Export thread

So then what's the deal with work for hire = the guy actually doing the work gets no rights at all most of the time?!

Well at least there are ways around it in some paces: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14287864

No, it's meant to ensure that whomever holds the rights gets to make money from the creation. Questions? Talk to Edison about how many of his patents he was actually personally responsible for.

--Patrick

Funny how you never hear that argument when people are defending copyright... then it's all about starving artists...

@Li3n said:

So then what's the deal with work for hire = the guy actually doing the work gets no rights at all most of the time?!

Click to expand...

Do you understand what work for hire means? Sit down and shut up until you do.

Ask Jack Kirby all about copyright.

stienman said:

Do you understand what work for hire means? Sit down and shut up until you do.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it means unless your daddy knows some lawyers and lies about your age you'll die poor and not even get your name on the comics of the character you created (until you get major public support, if you're lucky).

When you open your mouth, your ignorance shows. Just sayin'.

@Li3n said:

So then what's the deal with work for hire = the guy actually doing the work gets no rights at all most of the time?!

Click to expand...

Usually the contract stipulates that they will not be gaining the copyright to the work. They know in advance what they're signing up for and have the opportunity to decline. For some artists, that's how they get their foot in the door. I'm not saying it's optimal, but it's not some kind of underhanded scheme.

Chad Sexington said:

Usually the contract stipulates that they will not be gaining the copyright to the work. They know in advance what they're signing up for and have the opportunity to decline. For some artists, that's how they get their foot in the door. I'm not saying it's optimal, but it's not some kind of underhanded scheme.

Click to expand...

Bingo!

Also, if you see many private company has a clause in the contract when you are hired (general form) it usually states that ANY creation done during business hours (i.e. they are PAYING you do to work) it belongs to the company.

So lets say you are working on a side job and create a new product while at work, that product "could" belong to the company you work for since you are doing it on "their time" (it is arguable but it is in the contract)

More work for hire also have a similar clause. You are hired to create something, but that something will belong to the people that are hiring you. It is ALWAYS a good thing to read up the actual contract and make changes BEFORE signing (if you can do it)

@Li3n said:

Yeah, it means unless your daddy knows some lawyers and lies about your age you'll die poor and not even get your name on the comics of the character you created (until you get major public support, if you're lucky).

Click to expand...

If I hire you to build me a house, are you going to expect me to let you live in it?

I got an example. There is a band that was new call Smile.DK (I love them) they made a quite a bit of music for Dance Dance Revolution game, but since they were new, they sign away their rights to the music (part of the contract) They do have live performance BUT they can't sing the songs they created unless Komani said so (and they said no)

Ravenpoe said:

If I hire you to build me a house, are you going to expect me to let you live in it?

Click to expand...

Sometimes I wonder...

stienman said:

When you open your mouth, your ignorance shows. Just sayin'.

Click to expand...

You didn't read the article in the link did you?

BTW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors'_rights (siegel and shuster would never have needed to sue is you guys had them too)

Ravenpoe said:

If I hire you to build me a house, are you going to expect me to let you live in it?

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that if i design the house i can use the design again as many times as i want... and please stop comparing them to a physical object, they're not one...

@Li3n said:

You didn't read the article in the link did you?

BTW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors'_rights (siegel and shuster would never have needed to sue is you guys had them too)

Click to expand...

Of course I read the article. That court case has been going on for ages.

What's interesting about it is that it's actually the exact opposite of what your problem is.

The creator of the helmet has convinced the courts in the UK that his design is NOT art (ie, not a creation of his mind protected under their odd copyright laws) and is NOT protected by the copyrights that he assigned to Lucas Films as part of his contract.

He contended that it's an industrial, not creative, design.

In other words, the fact that you seemingly read the article, and are now ranting about copyright and author's rights, and comparing the two as though this guy dealt a blow to the creators vs corporate regime simply shows that you really have absolutely no clue what in the world you're talking about.

Your continued indignation is grossly misplaced.

@li3n out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?

stienman said:

What's interesting about it is that it's actually the exact opposite of what your problem is.

Click to expand...

You do know that Siegel and Shuster only got the money and the "created by" thing because of public pressure, as they didn't really have much of a case, right.

You really think the judge couldn't have easily ruled differently?

their odd copyright laws

Click to expand...

Care to guess after who the first copyright law was named?
Added at: 20:17

Covar said:

@li3n out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?

Click to expand...

I buy stuff...

stienman said:

Of course I read the article. That court case has been going on for ages.

What's interesting about it is that it's actually the exact opposite of what your problem is.

The creator of the helmet has convinced the courts in the UK that his design is NOT art (ie, not a creation of his mind protected under their odd copyright laws) and is NOT protected by the copyrights that he assigned to Lucas Films as part of his contract.

He contended that it's an industrial, not creative, design.

In other words, the fact that you seemingly read the article, and are now ranting about copyright and author's rights, and comparing the two as though this guy dealt a blow to the creators vs corporate regime simply shows that you really have absolutely no clue what in the world you're talking about.

Your continued indignation is grossly misplaced.

Click to expand...

I did read that but not sure on the law on Art vs industrial. I know it wasn't directed at my, my post was response on "work for hire" which tend to get muddy.

As for the house, the designer/construction (usually the same company now) owns the design and can reuse it many time.

Now it is a CUSTOM home, that is a different ballgame. You can hire an Architect to design a home/office/building but you (depending on the contract) may own the design and the architect can't reuse that same design on another building (again, we are in muddy area)

I guess I'm missing your point then. You started this thread as though you thought the artists should have rights to their works even after they've legally assigned all economic and other rights to others, yet you are now reporting all the cases that show that the rights are transferrable, and the only times where the cases have gone to the creators is when the contract was inadequate to complete the transfer.

So... uh... yeah? I guess? If the person to whom you assign your rights deosn't use a good lawyer, then you might be able to sue them later for something that you originally gave them and were paid for already.

Those cases do nothing in the war between creative artists and the corporation complex - they are anomolies within the court system, and little to do with copyright as a whole.

All it shows is that

1) Sometimes artists make stupid mistakes giving up their rights to spectacular successes
2) Sometimes studios/corporations/publishers make stupid mistakes in their contracts
3) Sometimes even after an artist completely gives up their rights, they change their mind and decide that they deserve a piece of that sweet pie they sold the ingredients to long, long ago
4) Sometimes corporations take advantage of artists in completely legal, though morally reprehensible ways because they understand the legal system better than the artists

So.

Anything new?

bottom line- read the contract?

Chibibar said:

I did read that but not sure on the law on Art vs industrial. I know it wasn't directed at my, my post was response on "work for hire" which tend to get muddy.

Click to expand...

Well you have to understand that the OPs article discusses a specific case in the UK, and they have an interesting take on copyright - if the work is not of an artistic nature (ie, it's a functional design with little to no aesthetic) then it's not covered under copyright. It may be patentable - and in fact this little difference is one of the things that separates what can be patented and what can be copyrighted.

This is not true in the US, where copyright covers a whole lot more.

Lucas won the suit in the US - which is why you can't buy those helmets here. But he lost in the UK, which is why this guy is still able to sell them there.

This guy won in the UK by proving to the court's satisfaction that his design was not art, and thus, not protected by copyright, and thus could not and was not transferred to lucas film as part of their original contract.

Not quite Steinman, Industrial designs are covered by copyright - but only for 15 years extendable to 25 upon maintenance fees being paid. But yeah this doesn't affect work for hire or the rights of creators over the companies they work for. Lucas Film did own the copyright to Stormtrooper armour but it passed into Public Domain (in the UK) in 1992 at the earliest, 2002 at the latest.

mroosc1979 said:

Not quite Steinman, Industrial designs are covered by copyright - but only for 15 years extendable to 25 upon maintenance fees being paid. But yeah this doesn't affect work for hire or the rights of creators over the companies they work for. Lucas Film did own the copyright to Stormtrooper armour but it passed into Public Domain (in the UK) in 1992 at the earliest, 2002 at the latest.

Click to expand...

So. If it is Public Domain then anyone can make it and sold in UK without reprisal? (If I understand this correctly)

Yup - but you can only sell it to other people in the UK. This court case made a point of noting that since it's still under copyright in the US he's still liable for breach of copyright on the ones he sold there. Of course there may be other countries it's Public Domain in but right now the UK is the only country you can definitely buy (from someone other than Lucasfilm) or sell Stormtrooper costumes legally.

I do work for hire writing for the RPG industry. The contracts stipulate that I do not retain rights to the creative work that I do. However, I do get paid for my work, regardless of whether the project is ultimately a success or failure. When you freelance, that's usually the only game in town. Now, there have been projects where I do get royalties on the work, and that was also dictated in the contract I signed before I started working.

The bottom line is, when you do work for hire, there is no expectation that you'll retain the rights to what you do, and usually the contract will explicitly say who retains the intellectual property rights - for example, the 21,000 words I did for "Paths of Power" from 4 Winds Fantasy Gaming are considered their intellectual property. That was in the contract and I signed that knowingly.

stienman said:

I guess I'm missing your point then. You started this thread as though you thought the artists should have rights to their works even after they've legally assigned all economic and other rights to others, yet you are now reporting all the cases that show that the rights are transferrable, and the only times where the cases have gone to the creators is when the contract was inadequate to complete the transfer.

So... uh... yeah? I guess? If the person to whom you assign your rights deosn't use a good lawyer, then you might be able to sue them later for something that you originally gave them and were paid for already.

Those cases do nothing in the war between creative artists and the corporation complex - they are anomolies within the court system, and little to do with copyright as a whole.

All it shows is that

1) Sometimes artists make stupid mistakes giving up their rights to spectacular successes
2) Sometimes studios/corporations/publishers make stupid mistakes in their contracts
3) Sometimes even after an artist completely gives up their rights, they change their mind and decide that they deserve a piece of that sweet pie they sold the ingredients to long, long ago
4) Sometimes corporations take advantage of artists in completely legal, though morally reprehensible ways because they understand the legal system better than the artists

So.

Anything new?

Click to expand...

Dude, the 1st rule is that there's nothing new unless you're antediluvian (and thus long dead)...

But i do object about all the examples i gave being mistakes in contracts... especially since Bob Kane simply lied that he was under-aged at the time, and S&S got stuff because it was bad PR for DC to let them starve.

And i though that posting that author's rights link would make it clear i was for a more balanced approach to selling off copyright... like in Germany where they stopped the WH40k movie Damnatus because under german law you can never give up your copyright, or French law where if you sell a painting by a living artist you pay him a certain % (if the price is high enough)...

Either that or shut up about how creative people suffer without copyright... they suffer with it just fine...

@Li3n said:

i was for a more balanced approach to selling off copyright... like in Germany where ...you can never give up your copyright, or French law where if you sell a painting by a living artist you pay him a certain %

Either that or shut up about how creative people suffer without copyright... they suffer with it just fine...

Click to expand...

I think this is where you and I differ. Creative people in Germany are RESTRICTED. They do NOT have the freedom to fully sell their idea/concept/art. In other words, artists have LESS freedom there to do with their works according to their whims.

What is so sacred about an idea or a work of art that gives it special status such that you think it should never be fully sold - that the original creator should always retain some rights to it?

Keep in mind that in the current US system - which provides more freedom to the artist - the artist is still able to sign contracts that give them the same residual copyrights that they would naturally have in Germany or France.

So what is balanced about that? As far as I can tell it actually takes options away from artists. At best it protects new and stupid artists from themselves, but that shouldn't be the job of copyright, especially when it restricts artists who know what they're doing.

As far as creative people suffering with or without copyright - wat? Artists hold the copyright. Period. Until they choose to sell it. I don't get your objections. The nice thing about the US system is that you don't have to register your copyright (unlike many European countries) - you naturally own it once you create your work. You own it fully and completely. You can do with it as you please.

How, exactly, do artists suffer under the current copyright system? This baffle me. Are people stealing their copyright without them giving permission? The cases you remark on show either a flaw in the contract, or, as you say, public pressure. The artists involved gave their copyright up, then argued that they didn't really mean to do so, it just sorta happened. I guess? But the reality is that they freely sold their work, and they only cared about the copyright once it became financially advantageous to do so. They must have created hundreds of other works each, but I don't see stories about them trying to obtain rights back to work they legally sold years ago which are of no consequence today.

1. Sell one hundred things
2. Find the one person who was able to turn one of your things into a million dollar business
3. Tell them that you didn't really mean to sell them that thing, and that you want part of the money they made by turning your thing into a successful product
4. Profit!

I just don't get that mentality. The artists are trying to steal back something they sold. Something that wouldn't have been successful if they hadn't given it up to someone that knew how to make it successful. They don't go after the other hundred things they sold, so it's quite clear they are only in it for the profit - not because the art held a particular meaning or feeling for them. It was a thing they sold that someone else made a ton of money off, and they decided that they would cheat the buyer out of the original sale.

I'm all for reasonable copyright laws. But the whole point of copyright is to encourage artists to distribute their artwork to the benefit of the whole society. Without copyright artists wouldn't be able to profit from their work, and many people would choose a different living, others would only sell their work privately into collections which would never allow public viewing because they couldn't protect the works except by limiting exposure. Society would suffer, artistically, without copyright.

Going too far in the other direction would be just as damaging to society. In the US copyright extensions have gone too far in preventing works that are very old from passing into the public domain. We would not have the knowledge, technology, and artistic abilities that we have today without centuries of artists before us who we can print in textbooks and study openly in many places, without having to spend a fortune (ie, only rich kids would be able to attend art schools) because the art is still owned by someone who formed a company based on their ancestors art.

So yes, I agree that a balance needs to be maintained. But I disagree that the artist's rights to sell their work should be restricted.

Null said:

I do work for hire writing for the RPG industry. The contracts stipulate that I do not retain rights to the creative work that I do. However, I do get paid for my work, regardless of whether the project is ultimately a success or failure. When you freelance, that's usually the only game in town. Now, there have been projects where I do get royalties on the work, and that was also dictated in the contract I signed before I started working.

The bottom line is, when you do work for hire, there is no expectation that you'll retain the rights to what you do, and usually the contract will explicitly say who retains the intellectual property rights - for example, the 21,000 words I did for "Paths of Power" from 4 Winds Fantasy Gaming are considered their intellectual property. That was in the contract and I signed that knowingly.

Click to expand...

This is what I was thinking. Contracts CAN be customize and can change during negotiation prior to signing. I guess one of the options would be instead of getting paid via a fee, you may get royalties instead (percentage or whatever you call it) if you think it will be a success, but if it bombed then you get nothing.

It is a risk. I wrote some small program/script for my work and they incorporate into their software. It is not my code since I was paid for the work and contract states that anything I create while on their time is their property (that was years ago)

BTW, di you know that the original statute about copyright actually was about restricting monopolies on printing a book, help the authors out and to encourage public learning (not that perpetual copyright wasn't discussed too): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

stienman said:

I think this is where you and I differ. Creative people in Germany are RESTRICTED. They do NOT have the freedom to fully sell their idea/concept/art. In other words, artists have LESS freedom there to do with their works according to their whims.

What is so sacred about an idea or a work of art that gives it special status such that you think it should never be fully sold - that the original creator should always retain some rights to it?

Keep in mind that in the current US system - which provides more freedom to the artist - the artist is still able to sign contracts that give them the same residual copyrights that they would naturally have in Germany or France.

So what is balanced about that? As far as I can tell it actually takes options away from artists. At best it protects new and stupid artists from themselves, but that shouldn't be the job of copyright, especially when it restricts artists who know what they're doing.

As far as creative people suffering with or without copyright - wat? Artists hold the copyright. Period. Until they choose to sell it. I don't get your objections. The nice thing about the US system is that you don't have to register your copyright (unlike many European countries) - you naturally own it once you create your work. You own it fully and completely. You can do with it as you please.

Click to expand...

You have some very interesting ideas about freedom and restriction there... I take it you're for legalizing prostitution, right?

And they can sell the right to make copies just fine... they just can never not be recognized as the creator and some other stuff depending on the country in question.

stienman said:

What is so sacred about an idea or a work of art that gives it special status such that you think it should never be fully sold - that the original creator should always retain some rights to it?

Click to expand...

The same thing that makes it worth something even if it can be replicated by anyone ad infinitum (while if a physical good could be replicated like that it's value would plummet).

stienman said:

The nice thing about the US system is that you don't have to register your copyright (unlike many European countries)

Click to expand...

Pretty sure most european countries are part of teh Berne Convention, which as i recall also has the not having to register it clause...

stienman said:

How, exactly, do artists suffer under the current copyright system? This baffle me. Are people stealing their copyright without them giving permission? The cases you remark on show either a flaw in the contract, or, as you say, public pressure. The artists involved gave their copyright up, then argued that they didn't really mean to do so, it just sorta happened. I guess? But the reality is that they freely sold their work, and they only cared about the copyright once it became financially advantageous to do so.

Click to expand...

You're right, nothing forces them to do anything, they can always just starve to death... just like slaves were totally free to not do anything and be beaten to death...

It's not like the publishers don't have an advantage over you most of the time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry

See, if you want to test your logic you do need to take it to the logical extreme and see if it still works...

EDIT: Oh wait, you did know that: Something that wouldn't have been successful if they hadn't given it up to someone that knew how to make it successful.

I wonder, if there ever comes a day when you don't need major money to make a book known to the public would anyone sell tehir copyright anymore?

You are merely proving my point. Thanks.

Tinwhistler said:

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/guest-post-by-john-locke.html

Click to expand...

Good read. The internet age really level the playing field now.

I believe even Apple's iBooks allows self-publishing now. No ideas what the terms are, though.

--Patrick
EDIT: Yup.

stienman said:

You are merely proving my point. Thanks.

Click to expand...

No, i really want to know if you're for legal prostitution...because if you're not you're a hypocrite...

As for the rest, i can't really argue with your philosophy without turning the thread into a debate about morals, ethics and all that jazz, and those things have been argued about for centuries without someone coming to a conclusion that wasn't as subjective as the next...

Hell, we probably can't even agree what fairness is...

Tinwhistler said:

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/03/guest-post-by-john-locke.html

Click to expand...

Right, but it's just starting out... what i want to see is what happens in the next 50 years with it...

@Li3n said:

i can't really argue with your philosophy without turning the thread into a debate about morals

Click to expand...

I completely agree. It's at this point where we have to discuss whether certain rights are inalienable, similar to the right to life, the pursuit of happiness, and cheap cheeseburgers. Further we have to discuss what is good for society, and trying to balance the needs of the community against the needs of the artist. Lastly, we probably could not help but delve into the difference between a human and a corporation, and whether corporations can own creations.

So, yeah, I agree that it's non trivial. There's no good solution that will please everyone, and there will always be a tug of war between all the conflicting ideas - as there should be.

Copyright and law should be a living thing, adjusting to the needs and progress of society.

Even if I thought copyright, as expressed right now, is good, I could not possibly agree that it would be the best system for everyone, everywhere, throughout all time. It has to change with the times.

@Li3n said:

Right, but it's just starting out... what i want to see is what happens in the next 50 years with it...

Click to expand...

I think in 50 years (or when technology changes) John will STILL own his own work. Amazon is just a distribution center (virtual one in this case) and they get 65% of the price to house and distribute.

I think that is heck of a deal since ALL the work is on the Author. That is, writing, editing, format, and finalizing the work. There is no publisher to proof read or editor looking over. You do ALL the work from start to finish and send to Amazon, and they will host and sell it for you and keep 65% of the proceeds. The intellectual rights are all yours. 350,000 download at 99cent each. Amazon take home $227,500 and John takes home $122,500 and keeps all the rights.

The problem with older system that the publishing company may own the rights depending on how you sign up and you get some royalties (again I don't know the numbers on that) and you have to get selected, this method, Amazon and iBook, you can get publish quickly and on your terms.

The hardest part is, of course, getting the 350,000 downloads if you have no publicity, like, say a major publisher pushing you on their distributors.

Null said:

The hardest part is, of course, getting the 350,000 downloads if you have no publicity, like, say a major publisher pushing you on their distributors.

Click to expand...

true, but with word of mouth, facebook, twitter or viral marketing, a bunch of no-names, got recognition that way.

The old school, such technology wasn't available. In order to get publish you would have to go with major publisher who HAVE access to these people. Now, you have like millions of people on facebook, twitter, amazon, ebay etc etc, with the right self promotion, you can get discover that way. viral marketing is power DUE to current technologies.

Exactly. I don't think anyone would claim that grass-roots online/niche networking will necessarily do a better job than the traditional way, but they have allowed the regular joe without connections/money to close the marketing gap considerably at far less cost. That is a huge plus.

Tinwhistler said:

yup..the blog post really inspired me...when I finish my novel (100 pages to go for the final rewrite!), I intend on putting it on amazon rather than chasing for a traditional publisher for a couple of years.

Click to expand...

That's my plan!
Added at: 07:24

SpecialKO said:

Exactly. I don't think anyone would claim that grass-roots online/niche networking will necessarily do a better job than the traditional way, but they have allowed the regular joe without connections/money to close the marketing gap considerably at far less cost. That is a huge plus.

Click to expand...

At the same time publishers usually can act as a gauge to see how good or crappy your work is. But it is pretty ridiculous how hard it is to get them to sit down and read your book.

Chibibar said:

I think in 50 years (or when technology changes) John will STILL own his own work. Amazon is just a distribution center (virtual one in this case) and they get 65% of the price to house and distribute.

I think that is heck of a deal since ALL the work is on the Author. That is, writing, editing, format, and finalizing the work. There is no publisher to proof read or editor looking over. You do ALL the work from start to finish and send to Amazon, and they will host and sell it for you and keep 65% of the proceeds. The intellectual rights are all yours. 350,000 download at 99cent each. Amazon take home $227,500 and John takes home $122,500 and keeps all the rights.

Click to expand...

You can still hire an editor.

You can still self-publish and get physical books available on Amazon along with E-reader stuff.
Added at: 07:33

Mathias said:

At the same time publishers usually can act as a gauge to see how good or crappy your work is. But it is pretty ridiculous how hard it is to get them to sit down and read your book.

Click to expand...

They don't give a shit about you; they'll give a shit about your agent.
But then, your agent will want you to have been published.

And round and round it goes. I'd be reading some of the maybe good-to-great books people are putting out on there own, but there's so much without filter, and I personally can't stand Kindle and its ilk. I like a chunk of dead tree in my hand.

I've heard, and it's just hearsay so take it for what it is, that it's actually considered a black mark by book publishers to have self-published. Not sure why but I did hear it from a friend who is a published author...

I'd imagine because then they would question why you had to self publish. If I was a publisher I might consider the fact that an author wasn't picked up by another publisher for a reason, and that reason is probably something I wouldn't want to deal with.

Maybe. I should add, in no way am I against self-publishing. I say go for it and the system can go screw itself. Get your stuff out to as many people as possible.

Tinwhistler said:

And, on the other hand, Eragon started out as a self-published book.

Click to expand...

From Wikipedia:

In 2002, Eragon was published by Paolini International LLC, Paolini's parents' company

Click to expand...

Tinwhistler said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eragon

If you look up Paolini International LLC, you'll see that it's no Simon and Shuster. It's a self-publishing company. The boy did all of the typical self-publishing stuff--hawking the book himself at stores. The fact that his parents owned the biz, and the fact that they paid for his self-publishing really doesn't change anything: If he had different parents, and they paid for it, it'd amount to the same thing.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2003-11-12-paolini_x.htm

It wasn't until Carl Hiaasen's stepson got a copy of the book from the teenage author as he peddled it from site to site, and showed it to his dad, who in turn showed it to the mainstream publishing house Alfred A. Knopf that the book got any attention and traction in the market. It's a true self-publishing-to-mainstream story.

Click to expand...

Too bad it sucks.*

*ok, yeah, this is just my opinion, but I really didn't like it.

Tinwhistler said:

Yeah, me too. But then again, I've read literally hundreds of ebooks over the last few years, and damn few paper books. Ebooks are just too convenient. Amazon has recently surpassed hard-copy book sales with ebook sales, so I guess that's the way the market is trending. And that suits me just fine.

Click to expand...

I'm reading my first e-book right now on my iPod touch (Game of Thrones) and I gotta be honest. It's great. Super convenient, I can read whenever I have time. Love it. And this is coming from a guy who owns more books and comics book than I know what to do with, so when I say I'm a dead tree fan, I mean it.

Tinwhistler said:

And, on the other hand, Eragon started out as a self-published book.

Click to expand...

Like I said, just something a author friend told me, I don't think it should stop anyone from going for it, I'm sure in the end if you want to be published a company it has way more to do with the quality of your writing and your agent than anything else.

Tinwhistler said:

Yeah, me too. But then again, I've read literally hundreds of ebooks over the last few years, and damn few paper books. Ebooks are just too convenient. Amazon has recently surpassed hard-copy book sales with ebook sales, so I guess that's the way the market is trending. And that suits me just fine.

Click to expand...

I just can't see myself carting around one of those plastic things. If there was some way for them to make a device that operated like a book, with pages and such, but the text on those pages changed to whatever you wanted to be reading at the time, I could go for that. But on a Kindle or its ilk, it feels like I'm reading from a screen. And I do that 8 hours a day, 6 days a week, not including my free time such as on Halforums. I love the books I can keep in my hand--it's a break from the many screens in my life.

That, and also I don't like this whole DRM style of things where you don't actually own a copy of the book you buy and your Ereader can be shut down or have your books taken away, or whatever all that crap I've been hearing is about the Kindle. I do not like that in the slightest.

Not to mention as someone who has moved a few times I am damn tired of carting all these books around.

I read Game of Thrones on my Kindle, first book that size I read on it and it was wonderful (the book and the experience). It became especially awesome when I began using my android phone and iPad to read while I was out of the house, and the kindle at home. They way it synced up was just amazing.

Quotemander Prime said:

I just can't see myself carting around one of those plastic things. If there was some way for them to make a device that operated like a book, with pages and such, but the text on those pages changed to whatever you wanted to be reading at the time, I could go for that. But on a Kindle or its ilk, it feels like I'm reading from a screen. And I do that 8 hours a day, 6 days a week, not including my free time such as on Halforums. I love the books I can keep in my hand--it's a break from the many screens in my life.

That, and also I don't like this whole DRM style of things where you don't actually own a copy of the book you buy and your Ereader can be shut down or have your books taken away, or whatever all that crap I've been hearing is about the Kindle. I do not like that in the slightest.

Click to expand...

The Kindle, for all the DRM issues and such, really doesn't feel like you're looking at a computer screen. It's obviously not exactly the same as a book but the simple display really makes it about as close to a magic, self writing scroll as is technologically possible. No back lighting, either, which cuts down on eye strain and such.

I have to say, I haven't had any eye strain on my ipod touch, and I love the touch features (from the wonderful page flips to the nice page count at the bottom that you can move) in the ebooks. It's surprising nice experience. I don't know if the screen on the iPad would cause more eyestrain than the iPod Touch but I assuming they are very similar, I would choose the iPad over the Kindle (which is nice as well, just a preference thing. If the kindle got touch features... that might change the game. Right now I find it's interface very clunky.).

Chibibar said:

I think in 50 years (or when technology changes) John will STILL own his own work. Amazon is just a distribution center (virtual one in this case) and they get 65% of the price to house and distribute.

Click to expand...

I'm actually pretty sure either you sell your copyright or you still own it until you do in the old system too...

My point was that it's an interesting experiment but the question is if it will last or not...

stienman said:

Even if I thought copyright, as expressed right now, is good, I could not possibly agree that it would be the best system for everyone, everywhere, throughout all time. It has to change with the times.

Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, yeah... prostitution, yay or nay already.

Norris said:

The Kindle, for all the DRM issues and such, really doesn't feel like you're looking at a computer screen. It's obviously not exactly the same as a book but the simple display really makes it about as close to a magic, self writing scroll as is technologically possible. No back lighting, either, which cuts down on eye strain and such.

Click to expand...

It's a bloody Etch-a-sketch... they just used the Empower Spell feat on it...

Espy said:

I would choose the iPad over the Kindle.

Click to expand...

I really, really, really want to dismiss the iPad as a toy computer unnecessary to my existence...but then our office started giving presentations and doing surveys on them, and they're soooo shiny and cool!

SpecialKO said:

I really, really, really want to dismiss the iPad as a toy computer unnecessary to my existence...but then our office started giving presentations and doing surveys on them, and they're soooo shiny and cool!

Click to expand...

I got one cause my parents wanted one and wanted free tech support so they bought me a shiny iPad2 64GB (they wanted the best) I am loving it.

We own literally over 1000 DVDs and over 1200 books/comics (mainly Manga and probably every single type of fairy tales from all over the world) top that off my wife got all the free ebook (and read a lot of them) and bought a few.

eBook does have its charm.

PatrThom said:

Questions? Talk to Edison about how many of his patents he was actually personally responsible for.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

Oh, dear. I don't know how to say this... but Edison died.

Green_Lantern said:

Oh, dear. I don't know how to say this... but Edison died.

Click to expand...

His last breath is at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, MI. It's in a bottle. I'm sure we can use some black magic to resurrect him using that.

The thought occurred to me that, when I go into a book store, I find a lot of garbage and very little I want to read. Take fantasy for example. That's a limitless genre that everyone wants to do the same thing in. Too much of it is poorly-written or desperately emulating Tolken (and I really didn't care for LOTR as a book). It's difficult for me to get into medieval fantasy anymore unless it's really impressive like Song of Ice and Fire.

Now I see it's possible that there could be many books I'd actually enjoy reading that simply aren't the kind of thing picked up by major booksellers. Maybe there are such things on ebooks, and as much as I'd rather have a paper book in my hands, I'd even more prefer to have something I enjoy reading.

So I see the merit here and I'll have to look into what might be out there for me to read.

Quotemander Prime said:

The thought occurred to me that, when I go into a book store, I find a lot of garbage and very little I want to read. Take fantasy for example. That's a limitless genre that everyone wants to do the same thing in. Too much of it is poorly-written or desperately emulating Tolken (and I really didn't care for LOTR as a book). It's difficult for me to get into medieval fantasy anymore unless it's really impressive like Song of Ice and Fire.

Now I see it's possible that there could be many books I'd actually enjoy reading that simply aren't the kind of thing picked up by major booksellers. Maybe there are such things on ebooks, and as much as I'd rather have a paper book in my hands, I'd even more prefer to have something I enjoy reading.

So I see the merit here and I'll have to look into what might be out there for me to read.

Click to expand...

Even at half-price books, a lot of them are still around 3-4$ each! (you could get a $1 bin if you are lucky)

I notice that many eBooks can start at 99 cent.

Chibibar said:

Even at half-price books, a lot of them are still around 3-4$ each! (you could get a $1 bin if you are lucky)

Click to expand...

I didn't think digital books had bins :/.

I don't like that Nook books tend to be at least as expensive (I've seen a few cases where MORE expensive) than the physical book. I'm saving a tree here, not to mention manufacturing, shipping and inventory costs. I should get a discount more than $0.50, dangit.

@Li3n said:

Yeah, yeah, yeah... prostitution, yay or nay already.

Click to expand...

Seriously, still nothing?

stienman, where art thou?

Quotemander Prime said:

I didn't think digital books had bins :/.

Click to expand...

heh. They don't I am just saying that buying actual books cost more (in some cases) than digital version.

But I notice that Digital textbook for college is about the same price (slighly cheaper but not THAT much cheaper we are looking around 5-10$ difference)