Comments on: How Not to Negotiate for Digital Rights

By: Platform Wars Come to the Book Business - BLOGOS

Platform Wars Come to the Book Business - BLOGOS — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:15:05 +0000

[...] How Not to Negotiate for Digital Rights (scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org) [...]

By: The Infallible Editor | Ditchwalk

The Infallible Editor | Ditchwalk — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:15:14 +0000

[...] after reading Mr. Galassi’s editorial I happened across a post by Joe Esposito, entitled How Not to Negotiate for Digital Rights, which chastised Mr. Galassi not for his attempt to appropriate authorship or legal rights from Mr. [...]

By: Highlights from This Week’s Comments in the Kitchen « The Scholarly Kitchen

Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:35:03 +0000

[...] the sort of thing that happened a number of times in the financial area. – Sammy Finkelman I’ll buy that some books get a lot of editing and channel support, but it’s a farce to claim that even the majority of the 400,000 titles published last year got [...]

By: 米国のE-Book論争：(2) 紛争回避への模索 : EBook2.0 Forum

米国のE-Book論争：(2) 紛争回避への模索 : EBook2.0 Forum — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:14:57 +0000

[...] エスポジト氏は「デジタル化権交渉を避ける方法」と題する小論で、まずギャラッシ氏への敬意を忘れていない。ラトガース大学出版で駆け出し編集者だった頃、同氏が『パブリシャーズ・ウィークリー』誌に寄せたエッセイ「煽動的行為としての出版」を読んで感激し、出版人として進むべき道について助言を請うたエピソードも紹介している。出版者はビジネスがどうであれ、出版する価値のあるものは何としてでも出版すべきだ、という趣旨だった由。エスポジト氏はその後、1990年代前半に Encyclopaedia BritannicaのCD-ROM版およびオンライン版を指揮し、出版社でのデジタル化プロジェクトの現場を経験した。 [...]

By: 米国のE-Book論争： (1)「道義」的問題 : EBook2.0 Forum

米国のE-Book論争： (1)「道義」的問題 : EBook2.0 Forum — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:19:54 +0000

[...] さすが詩人にしてNYの有名雑誌の編集長を歴任した出版界の大物だけのことはある。こうまで言われると、参りました、と降参するほかない。少なくとも、著者からゴーストライター、編集者、清書屋まで、様々な立場で出版に関わったことがある筆者は。スタイロンも一時マグロウヒル社で編集者をしていた経験がある。著者と編集者の関係は近くて遠い。もちろん、ルーミス氏を知る昔気質の出版人ギャラッシ氏の嘆きに対して、共感する人ばかりではない。このエッセイはTwitterやブログで轟々たる反響を巻き起こした。筆者もまだ十分にフォローしていないが、大学図書館人の団体 Society of Scholarly Publishing (SSP) のブログ、the scholarly kitchen にジョセフ・エスポジト氏 (Joseph Esposito)が書いた反論は、ギャラッシ氏に対する敬愛の念に溢れながらも、デジタル時代の価値創造における出版者の新しい役割を述べている点で評価も高く、コメントもハイレベルなので紹介してみたい。（続く） [...]

By: Brian O'Leary

Brian O'Leary — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:53:21 +0000

As Esposito points out, it was Galassi’s choice to make this a moral argument. I agree with Espsoito’s take that it is a mistake to have done so.

If you own the rights, there is legal recourse. If you don’t own the rights, and you feel you “should”, you can try to make a moral argument.

I’ll buy that some books get a lot of editing and channel support, but it’s a farce to claim that even the majority of the 400,000 titles published last year got kid-glove treatment. The ones that didn’t get support are not allowed to take back their rights. The same standards should apply to publishers.

By: Mike Coffey

Mike Coffey — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:06:09 +0000

Joe Clark writes: “Editing very much is less different and important than writing” and claims writers can get by just fine without an editor.

Really, what is not obvious here? Perhaps a remora is needed.

Yes, “writers” can “get by just fine” without editors. But can authors? “Getting by just fine” is not what makes a lot of good books, prose, arguments, poetry, speeches, legal texts and the like. Granted, much of what passes for textual communication on the Web and in emails and on blogs of course “gets by” without editing, but we aren’t talking about that. At least, Galassi wasn’t. He was talking about a collaborative process between salaried editors and professional authors. All he did was claim there was value in it. To respond by saying there is negligible value is absurd.

By: Kent Anderson

Kent Anderson — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:01:03 +0000

I think a major difference is in the power equations. Writers are individuals seeking it, editors are a trade holding it. From a creative standpoint, you’re right. From a commercial and scarcity standpoint, things have been different traditionally. Changes in these relationships are causing a lot of turmoil, I think.

By: Joe Clark

Joe Clark — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:37:12 +0000

Editing very much is less different and important than writing. An editor is a remora and a writer is the shark. A writer can get by just fine without an editor; without writers, editors have nothing to do. Writers are primary and editors are secondary.

Really, how is this not obvious?

By: Daithi

Daithi — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:33:05 +0000

Bloomsbury was the original publisher of J.K. Rowlings’ Harry Potter series, but that doesn’t entitle them to Rowlings’ profits from the Harry Potter movies — legally or morally. Likewise, publishers have no legal or moral claim on ebooks, which didn’t even exist when authors contracted with the publishers in the first place.