Who will fill the gap if B&N collapses

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't disagree with your general point, but I would note that the publisher does not (normally, at least) own the copyright in the work, and the length of the publishing contract has nothing to do with the term of copyright protection.

They don't own it. But they typically control the rights for the life of the work (and they get to define the life of the work). It amounts to nearly the same thing, no?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

They don't own it. But they typically control the rights for the life of the work (and they get to define the life of the work). It amounts to nearly the same thing, no?

It would be a foolish author who signed away their rights for the whole of the copyright term. I've no idea how many authors actually do so - do you know?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It would be a foolish author who signed away their rights for the whole of the copyright term. I've no idea how many authors actually do so - do you know?

You misunderstand me. I mean they typically control the rights for as long as the work is in print (or more accurately: generating money). And they get to decide (or define) whether it's still in print. "The life of the work," not the length of the copyright. The fact that an author can regain control after the book has been commercially milked dry is little consolation.

And it's not even always about controlling the rights while the author's generating money for them. I know of at least one author who can't deliver the final book of a series to his fans because the publisher owns the rights to a book they have no intention of ever publishing--they dumped the series, and eventually the author (but not the rights). It should be illegal to indefinitely retain the rights to an author's work that you have no intention of publishing.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You misunderstand me. I mean they typically control the rights for as long as the work is in print (or more accurately: generating money). And they get to decide (or define) whether it's still in print. "The life of the work," not the length of the copyright. The fact that an author can regain control after the book has been commercially milked dry is little consolation.

And it's not even always about controlling the rights while the author's generating money for them. I know of at least one author who can't deliver the final book of a series to his fans because the publisher owns the rights to a book they have no intention of ever publishing--they dumped the series, and eventually the author (but not the rights). It should be illegal to indefinitely retain the rights to an author's work that you have no intention of publishing.

I totally agree!

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You misunderstand me. I mean they typically control the rights for as long as the work is in print (or more accurately: generating money). And they get to decide (or define) whether it's still in print.

Like some publishers recently being called on saying a work is still "in print" because they offer it through POD so it's "still available" despite no sales for years and years.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Like some publishers recently being called on saying a work is still "in print" because they offer it through POD so it's "still available" despite no sales for years and years.

Exactly.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by darryl

Some of the more innovative publishers now are leading the way. I don't know all of the characteristics that they will have. However, some do seem to be apparent. They will pay authors much higher royalties. Small advances if any will be the norm.

This innovation amounts to a compromise between ethical publishing and the old fashioned vanity press, shifting risk from publishers to authors.

It would be wonderful for a corrupt politician, relatively safe now that newspaper investigative staff have been hollowed out, but worried about a book author whose investigation needs advance funding.

Originally Posted by HarryT

It would be a foolish author who signed away their rights for the whole of the copyright term. I've no idea how many authors actually do so - do you know?

My idea is that it is a lot, at least historically.

Do journalists and magazine writers count? Those authors surely do, and there are a lot of them.

What about the real textbook authors (often not the marquee name on the title page) employed by publishers? They should also count.

Do people who write software for their employers count? I'm one and certainly think I count. I even question whether I'm a fool.

As for fiction writers, one of my favorites, Anthony Trollope, did it. I have no idea how many others have made what seems to me a highly sensible decision to maximize shifting of risk from their person to a corporate entity. Maybe, selling all rights until copyright expiration is less common today. But there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It should be illegal to indefinitely retain the rights to an author's work that you have no intention of publishing.

Are you thinking that a textbook company should have to keep publishing older editions? I don't see why.

If the author was paid (either by contract or an employment relationship) for rights until copyright expires, and paid fairly, there's nothing exploitive about that. Fairly paid authors don't need to be paid twice. In some countries it could raise a freedom of read issue for the old edition to be out of print, but libraries, and interlibrary loan, mean I can still read out of print works.

And, soon, no interlibrary loan will be needed. You are alluding to a problem that eBooks, and publishing on demand, are eliminating.

I fail to see the moral problem in selling all rights to what you write. Maybe that's because, as a software author, I'm doing it in my day job daily.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Are you thinking that a textbook company should have to keep publishing older editions? I don't see why.

If baffles me how you could possibly think my point was about forcing publishers to keep publishing something--anything. It was very clearly about publishers making a decision to never publish a particular work EVER, but refusing to ever relinquish their rights to it.

If they have no intention of ever publishing a book they own the rights to, then they need to either accept a reasonable buyout offer for those rights, or risk the rights reverting automatically to the author after a reasonable amount of time.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I fail to see the moral problem in selling all rights to what you write.

So do I. I just also fail to see why doing so is typically the only option available.

[nabsltd]

Originally Posted by Philippe D.

B&M bookshops do some important and useful work: they select the books they want to display, and can give some useful advice.

They can give useful advice, but the vast majority of general-stock (i.e., Borders, B&N, etc., not something like Mysterious Books in NYC) bookstores have nobody that can help you with what you want. They might have a clerk who can point out what the clerk likes, but almost none have a clerk who can give a meaningful answer to "I like pretty much everything some older author has written...do you know of any new authors like them?"

On the other hand, Amazon has this built in...every book has a "people who bought this also bought" and "people who bought this also looked at", and the author pages have "similar" authors listed based on those same criteria. Add in the rest of the Internet (blogs, discussion sites, etc.), and chances that you have a local B&M bookstore that can give you anything value-added are pretty slim.

Last, if you want e-books, I can't see what a B&M has to offer.

[nabsltd]

Originally Posted by Philippe D.

The law against discounting books is very specific to books.

Is MSRP in the UK different from US (after adjustment for currency)?

The last time I was there, I shopped in a Waterstones, and felt the prices were very competitive with US B&M stores (which do discount). I picked up 3-4 books on my wishlist that I had never seen in any store in the US (even used bookstores).

[darryl]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

This innovation amounts to a compromise between ethical publishing and the old fashioned vanity press, shifting risk from publishers to authors.

It would be wonderful for a corrupt politician, relatively safe now that newspaper investigative staff have been hollowed out, but worried about a book author whose investigation needs advance funding.

I'm afraid I see no ethical problem at all. Amazon has set the new benchmark. 70% royalties to self-published authors who take responsibility for all aspects at one end of the spectrum. At the other its own imprints who offer services comparable to traditional publishers at a lower rate but still much more than that usually offered by the Big 5. No ethical problems at all. Those who want to go the Big 5 way have that option. Those who aren't wanted by the Big 5 or those who choose not to go with them have the option of self-publishing and keeping all of the Royalties. If they are wanted by Amazon imprints or smaller innovative traditional publishers they have the option to take a lesser royalty in return for the support and services offered, should they judge it good value and in their best interests.

Your second point depends very much on your personal political views. I'm trying to think of an actual book requiring extensive research that itself brought a corrupt politician down, but the examples I consider all seem to have been written well after the event. In these days of wikileaks and the internet, politicians have arguable never been subject to greater scrutiny. Good investigative journalists in the MSM are nice, but we are hardly reliant on them, let alone on large publishers.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't disagree with your general point, but I would note that the publisher does not (normally, at least) own the copyright in the work, and the length of the publishing contract has nothing to do with the term of copyright protection.

Excellent question, Harry. I did not mean loss of work in the strict sense of an actual assignment of the copyright, I deliberately kept things very general to cover the situation where the author is effectively giving up virtually all their rights associated with their work.

I'm well aware of the "out of print" clauses which in the past have sometimes enabled an author to regain control of their work. But, as has been mentioned in the past on these forums, things have changed. EBooks never need go "out of print". Nor POD books. And the Big 5, or at least their parent companies, have realised that any book in their backlist is a valuable item on their balance sheet. Who knows what books, even previously unsuccessful obscure titles, may later rise to prominence and earn profits. I don't hear so much these days of authors rights being reverted for zero or nominal consideration. My view is that "out of print" now effectively means for the term of the copyright. This is very arguable though it is of course possible that an author with deep pockets may litigate the matter and have a court decide differently They would do so at their own peril and cost with a possibility but not a likelihood of success.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nabsltd

Is MSRP in the UK different from US (after adjustment for currency)?

The last time I was there, I shopped in a Waterstones, and felt the prices were very competitive with US B&M stores (which do discount). I picked up 3-4 books on my wishlist that I had never seen in any store in the US (even used bookstores).

Philippe is, I believe, in France, where selling books at a discount is prohibited. It's certainly allowed in the UK, as you discovered.

[Philippe D.]

Originally Posted by nabsltd

They can give useful advice, but the vast majority of general-stock (i.e., Borders, B&N, etc., not something like Mysterious Books in NYC) bookstores have nobody that can help you with what you want. They might have a clerk who can point out what the clerk likes, but almost none have a clerk who can give a meaningful answer to "I like pretty much everything some older author has written...do you know of any new authors like them?"

The bookshops I occasionally go to (rarely, since I now read almost exclusively ebooks, and they don't sell them) do. I don't much care about the existence of the others.

On the other hand, Amazon has this built in...every book has a "people who bought this also bought" and "people who bought this also looked at", and the author pages have "similar" authors listed based on those same criteria.

Between "I liked this, and this is why", and "people bought this", there's a pretty big nuance. Amazon's recommendations mostly annoy me.

Last, if you want e-books, I can't see what a B&M has to offer.

Currently, B&M stores (at least those I have access to here in France) try to stay away from selling ebooks. I'd be delighted if they started selling ebooks, and would probably mostly switch from buying online to visiting B&M stores again if they did.

(Actually, I've seen this once in one bookstore in Paris: some of the books on the shelves had a kind of bookmark that, essentially, said one could buy the ebook by just bringing the bookmark to the register. I believe it only "worked" for books from a very small selection of publishers, though.)

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by darryl

I'm afraid I see no ethical problem at all. Amazon has set the new benchmark. 70% royalties to self-published authors who take responsibility for all aspects at one end of the spectrum. At the other its own imprints who offer services comparable to traditional publishers at a lower rate but still much more than that usually offered by the Big 5. No ethical problems at all. Those who want to go the Big 5 way have that option. Those who aren't wanted by the Big 5 or those who choose not to go with them have the option of self-publishing and keeping all of the Royalties. If they are wanted by Amazon imprints or smaller innovative traditional publishers they have the option to take a lesser royalty in return for the support and services offered, should they judge it good value and in their best interests.

Your second point depends very much on your personal political views. I'm trying to think of an actual book requiring extensive research that itself brought a corrupt politician down, but the examples I consider all seem to have been written well after the event. In these days of wikileaks and the internet, politicians have arguable never been subject to greater scrutiny. Good investigative journalists in the MSM are nice, but we are hardly reliant on them, let alone on large publishers.

On your first point about the royalties, yes if you self-publish you get either 35% or 70%. Now the catch is, you are responsible for all the costs involved in getting the book ready for publishing.