Why e-books?

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I disagree with you, and agree with MikeB1972. And one of your examples, Baen books proves you wrong. (They make a profit from selling digital content.)

I did not intend to suggest that they don't. That's why I described it as a hybrid. The reality of Baen's model is that authors sell more books, especially back catalog books, when they give away some of their books at zero cost than they sell without giving away any of their catalogs (c.f. Eric Flint's early "Prime Palaver" essays). It really is a variant of the web comic model, giving away content at no cost and with almost no restrictions and selling something else. Baen's "something else" is other books.

Is Baen's model "the best"? I don't think so. I do think that it is the best for them at this time. I do think that it is significantly better than using DRM to force traditional publishing methods onto digital content. I expect this will change as authors and publishers start figuring out for-pay added value that works for them.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by ratinox

I do think that it is significantly better than using DRM to force traditional publishing methods onto digital content.

Neither I nor MikeB1972 suggested that selling digital content at a profit requires DRM.

What he and I have said is that the legal protection of copyright is required.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It depends. As you say, it's not the law's responsibility to stop an author from being stupid, but in the UK at least there is a law called the "Unfair Contract Terms Act" which prohibits grossly unfair terms in commercial contracts. A publisher claiming rights in a medium which did not exist at the time that the contract was signed could be considered an unfair contract term, and an author could take legal action under the Act to recover those rights if the publisher refused to engage in that new medium.

Which is quite different from legislation that renders all such contracts void in part or in total. Most (all?) US states have consumer protection laws which might apply should an author seek to pursue this kind of action.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ratinox

Which is quite different from legislation that renders all such contracts void in part or in total. Most (all?) US states have consumer protection laws which might apply should an author seek to pursue this kind of action.

How is the author a consumer?

Consumer is the person that buys the final product.

The author is not buying anything. The publisher does not buy the book. The author gets paid every time his book sells so that makes him the seller not a buyer.
He is entering into a deal to HELP him sell his books.

Sorry consumer protection laws would have nothing to do with the author.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Neither I nor MikeB1972 suggested that selling digital content at a profit requires DRM.

What he and I have said is that the legal protection of copyright is required.

Legal copyright protection isn't necessary for selling content (digital or otherwise) for profit. It's necessary to prevent others from reselling your content for their own gain and not yours.

This might seem like I'm splitting hairs but it really is an important distinction. It's the reason why it's effectively impossible to make a profit selling GPL works (c.f. the reference to Red Hat at the start of this digression). You can sell your first copy to a customer but the GPL allows that customer to give away, or even sell, copies to anyone they want without giving you anything.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Sorry consumer protection laws would have nothing to do with the author.

MA consumer protection laws protect "any person who is injured" including businesses:
http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/consumer-r...ction-law.html
YMMV in other states.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ratinox

MA consumer protection laws protect "any person who is injured" including businesses:
http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/consumer-r...ction-law.html
YMMV in other states.

How exactly would an author be INJURED?
More importantly can the author 100% prove that the contract he voluntarily signed, (hopefully after an IP lawyer went over it) hurt him financially?

Note: The part that will hurt the author is the fact that nearly any judge will assume that the author READ and understood exactly what he was signing.

Oh and does the author have to money to fight the publisher in court?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It depends. As you say, it's not the law's responsibility to stop an author from being stupid, but in the UK at least there is a law called the "Unfair Contract Terms Act" which prohibits grossly unfair terms in commercial contracts. A publisher claiming rights in a medium which did not exist at the time that the contract was signed could be considered an unfair contract term, and an author could take legal action under the Act to recover those rights if the publisher refused to engage in that new medium.

That's the case under contract law in the US as well, to be enforceable, a contract can not be one sided. Of course, there are specific technical terms used and one sided tends to depend more on the judge and jury thinks than a specific guideline. One of the more famous cases was Roberts verse Sears, in which Sears paid Roberts, the youthful inventor of a key improvement of the ratchet wrench, $10,000 for an invention that they knew was worth many millions. After some 20 years, it was eventually settled out of court for $8 M. The legal system in the US is rarely cut and dry.

[ratinox]

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

How exactly would an author be INJURED?

Section 11 of the Guide enumerates how.

More importantly can the author 100% prove that the contract he voluntarily signed, (hopefully after an IP lawyer went over it) hurt him financially?

Note: The part that will hurt the author is the fact that nearly any judge will assume that the author READ and understood exactly what he was signing.

Oh and does the author have to money to fight the publisher in court?

As the Guide states up front, "it depends". It is up to the courts to determine on a case-by-case basis what is unfair or deceptive. There are no universal, absolute answers to these questions.

[Little.Egret]

Originally Posted by ratinox

{. . .}

My third example is Baen Books. Baen, through the Baen Free Library and the Baen CDs, operates a hybrid model: give some content away with few restrictions and encouragement to redistribute, and traditionally sell the rest.

So yes, you can make a profit by giving content away, but it requires a different view of what content is in order to do it.

I do point out that the Baen model is now in transition.

No new CDs are planned and the new entries in the Baen Free Library are first or entry point for a series. Which is what many other publishers and authors have incorporated into their marketing.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ratinox

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.



Section 11 of the Guide enumerates how.



As the Guide states up front, "it depends". It is up to the courts to determine on a case-by-case basis what is unfair or deceptive. There are no universal, absolute answers to these questions.

What Guide?
Link it please or quote section 11.
Is that the Massachusetts Guide? An author's guide?
If it is Massachusetts then only a Massachusetts author could benefit.


More information and note unless it is a Federal law guide then what goes in one state may not apply in another.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

What Guide?
Link it please or quote section 11.

Er. I did link it. You quoted the link with the rest of the message.
I did note that such laws vary from state to state.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ratinox

Er. I did link it. You quoted the link with the rest of the message.
I did note that such laws vary from state to state.

Read over section 11.
An author would have a hard time with 2 and especially 3.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Read over section 11.
An author would have a hard time with 2 and especially 3.

Rule 2 might be difficult for a plaintiff to prove. Or it might be easy to do so. "It depends".

A plaintiff (author) does not have to prove rule 3. It's on the defendant (publisher for the sake of this discussion) to disprove.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ratinox

Rule 2 might be difficult for a plaintiff to prove. Or it might be easy to do so. "It depends".

A plaintiff (author) does not have to prove rule 3. It's on the defendant (publisher for the sake of this discussion) to disprove.

Wasn't 3 most business must be done in Massachusetts?
If the publisher had access to the sales records, it would be easily disproved unless they only sold the books in Massachusetts.