Hello Robert, Let me begin by thanking you for your elaborate answer. Your points are all valid, though I don't share them all.
Am 13.11.2013 16:14, schrieb Robert J. Lang: > [...] > 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* >[...] An unfair agreement is not valid in my book. The law may say so, but law and justice are two things. > 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", It's the experience of my grandfather. And I'm happy to hear that he seems to be an unlucky exeption. > >> 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. > > I'm not a native speaker of English, and it seems I was unclear there. I tried to cover everything you said in "comfort". Everything you said is completly true >> 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. As above I'd argue that the agreement wasn't just in the first place. But if you feel bound by the agreement, you are of course, completely correct again. >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. agreed. all the best, Wolf aka Tavin
