisted books. Many of the "rights in purgatory" stories that I've read from various authors can be traced to the original publisher/imprint going belly up. I've seen stories where the contract passes hands three or four times.

While we're on the topic of electronic copies, I know of at least one book where the publisher had to buy an ex-library copy and scan it.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It totally depends on the contract, which varies quite a bit, even when the same publisher is involved.

Here is URL for some of the things that the authors guild thinks you should negotiate as an author, including making sure that rights revert back to you in various situation.

https://www.authorsguild.org/member-...book-contract/

It is a contract and for the most part, if the publisher wants to publish your book, they are willing to negotiate. The idea that book contracts are a take it or leave it is about on par with the idea that the first offer on a car at a car dealer is a take it or leave it. Everyone should take a course in contract law, just to know what is what. I took my first one back in high school, way back when.

Do you know of any current books, not backlisted, where the publisher doesn't have an electronic copy of the book? This conversation started discussing backlisted books. Many of the "rights in purgatory" stories that I've read from various authors can be traced to the original publisher/imprint going belly up. I've seen stories where the contract passes hands three or four times.

Do you have or have you ever had a contract with a big 5 publisher?
Are you saying that there should only be one print run ever?
How would I or you know what books have electronic copies?
That is an impossible question.
As to the authorsguild, oh never mind.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Do you have or have you ever had a contract with a big 5 publisher?
Are you saying that there should only be one print run ever?
How would I or you know what books have electronic copies?
That is an impossible question.
As to the authorsguild, oh never mind.

Most books only have one run, simply because most books don't sell all that many. The normal life cycle for the average book is - print, send out to book stores, after a couple of months (sometimes less), the books are tossed and the cover is sent to the publisher for credit. I've read that the average non fiction book sells 2000 copies or less.

Nope, not an impossible question. If you are postulating that publishers don't have archive copies of the electronic manuscript of books that are currently in print, then surely you must know of at least one where that is the case. Otherwise, it's a non issue. The original question was about using pirated ebooks for backlist books.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Most books only have one run, simply because most books don't sell all that many. The normal life cycle for the average book is - print, send out to book stores, after a couple of months (sometimes less), the books are tossed and the cover is sent to the publisher for credit. I've read that the average non fiction book sells 2000 copies or less.

Nope, not an impossible question. If you are postulating that publishers don't have archive copies of the electronic manuscript of books that are currently in print, then surely you must know of at least one where that is the case. Otherwise, it's a non issue. The original question was about using pirated ebooks for backlist books.

I can think of a book that had at least 2 runs. Make that 3 runs. I know there are at least 3 covers plus it is now available in ebook form.

So you are going to tell me that the best sellers are only printed once????
There are never reprints.

I know most books don't sell well but some do and some are reprinted many times.

Do you have any proof that publishers do or do not keep electronic copies?
If not, then the question you asked cannot be answered by anyone but the publishers.

Oh the book I was referring to is "All the President's Men."
I know because the "Sundance Kid" and "Ted Kramer/Tootsie" are on the cover.

[MikeB1972]

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 so they can easily do error-free reprints (Or even error-corrected reprints) if a new print run is required.

I don't think the publishers passes back the final proofed & edited copy of the document to the author, so asking the author to store the electronic back-up is not viable.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

I don't think the publishers passes back the final proofed & edited copy of the document to the author, so asking the author to store the electronic back-up is not viable.

It certainly used to be the case that the author gets back what's called a "galley proof", which is the "final edit" prior to publication, but this is normally on paper, not electronic. I have the galley proof, with hand-written corrections made on it, of a Michael Moorcock novel called "The Dragon in the Sword", which I bought at a charity auction at a British "Eastercon" SF convention about 20 years ago. Whether these days authors get electronic galley proofs, I don't know.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It certainly used to be the case that the author gets back what's called a "galley proof", which is the "final edit" prior to publication, but this is normally on paper, not electronic. I have the galley proof, with hand-written corrections made on it, of a Michael Moorcock novel called "The Dragon in the Sword", which I bought at a charity auction at a British "Eastercon" SF convention about 20 years ago. Whether these days authors get electronic galley proofs, I don't know.

I get the authors get a galley proof and very good idea. Pwalker was saying that publishers don't keep a copy. I am assuming that the author got a copy and the publisher kept a copy in case they needed to run a reprint.

We never argued the author shouldn't get a copy, just that the publisher should keep a copy since they have the publishing rights.

[theducks]

Back in the days of Hot Type I could see disposing (melting ) of the copy.
When the started using photo Offset printing, I would think that the Film would be warehoused (1 thick sheet per page is still a LOT of shelf space), at least for the duration of the contract to allow quick turnaround on reprints.

With Direct to plate printing became common, disk space had already fallen, so I see no reason the source files were not stored for the contract period.

But they didn't. Just like many BPH waited to the end of the contract to change the status from "Out of Stock" to "Out of Print"
(IIRC OOP status, rights reverts back to the Author )