<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;ebook&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 3 Apr 2013 03:45:21 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Successful Self-Published Ebook Authors Sells Print &#038; Movie Rights For $1 Million, But Keeps Digital Rights To Himself</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130328/16411922505/successful-self-published-ebook-authors-sells-print-movie-rights-1-million-keeps-digital-rights-to-himself.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130328/16411922505/successful-self-published-ebook-authors-sells-print-movie-rights-1-million-keeps-digital-rights-to-himself.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've pointed out time and time again that there are still roles for the former gatekeepers in various content industries, but those roles are changing, because they now need to be enablers, helping to do things that content creators can't do on their own.  We've also pointed out that one thing that "direct to fan" and other offerings have done is give content creators much more <i>leverage</i> in dealing with those traditional gatekeepers.  It used to be, if you were a first time author, you didn't have very much leverage at all.  You accepted the tiny advance and crappy book deal offered to you, in which the publisher basically took control over your work almost entirely, leaving a tiny royalty for you should you ever earn back the advance.  However, the WSJ recently wrote about how self-publsihed ebook author Hugh Howey (who wrote the hugely popular <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1476733953/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&#038;camp=1789&#038;creative=390957&#038;creativeASIN=1476733953&#038;linkCode=as2&#038;tag=techdirtcom-20"><i>Wool</i></a> "postapocalyptic thriller" and sold half a million ebook copies) then <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324678604578340752088305668.html" target="_blank">sold the print rights to the book to Simon &#038; Schuster and the movie rights to Ridley Scott for around $1 million</a> but was able to <i>retain the digital rights</i> to the book for himself.
<br /><br />
That is how leverage works.  It's also a recognition of <i>where</i> a publisher can actually help.  Howey knows that he can sell the digital book himself.  He doesn't need any help with digital production, distribution or promotion.  However, the physical book is a very different story, so having a big publisher handle printing and distribution for the physical book makes sense -- and given the fact he didn't <i>need</i> the help of a publisher, he was able to negotiate this more equitable deal.  He notes that other publishers offered more money for a complete package, but it was easy to walk away, knowing he was making plenty of money on his own directly with the ebooks.
<br /><br />
As the WSJ notes, it's all about the shifting balance of power, such that publishers no longer hold all the cards:
<blockquote><i>
It's a sign of how far the balance of power has shifted toward authors in the new digital publishing landscape. Self-published titles made up 25% of the top-selling books on Amazon last year. Four independent authors have sold more than a million Kindle copies of their books, and 23 have sold more than 250,000, according to Amazon.
<br /><br />
Publishing houses that once ignored independent authors are now furiously courting them. In the past year, more than 60 independent authors have landed contracts with traditional publishers. Several won seven-figure advances. A handful have negotiated deals that allow them to continue selling e-books on their own, including romance writers Bella Andre and Colleen Hoover, who have each sold more than a million copies of their books.
</i></blockquote>
Simon &#038; Schuster even admits that it wanted all of the rights, but that under these "unusual circumstances" it had no other choice.  I get the feeling those "circumstances" will become less and less "unusual" going forward.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130328/16411922505/successful-self-published-ebook-authors-sells-print-movie-rights-1-million-keeps-digital-rights-to-himself.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130328/16411922505/successful-self-published-ebook-authors-sells-print-movie-rights-1-million-keeps-digital-rights-to-himself.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20130328/16411922505/successful-self-published-ebook-authors-sells-print-movie-rights-1-million-keeps-digital-rights-to-himself.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-all-about-the-leverage</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130328/16411922505</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2012 11:10:03 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Google's Copyright Crackdown Punishes Author For Torrenting His Own Book</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120923/22351120487/googles-copyright-crackdown-punishes-author-torrenting-his-own-book.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120923/22351120487/googles-copyright-crackdown-punishes-author-torrenting-his-own-book.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Over the years, we've pointed out repeatedly a massive Achilles Heel for Google: its often dreadful <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101014/17295411434/there-s-always-a-way-to-compete-competing-with-google-by-being-human.shtml">customer service</a>.  Trying to communicate with Google can often be like facing a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110721/18124415200/can-google-get-past-big-faceless-white-monolith-stage.shtml">giant white monolith</a>, rather than any sort of human being.  More recently, we've been concerned about Google's willingness to be <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120812/23494420001/seven-reasons-why-google-is-making-mistake-filtering-searches-based-dmca-notices.shtml">overly aggressive</a> in "enforcing" copyright, in an effort to keep Hollywood (and Hollywood's supporters in government) off its back.  Combine those two issues, and you've got quite a story... such as the one from Techdirt reader <a href="http://python-ebook.blogspot.com" target="_blank">Cody Jackson</a>.
<br /><br />
A few years ago, Jackson, while deployed in Iraq, wrote a book about Python (the programming language) called <a href="http://python-ebook.blogspot.com/" target="_blank"><i>Start Programming with Python</i></a>.   He decided to give away the book for free, as a "thank you" to the open source community which, he notes, has provided him with tremendous value over the years.  He has always made the book available for free, and linked to various sources where you can get it.  At the same time, he's offered people the option to support him via donation.  He also made a little bit of money via Google AdSense ads on his site.
<br /><br />
Last week, he was contacted by a Google bot, telling him that AdSense had been disabled.  Why?  Because they claimed he was distributing copyrighted content illegally.  The email, which I've seen, notes that his account has been disabled for the following reason:
<blockquote><i>
Violation explanation
<br /><br />
COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL: As stated in our program policies, AdSense publishers are not permitted to place Google ads on sites involved in the distribution of copyrighted materials. This includes hosting copyrighted files on your site, as well as providing links for or driving traffic to sites that contain copyrighted material. More information about this policy can be found in our help center ( <a href="http://www.google.com/adsense/support/as/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=105956">http://www.google.com/adsense/support/as/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=105956</a> ).
</i></blockquote>
To be honest, Google's terms here <i>make no sense</i>.  Basically <i>EVERY</i> website "contains copyrighted material."  Based on what Google sent to Jackson, no one could link to any website if they wanted to run AdSense.  Google has a number of really good copyright lawyers, but they must have let this one slip by.  I'm sure Google <i>means</i> "unauthorized" or "infringing" copyrighted material, but that's not what it says.  
<br /><br />
Either way, it seems ridiculous and serious overkill to suggest that any links to a site that carries infringing content -- even if the link is to legitimate content -- should be deemed a terms of service violation.  The email provides one link as an "example page" of the kind of problems they're talking about.  That page is the one where Jackson announces <a href="http://python-ebook.blogspot.com/2011/10/2nd-edition-torrent-available.html" target="_blank">that he's put up a torrent of the 2nd edition</a> of his book, and points people to The Pirate Bay and Demonoid to get it.  Remember, this is his own book, which he's published himself and is giving away for free... on purpose.
<br /><br />
You could argue that Google's terms here are overbroad and perhaps they're within those rules.  But saying that you can't link to legitimate content that you yourself released on the Pirate Bay could have a real chilling effect for those who choose to put their own works on such sites.
<br /><br />
Jackson reached out to Google for more information, explaining to them the situation, pointing out that he's the author and publisher, and that the work is published under a Creative Commons <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/" target="_blank">BY-SA license</a>, and thus all copies on The Pirate Bay are perfectly legal and authorized.  Google told him it would review the account... and then sent the following:
<blockquote><i>
Thank you for providing us with additional information about your site.
However, after thoroughly reviewing <a href="http://python-ebook.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">python-ebook.blogspot.com</a> and taking
your feedback into consideration, <b>we're unable to re-enable ad serving to
your site at this time, as your site appears to still be in violation.</b>
<br /><br />
If you'd like to have your site reconsidered for participation in the
AdSense program, please review our program policies
(<a href="https://www.google.com/adsense/policies" target="_blank">https://www.google.com/adsense/policies</a>) and make any necessary changes
to your webpages. For more information regarding your policy issue, please
visit <a href="https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=113061" target="_blank">https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=113061</a>.
</i></blockquote>
Confused about this after reading through everything and still not seeing any violation, he removed the links to the torrent files, even though it made perfect sense to him to keep them up.  As he noted to me via email: "The torrent was one of the first ways that I had made my book available, since that is where the technical people are likely to hang out. I figured a torrent file on the most popular torrent site was a no-brainer."
<br /><br />
So he, once again, responded to the Google bot, this time after removing the links... and he <i>still got back the exact same message</i>.  The current post (and, again, this was a post that Google specifically called out as an "example" of a problem page) still mentions The Pirate Bay and Demonoid, but <i>has no links</i> (and even when it did have links, they were authorized!).  And yet, Google's AdSense team <i>still</i> insists that he's violating AdSense's inscrutable terms.  They won't explain why.  They won't seem to actually comprehend what he's saying.  They just block.
<br /><br />
For what it's worth, we hear from Google haters all the time that it somehow refuses to take down Ads on "pirate sites."  This experience seems to suggest the exact opposite: that Google is overly aggressive in trying to block ads showing up in any way, shape or form, near sites that it has deemed to be problematic, even if the content is 100% guaranteed legal and authorized.  Combine that with Google's horrendous customer service-by-bot, and you have an unfortunate situation where an author is being punished for doing something perfectly legal and can't seem to find a human at Google who will actually take the time to understand what's going on.
<br /><br />
These are the reasons why we get so nervous when Google cranks up its "automation" at the insistence of Hollywood.  The collateral damage is very real.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120923/22351120487/googles-copyright-crackdown-punishes-author-torrenting-his-own-book.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120923/22351120487/googles-copyright-crackdown-punishes-author-torrenting-his-own-book.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120923/22351120487/googles-copyright-crackdown-punishes-author-torrenting-his-own-book.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>too-aggressive</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120923/22351120487</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:55:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Tor Listens To Authors And Readers And Ditches DRM</title>
<dc:creator>Zachary Knight</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120424/16405018636/tor-listens-to-authors-readers-ditches-drm.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120424/16405018636/tor-listens-to-authors-readers-ditches-drm.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We have said quite a bit about the perils of DRM and how many in the entertainment industry still insist on its use despite the fact that it is pointless as a deterrent to piracy and only leads to frustration for paying customers. Recently, we spoke about how DRM is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120412/07212918466/another-reason-why-drm-is-bad-publishers.shtml">bad for book publishers</a> and that their <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120416/12411618512/did-publishers-own-insistence-drm-inevitably-lead-to-antitrust-lawsuit-against-them.shtml">insistent use of DRM</a> was part of the reason they ended up in the DOJ's sights. Fortunately, it looks like some publishers are learning from these follies. Tor has just announced that it and all its sister companies' <a href="http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/04/torforge-e-book-titles-to-go-drm-free" target="_blank">books will be DRM free by July of this year</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>Our authors and readers have been asking for this for a long time. They&rsquo;re a technically sophisticated bunch, and DRM is a constant annoyance to them. It prevents them from using legitimately-purchased e-books in perfectly legal ways, like moving them from one kind of e-reader to another. </i>
</blockquote>
This is an exciting move for anyone concerned about the future of ebooks. That ability for readers to transfer their books from one device to another will help as technology advances and becomes far better. It is also excellent to hear that not only are readers voicing their dislike of DRM, but authors as well. That is what is really great about this. It often seems like publishers care little about the opinions of authors when it comes to these types of decisions. This news shows that some publishers are listening. Let's hope that other publishers learn from Tor's example and begin to listen as well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120424/16405018636/tor-listens-to-authors-readers-ditches-drm.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120424/16405018636/tor-listens-to-authors-readers-ditches-drm.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120424/16405018636/tor-listens-to-authors-readers-ditches-drm.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>ears-wide-open</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120424/16405018636</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:20:35 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Breaking: U.S. Sues Apple, Publishers Over eBook Price-Fixing</title>
<dc:creator>Leigh Beadon</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120411/07155418453/breaking-us-sues-apple-publishers-over-ebook-price-fixing.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120411/07155418453/breaking-us-sues-apple-publishers-over-ebook-price-fixing.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Ever since the Justice Department <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120309/03540318044/us-government-finally-realizes-that-publishers-apple-conspiring-to-raise-ebook-prices-is-price-fixing.shtml">announced</a> that they were investigating Apple and several publishers over allegations that Apple's agency model for ebook pricing violates antitrust law, we've been waiting for the other shoe to drop. Last night, Reuters <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/11/us-apple-ebooks-idUSBRE8391JW20120411" target="_blank">reported</a> that a lawsuit was imminent, and now Bloomberg has the news that <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-11/u-s-files-antitrust-lawsuit-against-apple-hachette.html" target="_blank">the government has filed a lawsuit against Apple, Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin and Simon &amp; Schuster</a> in New York district court.

<p>Details are still scarce, but sources say Apple and Macmillan refused to participate in settlement talks while some of the other publishers are still hoping to avoid a drawn out legal battle, and may settle soon. <em><strong>Update:</strong> Bloomberg is now reporting that S&amp;S, HarperCollins and Hachette have settled.</em> It will be interesting to see what kind of defense Apple brings, because the evidence of collusion doesn't look good for them at all. Despite Authors Guild president Scott Turow's self-serving claim that this will somehow <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120310/19034718067/authors-guild-boss-e-book-price-fixing-allegations-but-brick-and-mortar.shtml">hurt culture</a>, this is good news for readers: busting Apple's and the publishers' iron grip on ebook prices will likely reduce them across the board.</p>

<p>Here is this the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/ebooks04112012.pdf" target="_blank">government's complete filing</a> (pdf and embedded below).</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120411/07155418453/breaking-us-sues-apple-publishers-over-ebook-price-fixing.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120411/07155418453/breaking-us-sues-apple-publishers-over-ebook-price-fixing.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120411/07155418453/breaking-us-sues-apple-publishers-over-ebook-price-fixing.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>fresh-news</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120411/07155418453</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 6 Sep 2007 11:29:38 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Still Not Betting On An eBook Revolution</title>
<dc:creator>Joseph Weisenthal</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070906/080606.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070906/080606.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ eBooks have been touted as the next big thing for quite some time now, but invariably, each new generation of the new technology <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20060404/1833225&#038;cid=56">fails to win over consumers</a>.  Of course, that's not going to stop the publishing industry from pursuing them in their belief that they'll be the savior of the industry.  The latest iteration comes from Amazon.com, and for $500 it <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/technology/06amazon.html?ex=1346731200&#038;en=371583a0e80c1874&#038;ei=5090&#038;partner=rssuserland&#038;emc=rss">offers the ability to connect wirelessly</a> to an eBook store, meaning you won't have to plug the device into a computer in order to make a purchase.  For eBook aficionados, this might be a nice convenience, but it's pretty hard to imagine this feature proving pivotal to winning over the broader population.  Of all the problems people have with eBooks, the fact that you have to connect them to a computer probably isn't a significant one.  The above article also mentions Google's planned foray into digital publishing, as it intends to sell digital versions of books from select publishers.  But it's not clear why Google thinks that customers will be particularly interested in this service.  After Google's previous foray into selling digital content, with its <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/13/google-closing-down-video-store/">now-defunct video store</a>, you'd think the company would stay away from this kind of business.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070906/080606.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070906/080606.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070906/080606.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>any-day-now</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070906/080606</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>