Thus spake "Tavin" <[email protected]> on 11/13/13 12:20 AM:
>We usually don't know how much money a publisher actually makes from a >book release. >Maybe they hired people to review the text and do the layout. maybe they >paid the author a bunch of money upfront so he/she can afford to write >the book. maybe they did a lot of promotion for the book. > >in this case it would be fair for the publisher to clam a big chunk of >the revenue. I think the issue of how much work the publisher did is somewhat beside the point. The real issue here is that the author *made an agreement with the publisher* to split the proceeds in accordance with their contract, and so for the author to unilaterally do something counter to the agreement would be inappropriate on the part of the author. The question as originally posed was: >>>> Let's pretend someone got a hold of a bootlegged, unlicensed ebook of one of your books (or diagram collections). Assuming the item is available for sale (but maybe not in this format), would it be acceptable to pay the author directly for the copy, if that venue of communication were available? <<<< When the questioner asks "would it be acceptable..." I think he means "does paying the author directly for the bootlegged book somehow make OK obtaining the bootlegged book instead of buying it through the available channels?" Certainly, from the publisher's point of view, it's not OK. I can't really see it being OK from the author's point of view if the author honors his/her past agreements. >But from what I've heard that is not even close to reality. publishers >are mostly greedy dinosaurs that pay the author very little in exchange >for printing the book and using their Distribution network. If you're speaking from experience, I think you're using the wrong publishers. I've had varying publishers with varying experiences, but I would not characterize any of them as "greedy dinosaurs", and some of them -- Klaus Peters of A K Peters, John Montroll of Antroll, Makoto Yamaguchi of Gallery Origami House, Nicolas Terry of Origami-Shop.com, the production team of OrigamiUSA Publications come to mind -- are deeply concerned with the quality of their work and their relationships with authors. Making a blanket condemnation of all publishers on the basis of your own experience (or worse, on the basis of hearsay alone) is unfitting. Also, you shouldn't discount the value of a distribution network. It counts for a lot. > Just like >with music, distribution gets cheaper every day. Thus, the deal becoming >less and less fair. Absolutely true. Publishers like the above are trying to adapt to the new business reality. Some of them will succeed, some will fail (and then perhaps they'll fit the "dinosaur" part of your characterization). Quite likely, future deals will be different from past deals. >The only reason to release a book with an old school publisher is >prestige and comfort. Nope, there's more reasons than that, and those aren't even the major reasons. >A self released-book is looked upon as less good >and not so credible as a book from a publisher. This is changing right >now, but it's still a reason. Comfort in the case that the publisher >takes care of most of the things and you just need to write. A big part of the reason why self-published books are looked upon as "less good" is that sadly, many of them *are* less good, in that the quality of the design, layout, presentation, grammar, and error-checking is often lacking. It doesn't *have* to be; there are masterpieces of self-publication out there (Edward Tufte's books come to mind). But one publishers can bring to the project is quality of production. That's a significant reason to go with an external publisher: they can provide skills that you as author do not have. Now, there's caveats all over that; some publisher's don't provide very much production support. Some books may not need much in the way of production support. That sort of thing may not be important to you as an author. Those are all reasons why you might not perceive much value in a publisher. But for many authors, those are good reasons to go with a regular publisher. And, as I said, the distribution network is significant. A K Peters did a fantastic job of getting ODS to people I wanted to see it who were outside of traditional origami channels. >Coming back to your thought-experiment: > >I think it's ethical but unlawful. I'd say that if you as author made an agreement with your publisher that you would sell your book and divvy the funds in the ways spelled out in your contract, and then you went and sold it some other way, that's not very ethical. YEMV. >in the long run I hope that the online-shops of the origami-societies >prosper and will be platforms that just take a little fee for the >hosting an money transaction. I agree. Both society shops (OrigamiUSA's Source, the BOS has just opened a CreatSpace store), and private shops (Origami-Shop.com) are now providing such services. Amazon.com and many other online publishers also provide such services (though with less hand-holding). Ultimately, it'll be the authors who decide whether those, or "old-school publishers" are the best fit for their publications. >This will rule the publishers out. And it >will avoid your dillema. you can just buy the book at a online-shop or >pay the author directly. both will be legal because in my vision the >shops don't own the rights on the books, but the author does. In most of the new crop of online shops, the authors own the rights, but they have agreed to give the publisher a cut, same as with old-school publishers. The cut in the online stores is typically way larger than with traditional publishers, but that has to be balanced against the distribution network being much smaller. In any case, authors should look at the many options available to them going forward, but I think they should feel some obligation to honor their past agreements as well. Robert
