Author Topic: Amazon Signs Up Authors, Writing Publishers Out of Deal (Read 94,562 times)

IainB · « **Reply #100 on:** December 09, 2011, 04:58 PM »

@40hz: That comment of mine was deliberately and completely tongue-in-cheek.
I blamed you and @Carol Haynes as I thought you were both completely undeserving of any blame and could appreciate the joke.
Yes, "red whale" was my invention. It's a very large red herring.
To criticise someone else for spelling errors whilst at the same same time making a spelling error oneself seemed an amusing thing to do - a joke about oneself.
I have to admit fabricating the bit about @superboyac and his making an OP about Angelina Jolie, for the purposes of making a joke. AJ is to me a typical representative of the great deal of wrong that is done to our daughters - to create/manipulate women in this world to conform to a stylised male ideal sex object.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #101 on:** December 09, 2011, 05:13 PM »

Quote from: IainB on December 09, 2011, 04:58 PM

great deal of wrong that is done to our daughters - to create/manipulate women in this world to conform to a stylised male ideal sex object.

Now there is a red herring if ever there was one. Write a book about it and self publish on Amazon immediately to get back on track.

For myself if someone feels they have the strength (or ability) to get me conforming to a "stylised male ideal sex object" they are welcome to try. It would probably need a skilled surgeon though! Save an awful lot of dieting and gym time!

40hz · « **Reply #102 on:** December 09, 2011, 05:59 PM »

Quote from: IainB on December 09, 2011, 04:58 PM

@40hz:[/b] That comment of mine was deliberately and completely tongue-in-cheek.
*
*
*

@IanB -

a) So was my reply. I though I was being deliberately over the top. Sorry if it didn't come across that way.

b) re: Red Whale - I like it. I may use it on occasion if you don't mind. Attribution will, of course, be made.

c) re: Angelina Jolie - on the contrary, speaking to other women, I've discovered many of them quite frankly admire her attitude, good works, personal appearance, unapologetic sensuality, and general "Take me as I am or sod off" approach to life. And, based on some very candid interviews I've read, she comes across as being more the product of her own conscious making than a woman manipulated. Or at least she is now that she's gained a little more maturity.

FWIW, I have no problem with any woman who wants to play the siren, the earth-mother, or the virginal queen for that matter. Women are humans, just like their male counterparts. And like all humans, they too choose which roles to play as a part of living in human society. Far be it from me to impose my personal notions of sensuality - or propriety - upon them. And far be it from me to also make excuses or apologies for whatever choices they make. I have far too much respect for women, as a whole, to do that.

superboyac · « **Reply #103 on:** December 09, 2011, 08:32 PM »

Quote from: IainB on December 09, 2011, 04:58 PM

@40hz: That comment of mine was deliberately and completely tongue-in-cheek.
I blamed you and @Carol Haynes as I thought you were both completely undeserving of any blame and could appreciate the joke.
Yes, "red whale" was my invention. It's a very large red herring.
To criticise someone else for spelling errors whilst at the same same time making a spelling error oneself seemed an amusing thing to do - a joke about oneself.
I have to admit fabricating the bit about @superboyac and his making an OP about Angelina Jolie, for the purposes of making a joke. AJ is to me a typical representative of the great deal of wrong that is done to our daughters - to create/manipulate women in this world to conform to a stylised male ideal sex object.

Wuh!...huh??
Why am I being used as a fictional character??!! What has happened to me?

superboyac · « **Reply #104 on:** December 09, 2011, 08:37 PM »

Oh...I see what happened. I suppose I would say something like that...BUT I DIDN'T!! just to be clear.

I have no problem with jolie. What has she ever done that's even controversial? I'm not aware of anything, but I don't follow here closely, maybe I missed something. I know she's with Pitt, they adopt a bunch of kids from Africa or something. What is the criticism? That she's too skinny? Too hot? ha! Whatever, i don't really care.

40hz · « **Reply #105 on:** December 09, 2011, 10:15 PM »

@SB - not caring (in this context) is the wisest strategy.

A female friend of mine had a good take on most celebrity 'news.' She said she found anybody's sex life (other than her own) to be, quite frankly, boring.

How true!

IainB · « **Reply #106 on:** December 26, 2011, 12:16 AM »

Well, the ripples from the disruptive technology of e-books would seem to be making veritable waves that we can now all see.
Amazon, doubtless, is jockeying for pole position here.
The Looming Library Lending Battle

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

smitty777 writes
"The NY Times is running a piece on the tug of war between publishers and libraries for e-book lending. With the In one corner are the publishers, who claim that unlimited lending of e-books 'without friction is not a sustainable business model for us.' For example, Harper Collins claims in this corporate statement that unlimited lending would lead to a decrease in royalties for both the publisher and the writers. The NTY author further states that 'To keep their overall revenue from taking a hit from lost sales to individuals, publishers need to reintroduce more inconvenience for the borrower or raise the price for the library purchaser.' Their current solution is to limit the number of readings to 26 before a book license must be renewed. In the other corner are the libraries, who are happy that e-books are luring people back to libraries, bringing with them desperately needed additional funding. With e-book sales going extremely well this year and the introduction of more capable e-readers, this debate is likely to get worse before it gets better. The Guardian also has an interesting related piece on the pricing practices of the Big Six publishers."

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #107 on:** December 26, 2011, 12:28 AM »

A simple and fair library lending model would be the publishers provide the books for the standard eBook price and in the traditional way the library only gets the copies they buy - that means that is the maximum they can lend at any one time. To account for the fact that books never need to be replaced they could charge a subscription of a few cents per loan. That cost could be passed on to the borrower.

To maintain the traditional interlibrary loan system books could be lent temporarily to other libraries on a similar basis but put in a delay as there is now to add 'friction' to the system.

IainB · « **Reply #108 on:** January 07, 2012, 01:00 PM »

Quote from: Carol Haynes on December 26, 2011, 12:28 AM

A simple and fair library lending model would be the publishers provide the books for the standard eBook price and in the traditional way the library only gets the copies they buy - that means that is the maximum they can lend at any one time. To account for the fact that books never need to be replaced they could charge a subscription of a few cents per loan. That cost could be passed on to the borrower.

To maintain the traditional interlibrary loan system books could be lent temporarily to other libraries on a similar basis but put in a delay as there is now to add 'friction' to the system.

I wonder whether this is likely to happen?
Looks like the "libraries", in London areas at least, are being "transformed": The Demise of the Public Library

I wonder if this is true?

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #109 on:** January 07, 2012, 01:16 PM »

Pretty much I fear, the same is happening in North Yorkshire in response to government demands for cutbacks (a pretext I am sure).

I have to say I am guilty of not using the library (mainly because it is a 16 mile round trip and the local library is very small) but it doesn't alter the fact that the market town where it is located is nowhere near any other town where there is likely to be a library and that it is used for more things than just borrowing the odd Mills and Boon!

One of the things I think should happen is that collections should be handed over (preferably with the buildings) to local community trusts. That way local authorities lose the cost and local communities retain their library. What most councils fail to recognise is that libraries are bought and paid for by local people - it is not their right to destroy these faclilities without any genuine consultation.

IainB · « **Reply #110 on:** January 09, 2012, 02:48 AM »

@Carol Haynes: As a "pretext" for what, exactly? I don't quite understand. Do you mean to say the pretext is for the Libraries Transformation Project? (Or perhaps a more accurately renamed Libraries Rationalisation Project.)

Is that project defined somewhere as being the implementation of a stated government national policy for the rationalisation/consolidation of libraries or for cultural "transformation" by that means?
If several/all councils are doing it, then it sure looks like it could be a co-ordinated strategy - i.e., not just/only a cost-saving tactic by each locality.
Are you able to suppose as to why there might be a concealment of this by euphemistically calling it "a cost-saving tactic"?

Messing around with libraries would arguably be unlikely to usefully "transform" libraries per se, but it probably would be likely to transform the culture of those localities where the libraries have been removed.
That would be because it would directly change (reduce?) the people's right and ease of access to so many things previously taken for granted and as funded (your point) by the people in those communities - e.g., including media such as CDs, DVDs, microfiche, books/literature, magazines, informational pamphlets - all containing information and knowledge and even related to the co-ordination of local cultural events.

These would be things that otherwise normally might all have been accessed/distributed through the local library facility. And what of the travelling libraries that I recall being so useful in outlying small villages in the UK?
It will leave a vacuum.

Are you aware of there being any stated or mooted intention to fill the vacuum caused by the closing-down of local libraries? e.g., (say) the institution of local "cultural reading rooms" funded by local religious groups and/or by local employers/corporations or by the EU Commission on Libraries (if such a thing exists)?
That could be interesting, and certainly potentially transformational for the local culture(s). Maybe that is the long-term intent? Cultural re-engineering?

In any event, if you implement the project at a local level in each and every council's domain, then wouldn't that directly imply a potential nation-wide cultural transformation?
So, if the project was being progressively applied across all localities, then it brings us back to the question I asked above:

Quote

Is that project defined somewhere as being the implementation of a stated government national policy for the rationalisation/consolidation of libraries or for cultural "transformation"?

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #111 on:** January 09, 2012, 08:50 AM »

My personal feeling is that libraries are a public service that is paid for by and largely wanted by the public - even those who don't use it that often see the usefulness and need for a public library system.

Consolidating library services in a single or a couple of locations is a bit like the consolidation of medical services that means you have all the services concentrated in one location where the majority don't have realistic access. Currently I have to drive 25 miles to my nearest hospital - but if local health managers get their way that hospital will close and health care will be consolidated in a town involving over 100 miles round trip - doesn't do much for the chances of heart attack victims in my area - plus we only have on ambulance in the vicinity and it will likely take the whole day to deal with one incident leaving the largest medical practice area in the country uncovered!

I don't think there is a national coordinated approach to closing libraries but there is a demand from central governments to reduce the cost of local government. My local district council are currently battling to reduce their budget by 33% because of pressure from national government, and the national park I live in has had its budget cut by over 25%.

Unfortunately the only areas of budget they can cut are the non-statutory ones and generally that seems to mean non-statutory education facilities such as libraries, museums and out of school classes, public sports facilities and care for the disabled, sick and elderly that goes beyond the minimum statutory requirement.

Libraries are simply seen as a soft target.

My argument is that if the local library is being closed without the consent of the people who paid for it, and currently there doesn't seem to be any way locals can persuade their councils to reconsider, they should at least have the right to take it over rather than allowing the whole lot to be chucked on a bonfire (which is what I suspect happens now) and the building being sold to the highest bidder.

IainB · « **Reply #112 on:** January 09, 2012, 10:58 AM »

@Carol Haynes: Blimey. That all doesn't sound too good to me.
So it sounds as though - from what you said - that it is simple cost-reduction or cost-containment that is driving things, and, yes, the provision of library services would be viewed as a non-essential service. But then other services - such as healthcare, for example - are being moved away too.

So, the provision of non-statutory healthcare and non-essential services are being progressively rationalised and centralised to points in or near relatively high-density population centres.
That is probably likely to encourage a human migration out of the small towns/villages to the nearest city. They could become ghost towns/villages over time.

I think your reasoning to put the residual library facilities back into local hands sounds good, but I suspect that it's financially not an option.
So it's sell the property and throw the books away.
Giving the books to 2nd hand bookstores could seem like a good idea. Is there any proof that all the books are chucked on a bonfire like that? What a sad reflection on a country's culture if that happens.
Have any communities succeeded in getting organised and managing to take on the local authority and retain their libraries in some shape or form?

IainB · « **Reply #113 on:** January 30, 2012, 10:29 AM »

Speaking of Elsevier (which we were): 1000 scientists and counting boycott Elsevier journal publishing

IainB · « **Reply #114 on:** February 08, 2012, 10:25 AM »

This is kinda relevant (I think) and rather interesting - if not hopeful: Temple U. Project Ditches Textbooks for Homemade Digital Alternatives

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #115 on:** February 11, 2012, 11:58 AM »

Quote from: IainB on January 09, 2012, 10:58 AM

I think your reasoning to put the residual library facilities back into local hands sounds good, but I suspect that it's financially not an option.
So it's sell the property and throw the books away.

In the case of our local library it housed in a building owned by the town council - so giving the library to the town would mean it could stay where it is. We have a right wing local authority and I suspect there is ideology in the decisions being made as well as trying to find a financial cut.

Was visiting a client yesterday who had to go and have an X-Ray - because of cutbacks in the nearest hospital (probably about 35 miles away) he had to drive 60 miles to the next nearest hospital (so a 120 mile round trip to check for an X-Ray). There is also no public transport to get you to the hospital so if you have an illness that means you can't drive you are really stuffed without someone being prepared to drive 120 miles and sit around for hours!

IainB · « **Reply #116 on:** February 11, 2012, 02:34 PM »

Quote from: Carol Haynes on February 11, 2012, 11:58 AM

In the case of our local library it housed in a building owned by the town council - so giving the library to the town would mean it could stay where it is. We have a right wing local authority and I suspect there is ideology in the decisions being made as well as trying to find a financial cut.

Was visiting a client yesterday who had to go and have an X-Ray - because of cutbacks in the nearest hospital (probably about 35 miles away) he had to drive 60 miles to the next nearest hospital (so a 120 mile round trip to check for an X-Ray). There is also no public transport to get you to the hospital so if you have an illness that means you can't drive you are really stuffed without someone being prepared to drive 120 miles and sit around for hours!

From what you write, I don't see what the ideology might be. Can you elucidate?
It (the ideology) doesn't make sense to me, as it stands, unless it is deliberate, in order to force people to move to high density population centres as per my quote:

Quote from: IainB on January 09, 2012, 10:58 AM

So, the provision of non-statutory healthcare and non-essential services are being progressively rationalised and centralised to points in or near relatively high-density population centres.
That is probably likely to encourage a human migration out of the small towns/villages to the nearest city. They could become ghost towns/villages over time.

What you say about your client's X-ray travel would seem to support that - i.e., it could well be deliberate.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #117 on:** February 11, 2012, 04:10 PM »

Quote from: IainB on February 11, 2012, 02:34 PM

From what you write, I don't see what the ideology might be. Can you elucidate?

Simply the removal of public financed services.

WRT to health care there is a move by the UK 'government' to ditch the NHS (or at least large parts of it) and introduce private health care providers. Their ultimate (if unstated) aim appears to be an American style health insurance system. God help us!

kyrathaba · « **Reply #118 on:** February 11, 2012, 04:50 PM »

Emphasis added:

Quote

Their ultimate (if unstated) aim appears to be an American style health insurance system. God help us!

You got that right! Our system is atrocious!

kyrathaba · « **Reply #119 on:** February 28, 2012, 01:11 PM »

Regarding Amazon Kindle, I looked briefly at Kindle Writer software, but finally got over my laziness and just figured out how to author the requisite .opf and .ncx files. If anyone needs a template for starting your own Kindle book, you can PM me.

40hz · « **Reply #120 on:** February 28, 2012, 02:03 PM »

Quote from: IainB on February 11, 2012, 02:34 PM

It (the ideology) doesn't make sense to me, as it stands, unless it is deliberate, in order to force people to move to high density population centres as per my quote:
Quote from: IainB on January 09, 2012, 10:58 AM
So, the provision of non-statutory healthcare and non-essential services are being progressively rationalised and centralised to points in or near relatively high-density population centres.
That is probably likely to encourage a human migration out of the small towns/villages to the nearest city. They could become ghost towns/villages over time.
What you say about your client's X-ray travel would seem to support that - i.e., it could well be deliberate.

Robin Hood and every other outlaw learned the advantages of having a large forest nearby. People in cities are easy to deal with. People running around the countryside much less so. So why make it any easier for those who are out in the sticks to remain there? It's inefficient for the administration of public services. And we all know this lot is up to no good - if not today, then certainly tomorrow. Anti-social buggers!

During the Viet Nam war, the South Vietnamese government and the US military adopted a policy of conducting "pacification actions" (which mostly meant destroying "suspect VC-friendly" villages and rural farms) with the overall goal of forcing the rural population to migrate into urban areas where they could be more easily monitored and controlled. (Not tinfoil hat btw. This has been verified by official documents that were obtained back when the FOIA was still taken seriously.)

So yes... There may be some vague governmental notion (in the absence of an actual long-term plan) that it's generally not a good idea to encourage people to remain living in less densely populated areas.

Besides, if things keep going the way they are in so much of the western world, that empty countryside is going to be needed very shortly.

For detention centers.

IainB · « **Reply #121 on:** April 07, 2012, 12:40 AM »

Quote from: IainB on January 30, 2012, 10:29 AM

Speaking of Elsevier (which we were): 1000 scientists and counting boycott Elsevier journal publishing

Wow. It's apparently now up to 8,800 scholars and scientists boycotting Elsevier - and counting: An Open Letter to Academic Publishers About Open Access

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #122 on:** April 07, 2012, 11:32 AM »

There is a move in the UK to make all scientific research papers free when there has been any public funding involvement. To allow journals to cover their costs and make it worth their while printing stuff there will be a six month 'publication only' window where free access is not automatic but after six months all research paper must be made free to download.

Obviously most of the journals aren't happy as they make money charging for per article access and corporate subscriptions.

Rip off merchants like Elsevier are even more unhappy because it will put them out of business - and quite right too. They do nothing at all for public or scientific interest and just make money by charging for access to articles that should be free anyway.

I know I saw an article on this the BBC but can't find it. There is this article though in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/16/academic-publishers-enemies-science

Another couple of articles I have found:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/michael-eisen-open-science/
http://www.newsday.com/opinion/make-tax-funded-scientific-research-public-1.3555902

(though how useful they are I don't know)

http://www.nature.com/news/elsevier-boycott-gathers-pace-1.10010

Renegade · « **Reply #123 on:** April 07, 2012, 12:11 PM »

That boycott there sounds like a very good thing.

Resisting temptation to rant about academia... working very hard...

Ok.

Coming up with a system to publish scientific papers really isn't that hard. It could even easily be done in real time. Any farting around on the issue is simply due to a lack of imagination. The ONLY problem would be user identification and verification, and even that's not all that difficult to solve.

Actually, I'm getting a few ideas that would be pretty darn wild to implement... Hmmm...

mouser · « **Reply #124 on:** April 07, 2012, 12:57 PM »

Amen! The scientific journal scam has to end -- these scientific articles, funded in good part by public dollars, need to be free.