One simple reason I've ignored the paid reviews scandal

Reputation is an idle and most false imposition; oft got without merit, and lost without deserving.

(Othello, Act II, Scene 3)

Shakespeare could make an entire tragedy out of what happens when you're so focused on your reputation that you lose sight of what's really important. It seems that at least some authors may have fallen for the same trap, buying their way to a good name without earning it.

If you've been living in a cave for the past couple of weeks you may not know what I'm talking about. I'll explain.

Could you do me a favor?

I'm trying to get a sense for new topics that you'd like to see covered and other related things. SurveyMonkey is my friend. Could you go here and give me some info? I'd be much obliged... I don't have anything free to give in part because I don't know what would be enticing!

http://svy.mk/Qy8V7o

Judgment in the Apple e-books settlement: DOJ 1, Publishers 0

On September 5, 2012, Judge Denise Cote entered an order approving the settlement between the DOJ and 3 of the 5 publishers in the Apple e-books litigation: Hachette, Simon & Schuster, and HarperCollins. And on every count, it was a clear win for the DOJ. Maybe not just for today.

Bob Kohn submits brief #2 in Apple e-books litigation. It's comical

Literally. Having been limited to 5 pages by the Court, he prepared a 5-page comic that summarizes his position frankly better than any text could have. I still don't know that I agree with his assessment, but it's worth a read.

EDIT: Apparently the link is 403 so I'll link to the American Bar Association Journal story on this and you can go from there.


LINKS:
Link to the brief:
http://www.abajournal.com/files/AppleAmicusBrief.pdf
Link to ABA Journal:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/faced_with_a_five-page_limit_lawyer_files_cartoon_amicus_brief_with_proper_/Thanks

Avoiding option clauses and cross-collateralization by using LLCs

A short post today, but hopefully a helpful one.

I've recently seen people complaining of two standard problems with traditional publishing contracts:

• Option clauses: where publishers require you to give them an option on your next book.
• Cross-collateralization: where publishers won't pay you royalties on your first book until you've paid back the advance on your second.

It seems to me that there's a very easy way around each of these problems.

Why tied selling rules give the DOJ a knotty problem in the Apple e-books litigation

Do you have to sell me your house just because I asked? If you think the answer is yes, you may have something in common with a problem the Department of Justice will have in the Apple e-books litigation.

Although price-fixing gets all the headlines, another antitrust issue called "tied selling" is pretty important too. Tied selling occurs when you link two items together into a single transaction. There's nothing wrong with that in principle, but intellectual property raises all sorts of complicated issues because of the exclusive rights of an owner.

Why is it okay for you to set your own price but not for Apple or a publisher?

Setting your own price for your books seems like the most logical thing in the world. The $0.99 and $2.99 book price points are widely-used by authors to make money, and the free promotion days are like gold. But the Department of Justice has sued Apple and the e-book publishers for making this possible.

Why are these companies being charged with a criminal offence for doing something that thousands of authors now do every day?