This is an extremely bad precedent and I hope the UK publishers will say no--though I understand the pressure to say yes here. If successful, it would put a single distribution/retailer in charge of publishing since the books dont even have to be out of print, just out of stock to allow the distributor/retailer to print their own and distribute them as if they were the publishers stock at the same price. If quality is poor, the publisher is blamed, not the distributor, thus devaluing the publishers work and brand and their ability to set price is damaged as well as their reputation. The distributor/retailer would also need access to print files which it currently does not get, making it the de facto publisher without having to make any investment in the production of those files or pay for the acquisition of the intellectual property license. The alternative for the publisher is to continue to print books on speculation and waste money on print, bindery, warehousing and shipping just to make sure they have copies in stock to avoid the activation of the printing clause and maintain control of the quality and price of their own product. This is already driving publishers into bankruptcy or into top 10 mindset where they wont invest in writers whose books dont sell in the New York Times Bestseller List. These clauses are a disaster for writers if publishers cave in to them. They eliminate even the illusion of an open market or choice for the writer and put a single distributor/retailer in control of content, production, marketing, distribution, and sales, as well as price-setting and the perception of value.
Posted on: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 20:31:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015