Catherynne Valente takes down her own award-winning ebook - Page 7

kennyc · 05-23-2010, 09:47 PM

Sorry, but that is not only is that mostly irrelevant wrt the actual law but off topic. Please stop beating your one dead horse and stay on topic.

Iphinome · 05-23-2010, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennyc

Sorry, but that is not only is that mostly irrelevant wrt the actual law but off topic. Please stop beating your one dead horse and stay on topic.

Translation: I can make statements against you and call your argument foolish but don't refute them with citations or I'll complain even though I was already off topic.

Here's on topic. The author was within her legal rights but it comes off as a jerk move. Others have succeeded in selling books with a copy available online gratis. That's not my call and it is fair to debate the wisdom of that call.

Xanthe · 05-24-2010, 01:34 AM

Very dumb move on her part, alienating the people who were giving her money freely when they could have just read the story without paying. She just dissed what would be her core fan base.

If it was a voluntary offering, which it seems to be, she should have just announced that in two weeks or so she would be taking the book down. That way, word of mouth by her readership would have probably brought more readers to her site. She might have lost some book sales, but she would have gained a guaranteed readership for her subsequent books.

Instead, she burns her fans and leaves a bad taste for people like me who never heard of her but who would be even less inclined to look up her work now.

It's her right to take it down if she wants, but she handled it in a very unwise manner.

pricecw · 05-24-2010, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

The taking of money saying that the work would be made available. Granted, it wasn't made clear a duration, but with the wording I have seen, I would have assumed it was a long term availability, ie the implied instead of explicit.

Again, without explicit, she is probably legally in the clear, but very unethical in my opinion.

--Carl

kennyc · 05-24-2010, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pricecw

The taking of money saying that the work would be made available. Granted, it wasn't made clear a duration, but with the wording I have seen, I would have assumed it was a long term availability, ie the implied instead of explicit.

Again, without explicit, she is probably legally in the clear, but very unethical in my opinion.

--Carl

Thanks for the clarification. I sort of assumed that's what you meant, but wanted to be sure I understood.

Enjoy!

GlenBarrington · 05-24-2010, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oggelbe2007

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

Community creates Buzz, Value is the perception of the individual. Buzz may enhance or reduce the value in your eyes, but ultimately YOU are responsible for assigning value to a 'thingy' such as a book or whatever. I see nothing wrong in what she did.

At some point she should have a reasonable expectation of getting paid for her intellectual work. She owes you nothing. You had a chance to read her book for free, you either took advantage of it or you didn't. If you DID, then what are you complaining about? If you didn't, then why would you care?

CleverClothe · 05-24-2010, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennyc

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.

Why hello Mr. Straw Man Argument, so nice to see you again. How have things been? Good.

No one is ordering the author to do anything, nor can we. We are simply discussing the morality of the decision and how we feel about that.

GlenBarrington · 05-24-2010, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

How many people would be put off reading L Ron Hubbard's old books because of what else he was responsible for?

I'm put off by it. I DON'T read his stuff. I didn't like his stuff when I was a kid, and the more I learned about him, the less inclined I was/am to attempt reading it now.

Xanthe · 05-24-2010, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oggelbe2007

I wonder how many fans/readers consider an authors personality when they decide to read a particular book? If an author is really a jerk how likely are you to actively seek out their work and spend the time/effort reading it? Does that factor in at all? I'm not implying anything about this particular author but just authors in general.

It factors in for me, if I do know something about an author that crosses my aggravation/annoyance line. I don't research the authors' lives before I read their books, and what usually ticks me off doesn't have to do with how they live their personal lives - it's more a response to the tone of a book, usually if I feel that I am being condescendingly preached to, or if the protagonist is just too obviously a Mary Sue.

I won't bother to read L. Ron Hubbard at all just because of the whole Scientology thing. Harlan Ellison is just too cranky a person that I don't even want to bother reading him, even though I know he's a good writer. John Ringo is starting to annoy me with the right-wing polemics he keeps inserting into his books. And don't even get me started on Laurell K. Hamilton.

It's all highly subjective though - e.g. I won't read Norman Mailer but I will read Gore Vidal, just because I have a visceral dislike of Mailer as a person - without any factual basis, I might add. I've never yet read anything by Saul Bellow, mainly because everyone always recommended him. Get a Nobel Prize in Literature? Kiss of death in my book.

I obviously have a very strong contrarian streak.

Krystian Galaj · 05-25-2010, 03:45 PM

Quote:

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.

I believe Iphinome wanted to underline the fact that the work already belongs to the entirety of Earth's population, and we're only waiting until temporary monopoly for copying granted to author by some states expires.

Shaggy · 05-25-2010, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

How many people would be put off reading L Ron Hubbard's old books because of what else he was responsible for?

DawnFalcon · 05-25-2010, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Yea. I won't read Kratman either. Sorry, but there are enough books out there without needing to read the ones by raving lunatics.

carbonize · 05-25-2010, 04:39 PM

I would say it is more annoying, and more of a marketing ploy, that she has only removed the final chapter leaving all the other chapters up for people to read. But then so long as all those who did donate either managed to read it all or got emailed the chapters they have missed then not to big a deal. The only problem I can see is if someone donated a large amount, say more than the price of the published version, then I could see them being annoyed.

Something similar happened with Scott Sigler's Podcast novel, Infection, got taken down once a publishing house purchased the rights to publish it.

kennyc · 05-25-2010, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

I believe Iphinome wanted to underline the fact that the work already belongs to the entirety of Earth's population, and we're only waiting until temporary monopoly for copying granted to author by some states expires.

Well, if that is what he believes, he's wrong. Think about it. Take that perspective to its logical conclusion ... meaning that anything of yours is mine and I can take it anytime I want. In other words there is no such thing a private or personal property, ideas or ownership.

Did someone mention communism earlier?

rogue_librarian · 05-25-2010, 05:09 PM

Well, how shall I put this? "Your" things are only yours because you live in a society where the people made a law that says so. So do I, for the record, and I wouldn't want it any other way, but it's not a force of nature.

When it comes to works of art, creative products etc, this concept does not fully apply. You never own it outright (unless you don't publish, that is, but that's probably not what you want). If you do publish you're given a certain period of exclusive use (the length of which is debatable), but even then there are immediate exceptions to this rule. You must tolerate certain private and public uses of your work, in some cases without direct compensation, and once the copyright (I use the term losely here) expires it becomes public domain.

Bottom line: this is a legal contruct, the details of which can and do vary, but, to repeat the phrase I used earlier, not a force of nature. Saying that a work (and not just an embodiment of it) belongs to the creator just makes no sense.

Yes, ideas are another thing you can't own the way you own a car. Sometimes you can patent them for a little while, but that's it.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SWALLOW, Award-Winning Chick Lit for 99 Cents	TonyaPlank	Self-Promotions by Authors and Publishers	0	07-19-2010 08:42 PM
EFF takes on Google ebook reader privacy	artifact	News	6	07-24-2009 04:36 AM
Jon Evans wants to release award-winning novel for free	Alexander Turcic	News	4	08-30-2007 09:42 AM

05-23-2010, 09:47 PM	#91
kennyc The Dank Side of the Moon Posts: 35,900 Karma: 119230421 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Denver, CO Device: Kindle2; Kindle Fire	Sorry, but that is not only is that mostly irrelevant wrt the actual law but off topic. Please stop beating your one dead horse and stay on topic.

05-24-2010, 01:34 AM	#93
Xanthe Plan B Is Now In Force Posts: 1,894 Karma: 8086979 Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Surebleak Device: Aluratek,Sony 350/T1,Pandigital,eBM 911,Nook HD/HD+,Fire HDX 7/8.9,PW2	Very dumb move on her part, alienating the people who were giving her money freely when they could have just read the story without paying. She just dissed what would be her core fan base. If it was a voluntary offering, which it seems to be, she should have just announced that in two weeks or so she would be taking the book down. That way, word of mouth by her readership would have probably brought more readers to her site. She might have lost some book sales, but she would have gained a guaranteed readership for her subsequent books. Instead, she burns her fans and leaves a bad taste for people like me who never heard of her but who would be even less inclined to look up her work now. It's her right to take it down if she wants, but she handled it in a very unwise manner.

05-25-2010, 04:39 PM	#103
carbonize Connoisseur Posts: 60 Karma: 32262 Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Bristol, UK Device: Sony PRS-600	I would say it is more annoying, and more of a marketing ploy, that she has only removed the final chapter leaving all the other chapters up for people to read. But then so long as all those who did donate either managed to read it all or got emailed the chapters they have missed then not to big a deal. The only problem I can see is if someone donated a large amount, say more than the price of the published version, then I could see them being annoyed. Something similar happened with Scott Sigler's Podcast novel, Infection, got taken down once a publishing house purchased the rights to publish it.

05-25-2010, 05:09 PM	#105
rogue_librarian Guru Posts: 973 Karma: 4269175 Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Europe Device: Pocketbook Basic 613	Well, how shall I put this? "Your" things are only yours because you live in a society where the people made a law that says so. So do I, for the record, and I wouldn't want it any other way, but it's not a force of nature. When it comes to works of art, creative products etc, this concept does not fully apply. You never own it outright (unless you don't publish, that is, but that's probably not what you want). If you do publish you're given a certain period of exclusive use (the length of which is debatable), but even then there are immediate exceptions to this rule. You must tolerate certain private and public uses of your work, in some cases without direct compensation, and once the copyright (I use the term losely here) expires it becomes public domain. Bottom line: this is a legal contruct, the details of which can and do vary, but, to repeat the phrase I used earlier, not a force of nature. Saying that a work (and not just an embodiment of it) belongs to the creator just makes no sense. Yes, ideas are another thing you can't own the way you own a car. Sometimes you can patent them for a little while, but that's it.

Advert

Advert