Highly amusing. If you write poorly, most people are going to assume that you think poorly as well, whether that's true or not. If what you're writing matters, it should matter enough to write correctly.
And the fact that you seem to think that slavery is legal in the U.S. under certain circumstances due to the wording of the Thirteenth Amendment makes my case for me.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court has ruled in numerous cases that the Thirteenth Amendment makes the ownership of human beings illegal in this country.
Grammar rules are mostly to make people feel elite, not to make them any clearer, according to the book.
I echo what Chris and others have said. The point of grammar is effective communication of ideas. Some grammar "rules," such as the oft-mentioned rule about split infinitives, are in most circumstances somewhat silly. But others are reasonable rules for effectively and clearly communicating a writer's ideas to a reader. Spelling and proper punctuation count as well.
If the text makes the point in a way that people can understand, what is the problem?
This is often a fine standard for informal writing, but the problem is that while you may think that your idea is perfectly communicated, if you use poor grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure, you may not, in fact, be communicating effectively.
On occasion, Mike, you've accused me in comments of "twisting" or not understanding your words. I'd submit that this may not be true; it's possible that you communicated your idea poorly and left yourself open to a reading of your words that was other than you intended, no matter how convinced you are that you wrote clearly.
Pointing out grammatical lapses in blog comments is pointless. However, for anyone who writes professionally, and bloggers such as yourself certainly qualify, paying attention to good grammar, spelling, and proper punctuation is almost a duty if you want to communicate effectively and be taken seriously.
Forget manuals of style. I'd recommend The Careful Writer: A Modern Guide to English Usage by Theodore M. Bernstein. It's perhaps the best guide to good writing around.
My favorite part:
Grave issues of law have hung on commas.... Michigan discovered that its state constitution inadvertently legalized slavery. Section 8, Article 2, read: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, unless for the punishment of crime, shall ever be tolerated in this state." It was decided to move the comma after "servitude" and place it after "slavery."
Indeed, our modern political life would be much easier if the Founding Fathers had used clearer punctuation in the Second Amendment in the bill of rights.
So, how is it "moral" to keep more books offline and unsearchable?
The concept of moral rights under the Berne Convention is a bit different than an overall concept of bringing "morality" into copyright.
Technically, a content creator's moral rights are fairly specific and separate from copyright. A copyright can be transferred or abandoned, but the moral rights remain with the creator.
The Berne Convention's moral rights clause is fairly brief:
Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation.
Some of the moral rights are common sense, such as the right of attribution. Some are more problematic, such as the right to integrity in the work (requiring permission for alterations of the original, such as the colorization of black-and-white films).
With regard to Google's digitization, "moral rights" in the specific don't really come into play, no matter what an individual European academic might assert.
Academics and librarians (many of the people pushing to keep Google from doing the digitizing) want to remain as the gatekeepers to books and published journals.
Actually, quite the opposite. Librarians and libraries are the ones that are enabling Google's digitization project.
Where do you think Google got all the books that they are digitizing? From libraries, including Harvard, U of Michigan, and, I believe, Stanford. As part of the deal, those libraries get a copy of each scanned book. The libraries are trying to expand access, not limit it.
Copyright Holders Shutting Down University Copy Shops; Libraries Need To Worry About Photocopier Infringement
Not that I don't appreciate sensationalist headlines as much as the next person but:
* These were not "university" copy shops. In both cases they were copy shops located near universities but were independent businesses.
* It is unclear from the linked articles whether any copy shop was actually shut down. Though the Canadian shop had it's equipment confiscated (and I don't see in the linked post where they were "gleefully" confiscated) and will find it difficult to do business, the post doesn't say it was closed. Even if it was, it should be "shutting down copy shop". The one in Michigan hasn't been shut down. The court hasn't even heard motions on damages yet.
* The Michigan court decision specifically notes (and the defendant copy shop specifically asserted) that the university has agreements in place that allow student copying (though apparently not all of the works in question were covered by the license). If the students did the copying on campus, this wouldn't have been an issue. So, no, libraries don't need to worry. Sen's (and by reference Peter Hirtle's) speculation that they might need to worry is just that, speculation.
At least in the US, this isn't a new issue at all. Copy shops have known--or should have known--for decades that copying textbooks or making course packs is illegal without the proper clearance. Which they can easily get (and most do) from the Copyright Clearance Center, whose primary purpose is to grant clearance and collect fees for just this sort of thing.
Libraries can also be covered by this, and most already have arrangements with the CCC. Publishers, especially academic publishers, have long worked with libraries on this issue. Those publishers have no desire to go after libraries, especially university libraries: the libraries are one of the publisher's biggest customers. And librarians are actually trained in this sort of thing.
Now, I know folks around here aren't big fans of licensing and fees when it comes to copyright, but it's a system in the academic world that has worked well for for over 30 years.
Not preconceived at all but based rather on your own writings.
Which part? The part where I explicitly say that I'm in favor or more transparency by government and corporations? Or the part you made up that I'm in favor of any government action just because it's government action and the public should be kept in the dark.
I've never had any personal dealing with it, so no, it hasn't been. And nobody I know of claimed it was an atrocity either.
Nobody you know of? You made that claim:
We've seen the end result, the end results is the airwaves becoming controlled by corporations who make a mockery of the FCC and censor important information, they result in the cable infrastructure turning into a monopoly where important news is censored, taxi cab corporations getting monopolies on how many people can become taxi cab drivers, all sorts of atrocities occurring with the obvious expectation that the public will not know about it because those who commit those atrocities know darn well mainstream media does not cover these issues.
If it was your intention to not include corporate control of the airwaves or limits on taxi licenses as "those atrocities," you might want to brush up on sentence structure and punctuation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
I, too, would very much like to see further study with a larger sample. The DOT report says as much as well.
But I disagree that this can't be used as evidence that quiet hybrids aren't a greater danger to pedestrians and cyclists. We can argue how much more of a danger, and if so what solutions might be undertaken to mitigate that danger, but I still think Mike's claim that there is no evidence is false. If he'd taken the study into account and dismissed it as you have, he would have at least been more accurate (though I might still disagree).
And, for the record, I don't think that a "mandatory loudening" of hybrids is warranted. However, if car manufacturers want to provide it, I also don't seem much wrong in that.
Thanks for responding. I posted this before I read Tim O'Reilly's response, which pretty much echos mine.
My main point, and the one that Tim made, was that you licensed exclusive rights to Apress, and while you own the copyright, you have effectively given the publisher the right to exercise your copyright. Actually, I doubt that even expressly advocating "pirating" your book is actionable.
I certainly understand your desire to get more exposure for the book and while I agree that freely-distributed ebook version can be an effective tool, as others have noted, there are drawbacks. And I'm well aware that publishers may be a bit shy about embracing the practice when they shouldn't necessarily be, you did give them the right to make that decision and were paid for it. So, in a very technical sense, downloading free ebooks is a violation of the rights you signed to the publisher.
Hopefully it doesn't sour relations with Apress, or cause your editor there grief, as it sounds like he/she went to bat for you. But as others have pointed out both here and in comments to your post, once the genie is out of the bottle, it's nearly impossible to control. People who download the ebook may or may not purchase a print copy. If print sales are significantly higher or lower than the previous edition, it'll be impossible to tell what effect free downloading had, or if your action cooled any publisher promotion efforts.
9000 copies could likely be improved upon with more aggressive marketing, but there are many reasons why some books sell and others don't and marketing (or free ebooks) may or may not make a difference. I share the frustration, but it's not a horrible sale (as I noted, Apress came back for a new edition) and you made more than three times your advance, something a lot of authors never do.
Clarity in royalty statements and reserves have been sticky subjects for many, many years, and the clarity or size and duration of the reserve are often controlled by the accounting people. I agree that Apress' change in your statement was very much for the worse. Reserves should properly be calculated considering the rate of sales and rate of returns for each title, and while this can be largely automated, many publishers prefer a standard percentage and term. Eighteen months seems a bit long.
Unfortunately, the publisher has no control over the IRS withholding.
I never thought you were engaging in a stunt; your post is fairly clear on that. And the issues you raise are those raised by many authors.
At any rate, I wish you luck with the second edition and hope it's successful.
Well, don't let thought or reading comprehension get in the way of your preconceived notions of what I think or believe. It's clear that you didn't really read my comment or grasp Lessig's point.
And I never said that no one ever gets denied a taxi license. It may be a personal inconvenience for you, but it's hardly an "atrocity."
So.. I suspect that if you took my book, removed the cover, contents and indexes, and turned it into a PDF with a cover of your own creation, Apress couldn’t do anything about it because everything would be my copyright. Now, I cannot allow you to do this, but I would not pursue you or enforce my copyrights if you did ;-) So, er, don’t do it!
Uh, yes he retains the copyright to his book, which is standard in most publishing contracts, with the exception of works-for-hire. But he has also give an exclusive right via license to Apress to publish and distribute the book. Cutely encouraging people to violate the licensed right for which he was paid could put him in hot water with the publisher. Whether it's a breach of his contract, I'll leave for a lawyer to weigh in on.
Cooper also seems to think he got only an okay deal in this contract. Actually, the royalties aren't bad and the escalators that increase the royalties for increase sales are actually pretty good. The eBook royalties probably should have been higher; depending on the contract, these can be 50% of net revenue.
He also says Apress, makes a varying amount per book – I don’t know why. An “average net price” is shown on my royalty statements but this fluctuates.
That's because books sold through different sales channels are subject to different discounts, which in this case look to be between 50% to 60%. Again, pretty standard. And because different sales channels will have different volume over time, the average net price will fluctuate.
Looking at what he made, he seems to have done well, though I gather he isn't enthused:
In the grand scheme of things, selling about 9000 copies of a technical book is neither cause for a great celebration or despair. The book easily paid back its advance in the first two quarters and it’s provided Apress with about $170,000 in net revenue over two years (of which about $19,000 has ended up with me).
Not bad. He earned $13,000 over his advance. And given that Apress would have to account for editorial preparation of the manuscript, pre-press (composition and cover), marketing and sales material, any publicity and promotion, paper, printing, binding, shipping and warehouse costs (if any) as well as royalties, that $170,000 net revenue can shrink quite quickly. Though they likely did fairly well on the book; otherwise they wouldn't have come back for a second edition.
Pointing out that there might be unintended drawbacks, as Lessig does, is hardly grasping at straws.
You mean the unintended consequences of allowing Lessig get his way or allowing pro intellectual property maximists to get their way or allowing the mainstream media and big corporations to get their way....Those are the consequences of allowing a lack of transparency, which is exactly what our current system minus the Internet has done, and those are exactly the consequences you want.
We'll leave the rabid anti-corporate rant aside. Neither Lessig nor I are "pro intellectual property maximists (sic)". Lessig quite the opposite. Neither is he (or I) against greater transparency in either government or corporations; sorry, I won't let you distort my views.
Yes, because people who disagree with you must misunderstand something. Great logic.
Not at all. Mike is a smart guy, but he's a dedicated reformer, and as the quote from the Lessig article indicates, sometimes reformers don't stop to fully consider all the ramifications, both good and bad, of the reform, they are much more focused on the "good."
You want to commit atrocities at public expense and not have anyone know about it.
Yes, of course. You found me out. I want the public to pay for atrocities (torturing puppies and kittens? Men and women living together without the benefit of marriage? Playing Brittany Spears at top volume?) while keeping those horrors away from the prying light of day.
...taxi cab corporations getting monopolies on how many people can become taxi cab drivers, all sorts of atrocities...
Hmmmm... Did someone get turned down for a hack license? I fail to see how greater transparency in government will get you a job driving a taxi.
Re: Re: No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
Too bad you didn't actually read those articles after you found them.
Actually, I did.
This study found that pedestrian and bicyclist crashes involving both HEVs and ICE vehicles commonly occurred on roadways, in zones with low speed limits, during daytime and in clear weather, with higher incidence rates for HEVs when compared to ICE vehicles.
And, to put your "going straight" quote from the study in context:
Incidence rate of pedestrian crashes in scenarios when vehicles make turns was significantly higher for HEVs when compared to ICE vehicles. There was no statistically significant difference in incidence rate of pedestrian crashes involving HEVs when compared to ICE vehicles when both type of vehicles were going straight.
And I would submit that it is in just these low-speed, turning maneuver situations when there is the greatest likelihood of pedestrians or cyclists being near cars (driveways, parking lots, crosswalks, etc.)
And while I agree that it's a driver's responsibility to avoid hitting pedestrians and cyclists, those pedestrians and cyclists also have some responsibility for avoiding being hit by cars. If they can't hear them coming in situations where the cars might not be completely in visual range, it's harder to avoid them.
We can certainly debate whether adding recorded engine sounds (or other sounds) is an appropriate solution (and I can't see the harm in light of the safety benefits).
But the point of my comment was that Mike claimed (as he has in similar posts) that there was "no evidence" that quieter hybrids were any danger. I merely pointed to such evidence.
Can't we just set it to vibrate? In the meantime, there appears to be no evidence that these hybrid and electric "menaces" are causing any more accidents in their "silent, but deadly" current state.
Gee, Mike, I would have thought you'd be applauding this: you get both safety and an innovative new business plan from car makers.
But "no evidence" that hybrid-electric cars cause any more accidents? Two seconds on that Google thing might have helped.
I have to admit that I've now read Larry Lessig's article in The New Republic, Against Transparency, three times, and I still can't figure out what he's trying to say....Lessig's piece seems to suppose that the point of transparency is that everyone will dig into the raw data -- which is an obviously silly notion. But if that data is exposed, then more people can actually provide those valuable tools and insights on top of it.
I'm not terribly surprised you don't get it Mike. And the reason I'm not surprised is contained in Lessig's article (and was pointed out above):
Reformers rarely feel responsible for the bad that their fantastic new reform effects. Their focus is always on the good. The bad is someone else’s problem.
In the simplest terms, Lessig is pointing out the Law of Unintended Consequence. That a thing (transparency) is considered good, and may indeed be very good, does not mean that the results of the good thing will be themselves good. Even if it's the start of a process, the end of that process may not be what you expect it to be and may been much worse that what you had before.
That's not to say that more transparency in our society is not a goal to strive for (I believe that it is), but that there will be adverse unintended consequences (there always are), and if you don't try to think about what some of those adverse consequences might be at the start of the process and deal with them, you're likely to get them.
It's really not that difficult to grasp. A little more of that type of thinking could be good around these parts as well.
It's what you do with the moolah after you get it. The bender at the pub and the drive home. The supersized Big Macs.
But I'd like to propose and experiment to determine if the amount of the payday has an effect on mortality. Since I haven't died yet at my current rate of compensation, I propose to increase it by 20% each week until I die. Any takers? It's all for science. I'll be happy to report the results here, copyright free of course.
we should use this as a teaching moment, to try to show Ms. Allen why her position is wrong, rather than focusing on calling her a hypocrite. And, indeed, that would be great, but it seems like a difficult lesson for some -- including Ms. Allen -- to grasp.
It would be great if the first reaction to such incidents as this were taken as teaching moments, but I'm not holding my breath. The first response always seems to be ridicule, accusation, and snarky sarcasm. And when that doesn't work, a bit more angry snark that the person just "doesn't get it."
For many in the "content" industries, the shifting market dynamic are indeed hard to grasp. These changes threaten the livelihood of thousand of people, and those people's first reaction is usually to push back.
If this community were truly interested in changing industry behavior, attitudes, and practices, it would try to use these instances to actually teach and persuade that change isn't as threatening as it might seem.
But you don't teach by ridicule. You don't teach by attacking people. You don't teach by calling them cowards, idiots, or skanks. You don't react with ire when the point isn't instantly grasped.
I don't necessarily expect all blog commenter to get this, not when there's such fun to be had just slagging people.
But if the thought-leadership on this issue can't get, then it may be a thought-leadership fail as well.
On the post: Grammar Nazis: Useful Language Experts, Or Elitist Snobs?
Re: Re: Hmm...
On the post: Grammar Nazis: Useful Language Experts, Or Elitist Snobs?
Re: Re: Effective Communication
And the fact that you seem to think that slavery is legal in the U.S. under certain circumstances due to the wording of the Thirteenth Amendment makes my case for me.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court has ruled in numerous cases that the Thirteenth Amendment makes the ownership of human beings illegal in this country.
On the post: Grammar Nazis: Useful Language Experts, Or Elitist Snobs?
Effective Communication
I echo what Chris and others have said. The point of grammar is effective communication of ideas. Some grammar "rules," such as the oft-mentioned rule about split infinitives, are in most circumstances somewhat silly. But others are reasonable rules for effectively and clearly communicating a writer's ideas to a reader. Spelling and proper punctuation count as well.
If the text makes the point in a way that people can understand, what is the problem?
This is often a fine standard for informal writing, but the problem is that while you may think that your idea is perfectly communicated, if you use poor grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure, you may not, in fact, be communicating effectively.
On occasion, Mike, you've accused me in comments of "twisting" or not understanding your words. I'd submit that this may not be true; it's possible that you communicated your idea poorly and left yourself open to a reading of your words that was other than you intended, no matter how convinced you are that you wrote clearly.
Pointing out grammatical lapses in blog comments is pointless. However, for anyone who writes professionally, and bloggers such as yourself certainly qualify, paying attention to good grammar, spelling, and proper punctuation is almost a duty if you want to communicate effectively and be taken seriously.
Forget manuals of style. I'd recommend The Careful Writer: A Modern Guide to English Usage by Theodore M. Bernstein. It's perhaps the best guide to good writing around.
My favorite part:
Indeed, our modern political life would be much easier if the Founding Fathers had used clearer punctuation in the Second Amendment in the bill of rights.
On the post: Weird Priorities: Europeans Want To Digitize Books As Quickly As Possible... Just As Long As It's Not Google Doing It
Moral Rights
The concept of moral rights under the Berne Convention is a bit different than an overall concept of bringing "morality" into copyright.
Technically, a content creator's moral rights are fairly specific and separate from copyright. A copyright can be transferred or abandoned, but the moral rights remain with the creator.
The Berne Convention's moral rights clause is fairly brief:
Some of the moral rights are common sense, such as the right of attribution. Some are more problematic, such as the right to integrity in the work (requiring permission for alterations of the original, such as the colorization of black-and-white films).
With regard to Google's digitization, "moral rights" in the specific don't really come into play, no matter what an individual European academic might assert.
On the post: Weird Priorities: Europeans Want To Digitize Books As Quickly As Possible... Just As Long As It's Not Google Doing It
Re: Job Security
Actually, quite the opposite. Librarians and libraries are the ones that are enabling Google's digitization project.
Where do you think Google got all the books that they are digitizing? From libraries, including Harvard, U of Michigan, and, I believe, Stanford. As part of the deal, those libraries get a copy of each scanned book. The libraries are trying to expand access, not limit it.
On the post: Copyright Holders Shutting Down University Copy Shops; Libraries Need To Worry About Photocopier Infringement
Corrections
Not that I don't appreciate sensationalist headlines as much as the next person but:
* These were not "university" copy shops. In both cases they were copy shops located near universities but were independent businesses.
* It is unclear from the linked articles whether any copy shop was actually shut down. Though the Canadian shop had it's equipment confiscated (and I don't see in the linked post where they were "gleefully" confiscated) and will find it difficult to do business, the post doesn't say it was closed. Even if it was, it should be "shutting down copy shop". The one in Michigan hasn't been shut down. The court hasn't even heard motions on damages yet.
* The Michigan court decision specifically notes (and the defendant copy shop specifically asserted) that the university has agreements in place that allow student copying (though apparently not all of the works in question were covered by the license). If the students did the copying on campus, this wouldn't have been an issue. So, no, libraries don't need to worry. Sen's (and by reference Peter Hirtle's) speculation that they might need to worry is just that, speculation.
On the post: Copyright Holders Shutting Down University Copy Shops; Libraries Need To Worry About Photocopier Infringement
An Old Issue
Libraries can also be covered by this, and most already have arrangements with the CCC. Publishers, especially academic publishers, have long worked with libraries on this issue. Those publishers have no desire to go after libraries, especially university libraries: the libraries are one of the publisher's biggest customers. And librarians are actually trained in this sort of thing.
Now, I know folks around here aren't big fans of licensing and fees when it comes to copyright, but it's a system in the academic world that has worked well for for over 30 years.
On the post: So What's Wrong With Transparency Again?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Surprised
Which part? The part where I explicitly say that I'm in favor or more transparency by government and corporations? Or the part you made up that I'm in favor of any government action just because it's government action and the public should be kept in the dark.
I've never had any personal dealing with it, so no, it hasn't been. And nobody I know of claimed it was an atrocity either.
Nobody you know of? You made that claim:
If it was your intention to not include corporate control of the airwaves or limits on taxi licenses as "those atrocities," you might want to brush up on sentence structure and punctuation.
On the post: Fake Car Noises Being Added To Many New Cars... May Be Required Soon
Re: Re: Re: Re: No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
But I disagree that this can't be used as evidence that quiet hybrids aren't a greater danger to pedestrians and cyclists. We can argue how much more of a danger, and if so what solutions might be undertaken to mitigate that danger, but I still think Mike's claim that there is no evidence is false. If he'd taken the study into account and dismissed it as you have, he would have at least been more accurate (though I might still disagree).
And, for the record, I don't think that a "mandatory loudening" of hybrids is warranted. However, if car manufacturers want to provide it, I also don't seem much wrong in that.
On the post: Beginning Ruby Author: Publisher Wouldn't Let Me Give eBook For Free... So Pirate My Book (Sorta)
Re:
Thanks for responding. I posted this before I read Tim O'Reilly's response, which pretty much echos mine.
My main point, and the one that Tim made, was that you licensed exclusive rights to Apress, and while you own the copyright, you have effectively given the publisher the right to exercise your copyright. Actually, I doubt that even expressly advocating "pirating" your book is actionable.
I certainly understand your desire to get more exposure for the book and while I agree that freely-distributed ebook version can be an effective tool, as others have noted, there are drawbacks. And I'm well aware that publishers may be a bit shy about embracing the practice when they shouldn't necessarily be, you did give them the right to make that decision and were paid for it. So, in a very technical sense, downloading free ebooks is a violation of the rights you signed to the publisher.
Hopefully it doesn't sour relations with Apress, or cause your editor there grief, as it sounds like he/she went to bat for you. But as others have pointed out both here and in comments to your post, once the genie is out of the bottle, it's nearly impossible to control. People who download the ebook may or may not purchase a print copy. If print sales are significantly higher or lower than the previous edition, it'll be impossible to tell what effect free downloading had, or if your action cooled any publisher promotion efforts.
9000 copies could likely be improved upon with more aggressive marketing, but there are many reasons why some books sell and others don't and marketing (or free ebooks) may or may not make a difference. I share the frustration, but it's not a horrible sale (as I noted, Apress came back for a new edition) and you made more than three times your advance, something a lot of authors never do.
Clarity in royalty statements and reserves have been sticky subjects for many, many years, and the clarity or size and duration of the reserve are often controlled by the accounting people. I agree that Apress' change in your statement was very much for the worse. Reserves should properly be calculated considering the rate of sales and rate of returns for each title, and while this can be largely automated, many publishers prefer a standard percentage and term. Eighteen months seems a bit long.
Unfortunately, the publisher has no control over the IRS withholding.
I never thought you were engaging in a stunt; your post is fairly clear on that. And the issues you raise are those raised by many authors.
At any rate, I wish you luck with the second edition and hope it's successful.
On the post: So What's Wrong With Transparency Again?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Surprised
And I never said that no one ever gets denied a taxi license. It may be a personal inconvenience for you, but it's hardly an "atrocity."
On the post: Fake Car Noises Being Added To Many New Cars... May Be Required Soon
Re: Re: Re: Re: No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
Okay, next time, I'll make a "vroom-vroom" sound.
Oh, and I, for one, never called for federal action. I just said that the technical solution isn't a bad one.
On the post: Beginning Ruby Author: Publisher Wouldn't Let Me Give eBook For Free... So Pirate My Book (Sorta)
Possibly not a bright move
Uh, yes he retains the copyright to his book, which is standard in most publishing contracts, with the exception of works-for-hire. But he has also give an exclusive right via license to Apress to publish and distribute the book. Cutely encouraging people to violate the licensed right for which he was paid could put him in hot water with the publisher. Whether it's a breach of his contract, I'll leave for a lawyer to weigh in on.
Cooper also seems to think he got only an okay deal in this contract. Actually, the royalties aren't bad and the escalators that increase the royalties for increase sales are actually pretty good. The eBook royalties probably should have been higher; depending on the contract, these can be 50% of net revenue.
He also says Apress, makes a varying amount per book – I don’t know why. An “average net price” is shown on my royalty statements but this fluctuates.
That's because books sold through different sales channels are subject to different discounts, which in this case look to be between 50% to 60%. Again, pretty standard. And because different sales channels will have different volume over time, the average net price will fluctuate.
Looking at what he made, he seems to have done well, though I gather he isn't enthused:
In the grand scheme of things, selling about 9000 copies of a technical book is neither cause for a great celebration or despair. The book easily paid back its advance in the first two quarters and it’s provided Apress with about $170,000 in net revenue over two years (of which about $19,000 has ended up with me).
Not bad. He earned $13,000 over his advance. And given that Apress would have to account for editorial preparation of the manuscript, pre-press (composition and cover), marketing and sales material, any publicity and promotion, paper, printing, binding, shipping and warehouse costs (if any) as well as royalties, that $170,000 net revenue can shrink quite quickly. Though they likely did fairly well on the book; otherwise they wouldn't have come back for a second edition.
On the post: So What's Wrong With Transparency Again?
Re: Re: Not Surprised
Pointing out that there might be unintended drawbacks, as Lessig does, is hardly grasping at straws.
You mean the unintended consequences of allowing Lessig get his way or allowing pro intellectual property maximists to get their way or allowing the mainstream media and big corporations to get their way....Those are the consequences of allowing a lack of transparency, which is exactly what our current system minus the Internet has done, and those are exactly the consequences you want.
We'll leave the rabid anti-corporate rant aside. Neither Lessig nor I are "pro intellectual property maximists (sic)". Lessig quite the opposite. Neither is he (or I) against greater transparency in either government or corporations; sorry, I won't let you distort my views.
Yes, because people who disagree with you must misunderstand something. Great logic.
Not at all. Mike is a smart guy, but he's a dedicated reformer, and as the quote from the Lessig article indicates, sometimes reformers don't stop to fully consider all the ramifications, both good and bad, of the reform, they are much more focused on the "good."
You want to commit atrocities at public expense and not have anyone know about it.
Yes, of course. You found me out. I want the public to pay for atrocities (torturing puppies and kittens? Men and women living together without the benefit of marriage? Playing Brittany Spears at top volume?) while keeping those horrors away from the prying light of day.
...taxi cab corporations getting monopolies on how many people can become taxi cab drivers, all sorts of atrocities...
Hmmmm... Did someone get turned down for a hack license? I fail to see how greater transparency in government will get you a job driving a taxi.
On the post: Fake Car Noises Being Added To Many New Cars... May Be Required Soon
Re: Re: No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
Actually, I did.
On the post: Fake Car Noises Being Added To Many New Cars... May Be Required Soon
Re: Re: No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
On the post: Fake Car Noises Being Added To Many New Cars... May Be Required Soon
No Evidence...That Mike Bothered to Look For
Gee, Mike, I would have thought you'd be applauding this: you get both safety and an innovative new business plan from car makers.
But "no evidence" that hybrid-electric cars cause any more accidents? Two seconds on that Google thing might have helped.
Hybrids are twice as likely to crash into pedestrians and cyclists
Here's the U.S. Department of Transportation study
On the post: So What's Wrong With Transparency Again?
Not Surprised
I'm not terribly surprised you don't get it Mike. And the reason I'm not surprised is contained in Lessig's article (and was pointed out above):
In the simplest terms, Lessig is pointing out the Law of Unintended Consequence. That a thing (transparency) is considered good, and may indeed be very good, does not mean that the results of the good thing will be themselves good. Even if it's the start of a process, the end of that process may not be what you expect it to be and may been much worse that what you had before.
That's not to say that more transparency in our society is not a goal to strive for (I believe that it is), but that there will be adverse unintended consequences (there always are), and if you don't try to think about what some of those adverse consequences might be at the start of the process and deal with them, you're likely to get them.
It's really not that difficult to grasp. A little more of that type of thinking could be good around these parts as well.
On the post: Getting Paid Might Kill You?
It's not about getting paid
But I'd like to propose and experiment to determine if the amount of the payday has an effect on mortality. Since I haven't died yet at my current rate of compensation, I propose to increase it by 20% each week until I die. Any takers? It's all for science. I'll be happy to report the results here, copyright free of course.
On the post: A Teaching Moment For Lily Allen [Update: And *Poof* Goes Her Blog]
Teachable Moment Fail
It would be great if the first reaction to such incidents as this were taken as teaching moments, but I'm not holding my breath. The first response always seems to be ridicule, accusation, and snarky sarcasm. And when that doesn't work, a bit more angry snark that the person just "doesn't get it."
For many in the "content" industries, the shifting market dynamic are indeed hard to grasp. These changes threaten the livelihood of thousand of people, and those people's first reaction is usually to push back.
If this community were truly interested in changing industry behavior, attitudes, and practices, it would try to use these instances to actually teach and persuade that change isn't as threatening as it might seem.
But you don't teach by ridicule. You don't teach by attacking people. You don't teach by calling them cowards, idiots, or skanks. You don't react with ire when the point isn't instantly grasped.
I don't necessarily expect all blog commenter to get this, not when there's such fun to be had just slagging people.
But if the thought-leadership on this issue can't get, then it may be a thought-leadership fail as well.
Next >>