Legitimate Publishers using Pirated Ebooks as Source

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

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.

And I can think of books that have had many, many runs. Doesn't change the fact that most books have only one run.

I'm not the one who is asserting that it's the publisher's responsibility to keep electronic copies of every book they have ever printed on the off chance that someone might want to use it to generate an ebook at some point in the unknown future regardless of whither the publisher in question has the ebook rights to the work.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

...


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

As well you should.

[pwalker8]

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.

Now that is pretty cool.

As shocking as it might seem to us, there are still some authors who write out books long hand (he hires someone to type it up for him), and some publishers who want manuscripts printed out on paper in a specific format. One would think that everything was done electronically these days, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

And I can think of books that have had many, many runs. Doesn't change the fact that most books have only one run.

I'm not the one who is asserting that it's the publisher's responsibility to keep electronic copies of every book they have ever printed on the off chance that someone might want to use it to generate an ebook at some point in the unknown future regardless of whither the publisher in question has the ebook rights to the work.

I never said every book printed. What I said was the publisher should keep a copy until they lose the rights to the book. And only the books they published.
That way if the book takes off, they don't have to track down a copy.
Would you really approach a widow or children to get a copy before he is even cold so you can profit off a hot name?
Since the publisher probably still has the rights to publish.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I never said every book printed. What I said was the publisher should keep a copy until they lose the rights to the book. And only the books they published.
That way if the book takes off, they don't have to track down a copy.
Would you really approach a widow or children to get a copy before he is even cold so you can profit off a hot name?
Since the publisher probably still has the rights to publish.

I think we've passed the point of no return with debating pwalker8. He's using straw man arguments because he can't think up better ones and he doesn't want to concede the debate.

The post you're responding to is a straw man, plain and simple.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I think we've passed the point of no return with debating pwalker8. He's using straw man arguments because he can't think up better ones and he doesn't want to concede the debate.

The post you're responding to is a straw man, plain and simple.

Ok, I will quit debating with him.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I think we've passed the point of no return with debating pwalker8. He's using straw man arguments because he can't think up better ones and he doesn't want to concede the debate.

The post you're responding to is a straw man, plain and simple.

Hardly. I quote fjtorres post from earlier in this thread
=======================
Their idea of archival copies were pdf files, one per edition. At most. That is why many paperbacks were reduced size replicas of the hardcover. Version control? Non-existent. Revision tracking? Feh! Keeping editable versions exposed them to authors demandijg changes be walked back.
Besides, if it was good enough for Dickens...

As recently as 2011-12 publishers complained that doing ebook editions of the backlist was expensive because they had to recreate the file from print copies. Apparently, they deleted the pdfs after a few years. Or the floppies got corrupted.

====================

When I asked why would publishers keep editable copies of all their books you replied
========================
How about the basic principle of good business records? How about the files could be useful again one day?

========================

So you, yourself actually said what you call a straw man.

Then Cinisajoy agreed with you

======================
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?
======================


So, no straw man. Both of you said that publishers should keep electronic copies of all the books they have published.

[Cinisajoy]

Nate
I am sorry but...

Pwalker8, you said that the authors should keep the books not the publishers.
So you are doing a straw man argument.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Nate
I am sorry but...

Pwalker8, you said that the authors should keep the books not the publishers.
So you are doing a straw man argument.

How many times has that been said? This is circular.

Please, even I have given up.

[Fluribus]

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.

It is the publisher's responsibility because the publisher is producing the product that I am purchasing. There is a duty to ensure that it is a fit product. If the words and punctuation are mangled, it is not a fit product. If the author becomes the publisher, then the author assumes that duty.

I do hold large publishers to a higher standard than self-published authors. Those publishers tend to have greater resources and tend to charge higher prices.

[murg]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I think we've passed the point of no return with debating pwalker8. He's using straw man arguments because he can't think up better ones and he doesn't want to concede the debate.

The post you're responding to is a straw man, plain and simple.

Yup. There's a reason that I haven't responded to pwalker8 in this thread, despite having started it.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

It is the publisher's responsibility because the publisher is producing the product that I am purchasing. There is a duty to ensure that it is a fit product. If the words and punctuation are mangled, it is not a fit product. If the author becomes the publisher, then the author assumes that duty.

I do hold large publishers to a higher standard than self-published authors. Those publishers tend to have greater resources and tend to charge higher prices.

I think that when you say publisher, you mean the publisher of the ebook, not the original publisher. Is that correct? If so, then I agree. They have the duty to make sure the ebook is as free from errors as possible.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Nate
I am sorry but...

Pwalker8, you said that the authors should keep the books not the publishers.
So you are doing a straw man argument.

So? And you said that the original publisher should keep an electronic copy of a book. That is the point we were discussing.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

So? And you said that the original publisher should keep an electronic copy of a book. That is the point we were discussing.

It's surely common sense that the publisher should keep a digital copy of the book, so that they can correct any errors that are reported in it.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's surely common sense that the publisher should keep a digital copy of the book, so that they can correct any errors that are reported in it.

I don't think we're talking about present day practices, but about what it was sensible/economic/practical for publishers to do back in the 1980s/1990s.