Catherynne Valente takes down her own award-winning ebook

[pricecw]

Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms

Oh, and yes, I do blame the publishers over all. Without their bullying tactics there would be no victims. Come on, writers, grow a set. These old codgers who run the publishing industry are nothing without you.

Dusty, I know this isn't your point originally, but a sub-thread throughout this thread. I don't blame the publishers, they have part of the blame, but blame lies with the authors. They are the ones that allow this. If every Author forbid publishers from doing this, the publishers wouldn't. Plain and simple, all rights reside with the author, they are the ones that allow things, publishers ask for those things.

I think more people need to hold the Authors accountable. Stop allowing them the out of "the publisher made me do it".

One other point, I recently read of a "name" author that was irritated by the publishing industry, his new book is Amazon exclusive. E-book is going to sell for $2.99 and the author is excited (he had said he wouldn't sign again, but the offer was exceptional). I hold some things against him (it appears he is allowing Amazon to DRM this book), but it shows there are other avenues, and he appears to think he will make a lot more than with a traditional publisher.

editing to add a link http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...zonencore.html

--Carl

[Dusty Bottoms]

Originally Posted by pricecw

Dusty, I know this isn't your point originally, but a sub-thread throughout this thread. I don't blame the publishers, they have part of the blame, but blame lies with the authors. They are the ones that allow this. If every Author forbid publishers from doing this, the publishers wouldn't. Plain and simple, all rights reside with the author, they are the ones that allow things, publishers ask for those things.

I think more people need to hold the Authors accountable. Stop allowing them the out of "the publisher made me do it".

One other point, I recently read of a "name" author that was irritated by the publishing industry, his new book is Amazon exclusive. E-book is going to sell for $2.99 and the author is excited (he had said he wouldn't sign again, but the offer was exceptional). I hold some things against him (it appears he is allowing Amazon to DRM this book), but it shows there are other avenues, and he appears to think he will make a lot more than with a traditional publisher.

editing to add a link http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...zonencore.html

--Carl

The problem is that too many authors are indoctrinated into the publishing world's way of doing things. The publishing industry puts out hundreds of 'how-to' books per year that re-state their importance and that of the middle men. So writers coming up, learning their craft, are learning from sources that reinforce the publisher status-quo. What we need is more writers to band together (going it alone won't do it). We need writers to create communities and places where the reader is involved and not just consumers. We need writers to stand up and take a few blows to the body for something they believe in.

I'm 35 and I find the publishing industry dull and boring. So it's a good shot that the young turks in writing will think them even worse than that and will hopefully start up the new publishing models for the future. For fiction and writing in general to survive, I believe the traditional publishing industry has to fall. And I'll gladly work toward that future

[pricecw]

I agree. I think that is the importance of chastising any author who behaves like this, in as public of a method as possible. Let them know, the status quo will hurt them, but more important, show other others that to follow those footsteps is not a way to keep fans.

For those that disagree with this type of public calling out of authors, it is the only way we as fans and consumers have to be heard, not just by the author in question, but by authors and their guilds as a whole.

--Carl

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by kennyc

and not to go too far off topic, but this is exactly the kind of thing that gets brought up over and over in the "pirate" threads (alluded to above) with those supporting the pirates (alluded to above) claiming that the rights of the public and the public domain trump the rights of the creator of the work which is simply wrong.

The rights of the public and the public domain do. This is the point where you stop reading and stop attacking me, try listening to the argument for once. Disney didn't pay Hans Chrisitan Anderson when they made the Little Mermaid. The didn't pay the Brothers Grimm when they made Cinderella, and you don't have to pay royalties on those either. But that's just a bonus the money you always focus on is the icing on the cake. When Disney made the black hole they not only didn't have to pay Shakespeare for the tempest, they were free and here's another place you seem to miss the point, free as in libre, liberty, free as in freed the slaves, free to change the story and set it in space. That's the public domain. My argument over and over has been life+70 years is way to gods damn long to wait for that, that is unfair and unjust. No one was saying an author can't try to make a buck but since the costs of copyright are borne by the people that they should see a return a bit sooner than 100 years, lots of numbers have been floated around we can haggle there.

I pointed out the purpose of copyright, I cited Thomas Jefferson about copyright length about the evil of monopolies. I was attacked some more. I also refused the condemn the pirates. Boo hooo hooo get over it you and i disagree that doesn't mean you get to call me names and then play innocent when the mods get involved. Then follow me to this thread when the other goes bad.

The copyright cartel have handled things badly, they sweat the small stuff, they hang on way too long to try and squeeze out a few more pennies, they sue their customers or at least the people who they want as customers.They jack up prices instead of trying to compete, they add drm, I promise you drm has created a lot of pirates. Do you know where my sig come from? The pirates of penzance where the pirate king sings he's far more honest than any of the "respectable" people in the world. So yes I'm on the side of the people who've been screwed over, as much as you claim to champion the artists you fight for their corporate overlords.

Let's go back on topic, it looks like the publisher is the one who pressured to take the book down. They didn't care about bad will with fans. But whatever its new, maybe it'll make money, maybe a lot of people will be turned off, I don't have a stake. It'd be hard to argue copyright shouldn't apply for the first few years and if someone wants to risk screwing over their future chances with fans that's their buisness. Sooner or later though that copyright needs to expire, the sooner the better from society's standpoint and then maybe the society will add something culture humanity has built up, maybe little references to it will be around in 400 years like Shakespeare, maybe everyone will forget it, whatever but the option will be there and it won't be there till the copyright expires.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by pricecw

I agree. I think that is the importance of chastising any author who behaves like this, in as public of a method as possible. Let them know, the status quo will hurt them, but more important, show other others that to follow those footsteps is not a way to keep fans.

For those that disagree with this type of public calling out of authors, it is the only way we as fans and consumers have to be heard, not just by the author in question, but by authors and their guilds as a whole.

--Carl

You're right, no one has to listen to you but as the at least potential customer you should let the people trying to sell you something directly or otherwise what it is you want, how else will they know right?

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Here's my take:



Expecting it to be up forever, and that the donation model would forever disallow a professional writer from selling her work and putting it in bookstores and thus in front of the majority of readers doesn't sound reasonable.

It doesn't stop Cory Doctorow, and people do still buy his books, hell I bought a hardcover though I admit if his book tour hadn't passed close enough for em to get it autographed I would have waited for the paperback.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

The rights of the public and the public domain do.

What has the public domain to do with this situation?

The book in question won't enter the public domain for some ridiculous and ungodly number of years.

(Yes, I think copyright terms are far too long.)

Also - I think everyone who is advising authors to self-publish or follow other non-traditional paths should try to remember that the only people who really make money with self-published fiction are those who have already made a name with commercially published books.

As for the idea of "punishing authors," that sounds positively juvenile.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

What has the public domain to do with this situation?

The book in question won't enter the public domain for some ridiculous and ungodly number of years.

(Yes, I think copyright terms are far too long.)

Kenny seems opposed to the whole idea of a public domain but simply put it matters more or it wouldn't exist. I didn't say it applies right this minute but if the public and the public domain didn't trump creators we'd still be paying royalties to estate of the brothers Grimm for every Cinderella story and much worse, the estate would be able to refuse license to any Cinderella story they didn't like or anything that seemed a bit Cinderella-esque. The freedom to bombard us with Ever After, Ella Enchanted, Maid in Manhattan, Walt Disney's Cinderalla and the hundreds of others out there simply matters more, and thus the copyrights expire. That was the point that kenny misses --you don't keep the rights forever (and life+70 is forever as far as I'm concerned since I'll be dead and so will anyone born today when the copyright on something new today expires.)

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

What has the public domain to do with this situation?

The book in question won't enter the public domain for some ridiculous and ungodly number of years.

(Yes, I think copyright terms are far too long.)

Also - I think everyone who is advising authors to self-publish or follow other non-traditional paths should try to remember that the only people who really make money with self-published fiction are those who have already made a name with commercially published books.

As for the idea of "punishing authors," that sounds positively juvenile.

Agreed. Including that we need changes in the copyright laws.

But to bring this back on topic, the primary issue here is the author and their creative work. No one, and I mean NO ONE gets to decide what that author does with that work provided it falls within the current legal framework.

Iphinome can rant and rave all he wants about things not being "right" but he is simply wrong. The prevailing law says what is right and if he think it needs changing then he should be working to change it instead of ranting and raving and whining about things here.

The author can always decide what to do with their works. That includes making "unreasonable" demands from publishers such as retaining electronic rights. Now this may mean that the book will never see print, but that is a decision that each author must (and this is increasingly true in the current climate) make for themselves. The authors are the ones in the best place to force the change and many beginning writers (unfortunately) are pretty much willing to take whatever is offered and in so doing the current regime will remain in power. Authors like Cory Doctorow and others will eventually change the system, but it is still many years (decades?) away.

In this particular case the author did nothing wrong. There were no promises made about the book being available forever and those that assume that are simply wrong. The situation as I understand it was that readers "paid" to keep the author writing and to get the next installment -- just like Charles Dickens.

No was there any promise from this author or any law that puts the work in the public domain.

Not only that I don't think it is nearly as big a deal in "fan relations" as many are making it.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Kenny seems opposed to the whole idea of a public domain but simply...

Stop putting words in my mouth. I say perfectly well and quite clearly what I mean.

The copyright and patent laws were put in place to protect creators and to encourage creative endeavors, not for the public other than the side-effect of that creation being made more readily available to the public due to the protection offered the creator by the law. To argue anything else is foolish and a misunderstanding of the purpose of intellectual property laws.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Stop putting words in my mouth. I say perfectly well and quite clearly what I mean.

Stop calling me "He" and you're the one who brought the public domain into this thread not me, by if I recall putting words in my mouth. Are you going ot start the name calling next? Come on I'm ready for it, you followed me to this thread for a reason I'm sure so let's hear it. Gonna call me a lowlife? A thief? I got called a communist in the other thread want to try that one? You must be itching to, this thread was here for days and you didn't move over till the other one went bad and you searched for my other posts, don't try to deny it, you made a big deal about my other posts in the file sharing thread.

I started a thread in general, wanna dog me there too?

[kennyc]

Oh my.

I'll be glad to discuss any topic as long as you stay civil about it and on topic.

[pricecw]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

As for the idea of "punishing authors," that sounds positively juvenile.

We as consumers have a right to decide where and when to spend our money. We also have a right to discuss and let others know of actions someone took, so they may also decide not to spend their money with that person.

This is not juvenile. I hate to say it, but the authors/publishers etc do not have a right to my money or silence. They did something I perceive as unethical, why wouldn't I let others know this? In this case, the unethical act was the implied promise, and using that to promote this bit of writing, then when that promotion worked, reverse said promise.

Nothing illegal, but unethical.

--Carl

[kennyc]

Carl, I agree that you have a right to spend your money as you see fit and to tell others what you think of any given behavior, but the thing I'm not understanding is what you think the 'implied' promise was?

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by kennyc

The copyright and patent laws were put in place to protect creators and to encourage creative endeavors, not for the public other than the side-effect of that creation being made more readily available to the public due to the protection offered the creator by the law. To argue anything else is foolish and a misunderstanding of the purpose of intellectual property laws.

The copyright and patent laws were put in place to break the monopoly that printers guilds had over individual books. Authors sold the rights to printers who then kept them forever. The laws opened things up for the public. To argue that this didn't create the public domain in the first place is foolish. It is not a side effect, it was the purpose. That was in 1709.

Later in the 1790s James Madison and Thomas Jefferson had a little debate about it. They wanted to encourage more works but Jefferson opposed monopolies then later considered a short one would bring the best balance of creating new works and allowing other people to build on what came before. The freedom to expand on what was there was the main concern.

you can find quotes from the letters that passed between the two here http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/bparchive?year=1999&post=1999-02-11$2

The saying
there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements
to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a
monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the
benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to
be opposed to that of their general suppression.

Also of note is this letter written by Jefferson on August 13, 1813

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/wr...rf/jefl220.htm

It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until wecopied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

I have sources from the people who got together and made the laws. I don't think the argument is at all foolish.