Publishing

Amazon backstabs e-book “buyers”

This entry was posted in Publishing and tagged Amazon ebooks publishing on by

If you pay for an e-book that has DRM (digital rights management) on it, you aren’t really buying it, no matter what the vendor says. At best, it’s a long-term lease which can be revoked at any time. Amazon has made this plain by removing the ability to download permanent copies of any and all e-books you may have “bought.” As of February 25, 2025, you will no longer be able to download your “purchases” to a device that isn’t directly under Amazon’s control.

If you care about keeping what you “own,” you need to download all your “purchases” before then. You have to do it one book at a time, which can get tedious if you’ve “bought” a lot of books.
(more…)

A look back at the Valancourt case

This entry was posted in Publishing and tagged books copyright law publishing on by

This post presents the finish of a story that I first blogged about in 2018. Court cases can take a long time to reach a resolution, and I missed it when the decision came out last year. Before the resolution of Valancourt Books’ lawsuit, the US copyright office demanded a free copy of every book published in the US. It was uneven in pressing its demands; for reasons I don’t know, it came down hard on Valancourt, a small-run publisher. The requirement was especially burdensome for such publishers; it costs a bigger part of your assets to send out an unpaid copy when you print a hundred copies or do print-on-demand than when you print a hundred thousand. Regardless of the number, it was a clear-cut violation of the Fifth Amendment, which says the government can’t take private property for public use without paying “just compensation.”

In 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed with this reasoning and said the requirement for free copies was unconstitutional.
(more…)

Hachette v. Internet Archive

This entry was posted in Commentary Publishing and tagged books copyright law libraries preservation on by

The legal battle over the Internet Archive’s Open Library has drawn passionate responses from people involved in the creation, publication, and distribution of books. As I’m writing this, the court of the Southern District of New York has ruled that putting unauthorized digitized versions of copyrighted books on the open Internet is a violation of copyright, and the Internet Archive is appealing the decision.

Publishers Hachette, Penguin Random House, Wiley, and HarperCollins argued that distributing books through the Open Library violated their copyrights. The Internet Archive has declared its appeal is “a necessary fight if we want library collections to survive in the digital age.” SFWA has stated that the Open Library “is not library lending, but direct infringement of authors’ copyrights.” The debate pits the rights of authors and publishers against the aims of preservation.
(more…)

Smashwords adding Kobo Plus

This entry was posted in Publishing Writing as business and tagged DRM kobo smashwords on by

The ebook publishing site Smashwords is adding Kobo Plus to its options for self-publishing authors. Smashwords already has Kobo as one of its publishing channels. The difference is that regular Kobo lets people buy books individually, while Kobo Plus is a subscription service letting users view as many books as they want.

Smashwords’ emailed notice says:
(more…)

More bowdlerization — this time, in educational materials

This entry was posted in Publishing and tagged bowdlerization education publishing on by

The sanitized version of Roald Dahl’s books removed a reference to black tractors, apparently because it was deemed racially offensive. That’s problematic, but wiping relevant racial information out of factual material is much worse. An educational pamphlet produced by Studies Weekly was revised to omit any reference to racial issues in a capsule discussion of Rosa Parks.

The revised text says: “Rosa Parks showed courage. One day, she rode the bus. She was told to move to a different seat. She did not. She did what she believed was right.” There’s no mention of why she was told to move. A child reading that today might think she had sat in a seat reserved for handicapped passengers.
(more…)