Catherynne Valente takes down her own award-winning ebook

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

Agreed. I just spoke against the idea of creator "owning" the creation which I thought implied.

No implication intended. Perhaps I should have stated "not own a physical/digital copy of the work or the right to access the work via the authors website forevermore and free of charge" so as to be more accurate.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms

She was successful because of community and now she's turned her back on that community.

I disagree. It was her work that was worthy of the community which emerged around it. Community did not create the value, she did.

[kacir]

There was another thread about whether to download every freebie you find or to download only very carefully selected ones - so you do not overfill your To Be Read queue.
This is just another example that you should download every book that looks even a little bit interesting while you can.

[dmikov]

So she collected the money and then removed her work? Wow, that's worse then drm servers going down. That's plain disgusting.
So did anybody requested a refund?
I can imagine reading few installments - liking it - donating money for the full book as I envision it and then deciding to wait until it's complete or I have more time only to find the book was taking down. No money back, no book. Wow just wow.

[mr ploppy]

[QUOTE=PKFFW;917796]The author does own the right to post whatever he/she wants on his/her blog /QUOTE]

Not any more, it would seem. She gave that up along with 90% of her income in return for the promise of fame and fortune. She's not the first, and won't be the last.

[Dusty Bottoms]

Originally Posted by Ankh

I disagree. It was her work that was worthy of the community which emerged around it. Community did not create the value, she did.

And I disagree with your disagreement. Without the community the work would be valueless, it would have gained no attention and she wouldn't have had the opportunity to rat out the community that brought her the attention in the first place.

Okay, I'm channelling Joseph Heller here. Where's Yossarian when you need him?

[oggelbe2007]

Originally Posted by Ankh

I disagree. It was her work that was worthy of the community which emerged around it. Community did not create the value, she did.

Or did the community assign her work value? I thought Art worked that way.

[toomanybooks]

This is just a bad business decision by the publisher. This is a perfect example of how hidebound publishing methods are missing a golden opportunity. This book will never have more publicity and attention than right now. It could easily be made into a text only ebook and sold now for digital converts. Paper people and some ebook readers will still buy the illustrated hard copy next year.

Why not sell the book when people are talking about it? That is one of the great advantages of digital publishing.

[rogue_librarian]

Yes, it's a missed opportunity, I agree. And, sorry, it does come across a little as "So long! I've now reached a point in my publishing career where I need no longer pretend that you are more than a bunch of useful idiots. Sure, I took your money for a while, and it was great while it lasted, but now I've moved on to greener pastures. Community? Schmommunity! Adios, suckers. Oh, and don't forget to buy the book when it comes out in a year."

If that's too harsh for your taste feel free to subtract up to 40% acidity...

[starrigger]

I don't get it. What are you people complaining about? She put the book up for free for a good long time. Sure, the community helped her, and she helped the community. Then she found a publisher--which is grounds for cheering, not snide remarks--then she won a Nebula, which is also grounds for congratulations--and finally she acceded to her publisher's request to take the free book down. If people liked the book, then she gave good value for the donations. She didn't promise it would go on forever.

One can quibble over whether she might have given more notice, or whether the publisher was smart to demand the takedown. But that's no reason for the kind of condemnation I'm reading here. I've got books up for free download, and some people have made generous donations. If I decide to end the offer at some point, is this the kind of treatment I can look forward to? I hope not.

I think she did a cool thing, and it's a shame it had to end, but that's life.

The one time I took a look at her blog, I saw a lot of expressions of support for her move. She did what she had to do, and most people seem to understand that.

[Dusty Bottoms]

Originally Posted by starrigger

I don't get it. What are you people complaining about? She put the book up for free for a good long time. Sure, the community helped her, and she helped the community. Then she found a publisher--which is grounds for cheering, not snide remarks--then she won a Nebula, which is also grounds for congratulations--and finally she acceded to her publisher's request to take the free book down. If people liked the book, then she gave good value for the donations. She didn't promise it would go on forever.

One can quibble over whether she might have given more notice, or whether the publisher was smart to demand the takedown. But that's no reason for the kind of condemnation I'm reading here. I've got books up for free download, and some people have made generous donations. If I decide to end the offer at some point, is this the kind of treatment I can look forward to? I hope not.

I think she did a cool thing, and it's a shame it had to end, but that's life.

The one time I took a look at her blog, I saw a lot of expressions of support for her move. She did what she had to do, and most people seem to understand that.

She cynically used the community as leverage to gain herself a publishing deal. Now, that might have flown years ago when we didn't have instant and probing communication, when writers and audiences weren't making personal connections, but you can't do that now. It's not on, it's sneaky and more than a little ratbagish. On the other hand, you didn't do this. You didn't get the community to sponsor your writing and then turn around and yank that writing once a publisher showed interest. Two very different approaches, with two very different outcomes. You gained respect, she will be considered a ratbag for a very long time.

You don't treat a community like consumers any longer, it's a sure-fire way to lose credibility and foster hatred.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by starrigger

She didn't promise it would go on forever.

Well, that was at least implied by accepting donations but don't you worry, it's all perfectly legal. It's just also very stupid, pulling it form the web on practically no notice at all, without giving people an instant opportunity to satisfy their desire to read the work, but clearly that's no concern of mine so I'll rest my case.

[J. Strnad]

Maybe I'm missing something. She took donations, posted all of the chapters as they were being written, as promised, the whole book was available long enough to be nominated for an award, which it won, and for some time thereafter. When she got a contract for a print book, the publisher requested that she take down the posted chapters. Is that right?

If so, that all seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by starrigger

I don't get it. What are you people complaining about? ... One can quibble over whether she might have given more notice, or whether the publisher was smart to demand the takedown. But that's no reason for the kind of condemnation I'm reading here.

1) On the social level, it's a jerk move. "Thanks for your support, but I don't need it anymore, so I'm taking my toys away now." Doing so at the behest of a publisher doesn't soften that message a bit--"I got a real sponsor now, so you piddly sponsors are no longer important" is not a better PR message.

2) It has the potential to cut into the income of any future author who wants to try a similar post-chapters-for-donations methods; readers are likely to be skeptical that the content will remain available. Readers may demand to know how long the material will remain up, which sets up a hostile interaction instead of a friendly one. This is likely to discourage both the author and other readers.

3) It has the potential to encourage piracy--if it becomes widely believed that authors who post free works are likely to revoke them on a whim, those works are more likely to be copied, reformatted & shared around.

4) It's bad publicity for the book (which is not what people are complaining about; if she wants to shoot her own career in the foot by annoying her loyal fans, that's her business), which will be followed by a long gap before any potential *good* publicity--availability of a print copy--will occur. I suppose it's possible that the publisher just wants the nuisance factor to die down before releasing the book, but I doubt they think that way.

5) The assumption that people who read the free ebook (especially one published serially at a blog) aren't going to buy a print version shows bad judgment on the publisher's part, indicating that she picked a stupid publisher. It implies she didn't consider other ways of furthering her career, and isn't paying attention to the publishing industry in general. (Which, again, is her business. But people are allowed to mock bad choices.)

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

Maybe I'm missing something. She took donations, posted all of the chapters as they were being written, as promised, the whole book was available long enough to be nominated for an award, which it won, and for some time thereafter. When she got a contract for a print book, the publisher requested that she take down the posted chapters. Is that right?

If so, that all seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Well it's seems very unreasonable to me (of course I might be missing something in the history of this interaction for instance maybe there was a clause, that she will remove it any time she wishes and you send the money with no guarantees that you will be able to read it - who know now).
But.. Whether it's retail sale, download sale, shareware or donation-ware it's still a sale.
I don't know legal nuances of this in different countries and states, but that's what it is in mind and customs of many people and industries (like software).
You don't yank the program or a product after you received money. Granted you may not be obligated to provide it forever on your server, but then like RCA did long time ago, you post take down notice for everyone who paid, to download your content, program etc.
Now may be it's legal, may be it's not what she did, but it is certainly underhanded and unethical.