Unless that hurricane makes a much needed change in direction, the convention will probably not be held. Those poor people in Florida are facing some horrendous weather coming up.
Unless that hurricane makes a much needed change in direction, the convention will probably not be held. Those poor people in Florida are facing some horrendous weather coming up.
Oh geez. Their convention is in the Florida Keys in September? That's a slight risk.
He might after frisking me for weapons. However, I don't care to waste my money. I'm certain that he doesn't want to pay my way, either. Besides, he'd really be spending money from his authors who are really funding that party. I'd rather it remain where it is so the authors can sue to recover it eventually.
Now what would be real interesting would be for you, ProandCon, to sign in using your real name. It would give you much needed credibility. Until then, your words have no real worth.
Bet he might be willing to send you a one way ticket :grin You might want to check the destination on it thoughI'm certain that he doesn't want to pay my way, either.
Why do my words not have worth? Don't try to bait me, Mr. Kuzminski. Why does my name have to be known to be accepted? There are many posters here who do not use their names and they seem accepted. Is it because I'm not 100% anti-PA?
I call it like I see it. Sometimes I'm pro PA and sometimes I talk about the cons of PA.
I'm mainly here because I don't like seeing the innocent PA authors beat up on for no good reason as has happened on this board. Some may deserve it but not somebody whose message is copied to laugh at their spelling.
You know what is a pi**er and definitely a con. PA letting the authors mouth off about the no return policy and then not even having the courage to post to explain their position on the no return policy or the reason for the high book prices. Their number one cheerleader was sent to beat down the rebellion by threatening banishment. PA then waited for the moment to die down. Now, I have to give them credit, they are smart about human nature and everybody is quite for the moment.
PA thing just makes me sick--the more i hear and the more i see of them, I just have to shake my head and stay silent.
People keep saying but they get their dream--no they don't. They get a crushed dream.
Anyone who gets published, (unless all you really truly want is your name in print to put on a shelf) wants that fame, wants to be the next King, or Rice or whoever. PA plays that dream.
:cry Shakes head. I feel for every person who went with PA--at some point I think most will wake up, and many many of them will never write again. :gone That is very sad.
"If the book is say 90,000 words how long would [copy editing] take?"
A very rough estimate, because it can vary greatly: about 40 hours.
Intellectual copyright, yes. If you can prove that you're the one who wrote them, that is. But signing on with a messageboard gives them the right to publish your posts (which is essentially when a messageboard is, a bunch of published posts). The thing is, messageboard-owners are given certain rights--so that they can delete and re-arrange posts however they wish. With Dee, for example, I believe PA has the right to use posts she's made on the messageboard--but they need her permission to attach her actual name to it, and if they want to use it in promotion. Or something like that (I'm European, so the rules and laws might be different). In some cases (at least on most of the messageboards I've run across), the messageboard owner/owners are given the legal role of author, since they will be held responsible for what Snuggles13 and Anonymous write. Most messageboard providers will inisist that whoever signs up for a messageboard realises that he/she is legally responsible for its contents. Usually the owner of the messageboard has the right to publish what has been written on the messageboard, while the individual authors of the messages retain intellectual copyright.Actually, you do.
Unless and until they sign the rights over to someone else, the authors have the copyright on their own words from the moment they type them.
But on the other hand, this is the net, so most threats of lawsuits are quite empty. And I don't think Dee should worry about her posts being used by PA, because I'm sure they realise that if they use her posts, she'll be very vocal about her current opinions on PA (not to mention, they need her permission for it). She can't force them to remove them, but does it really matter?
... the messageboard owner/owners are given the legal role of author,...
Not true. The actual author is still the author, and has the copyright. The messageboard owner can display it, or not, but doesn't have the right to alter it, to republish it elsewhere, or create derivative works.
There's a lot of misinformation about copyright floating around on the 'net; one of the biggest pieces of which is that the act of posting places the words into the public domain.
Incidentally, even if the work isn't registered, the author can still sue for infringement; it's just that the author is limited to actual damages, rather than being able to collect punitive damages, should he win.
no, really... got my royalty check today for a whopping $4.97 from PA.
considering I stopped promoting my book last year it's a bit of a surprise, but some retailer out there bought 8 copies - of course not at the overpriced rate of $12.95, but the 40% off retail of $7.77 and I got all of 62 cents per book.
I'm sure there's a LOT of PA authors out there right now ripping their envelopes open and wondering to themselves "I paid a publicist HOW much? And bookmarks? And business cards? And press releases..." and staring down at the pittance they received of less than a dollar a book after harassing bookstore owners into ordering a stack of non-returnable books and alienating family and friends.
so, PA authors... is it worth it?
or do you want to hide behind the "I do it for fun!" mantra that HB and his ilk are going to be telling you? After all, authors don't want to get rich, do they?
or do you want to continue going into debt helping PA pay their "experts" to keep on scamming others...
What is your ranking (amazon) as compared to the other PA authors? If you go through Amazon, you can do an advanced search for PA bestsellers, I would be interested to know where you fall.
If you are near the top third or so, and that is your royalty check, then I would say that is SERIOUSLY appalling, if you are at the bottom third, I would still consider it horrific, but would have a much more clear picture as to just how LOW the PA glass ceiling is!
I hope I'm making myself clear here it had been a loooooong day!
oh, I'm right at the bottom or near it - I never bought into the "buy and resell" scam and only have a ranking of over 2,000,000 on Amazon due to some poor soul paying for it through the site.
either way, I think there's going to be the usual awakening over the next few days - some of the hotshots that might have been here yelping about the posts might have a bit of the wool pulled away from their eyes when they see the math - which can't be faked.
the 8% is the same for everyone, so they're ALL going to make less than a dollar a book, on average if they get a bookstore to order them. And after yelling and screaming and making a pain of themselves, it's a bit discouraging to find that the dozen you harassed your local store owner to buy will only get you less than the price of a large pizza.
Not when it comes to content posted by someone who posts anonymously or hides his/her identity though.Not true. The actual author is still the author, and has the copyright. The messageboard owner can display it, or not, but doesn't have the right to alter it, to republish it elsewhere, or create derivative works.
Republishing in a promotional way can't be done without the author's consent (though who on Earth uses messageboard posts in promotion?), but when it comes for feuds like this one it's up to the owners of the messageboards to settle it (not every individual poster), at least that what the lawyers told us. Not that there's anything to settle here, since as far as I can see all quotes have been accompanied by a link to the original messages.
got my royalty check today for a whopping $4.97 from PA.
Wow, mine was a little over two dollars, I am thinking of splurging on a bottle of water, the one liter.
Last year though I sold 68 copies without self purchasing or really promoting my book...no money. So with a grand total of 70 copies now sold and only about 20 of those were bought by friends and family I think that is not too shabby. Not earth shattering, not close to what others do, but for someone who never expected to sell more than 20 I am happy.
It has come to my attention that PA is stating that it does not have to pay royalties on some sales under their recent special offer to their authors which provided for royalties on all orders made before a certain date because PA is claiming that the order didn't become an order until days later.
I think PA has finally pulled one that it won't get past too easily. If I'm not mistaken, PA set up a method for taking orders. A customer using that method would have formed a contract with PA for the goods at the point of dispatch. In other words, the date of the sale would be the date the buyer purchased the products. Therefore, those authors who purchased their own books at a discount before the ending date are also entitled to their royalties.
Please spread this to all of the PA authors who have been told by PA that they're not eligible because of the dates because PA is shoveling a load of BS at them.
My friend just got his check and statement and *surprise* it was for quite a few less books then Ingram showed as being sold from when the book came out a few months ago to the total sold on June 1, and a lot smaller then the total sold as of July 31. What is their published cut off period for recording sales and what is a finished sale in their eyes?
The Ingram total does not take into consideration books bought directly from LS by Amazon or the Baker and Taylor Books or the ones bought directly from PA. He is going to ask PA for an explanation of how they count a book as being *sold*. He is going to be careful in that request so as not to set their back up - fear of one's own publisher is not a pleasant thing to watch.
The difference is way above 20 as of June 1 based on the Ingram numbers alone. (I am being careful not to provide exact details out of respect for his privacy. I have invited him to read this board before and believe that this time he might avail himself of that offer.)
Keep in mind that PA can't claim they're holding any funds for the next royalty period because of returns as can traditional publishers. If the sale was made within the reporting period, then PA is obligated to pay the royalty!
Why? Because PA doesn't take returns! Also, they already give themselves a month after the cutoff date to calculate the royalties.
Oh man, Batman figures in the ads above. How appropriate!
But does PA count sales from the sale date or the payment date? And do they have any net 90 accounts? Each of those could account for some differences between the number reported as sold and the number on the royalty statement perhaps, but not to the extent shown on my friend's statement. It reminds me of that current car ad "There is XXX and there is Not Exactly" PA is Not Exactly.Keep in mind that PA can't claim they're holding any funds for the next royalty period because of returns as can traditional publishers. If the sale was made within the reporting period, then PA is obligated to pay the royalty!
Batman is on my page too - wonder where Robin is?
regarding what Dave said a few posts down... If this is true, then it is the biggest mistake PA has made to date.
When PA had their original teaser announcement about the NYT partnership, they said in their original email
This email was sent out on July 25th and July 26th. (That's important).<snip>....
Since this calls for celebration, and it's almost August, royalty month, we've put together a special offer that includes royalties.
Authors who choose to buy copies of their own book will receive a special discount, PLUS we will pay royalties on those books. Since all royalty checks will go out by the end of next month, the rewards will come in quickly. Our offer breaks down as follows:
50-100 copies: 40 pct discount + royalties
101-150 copies: 45 pct discount +royalties
151-200 copies: 50 pct discount + royalties
201 or more copies: 55 pct discount + royalties
Full-color children's books are excluded. The offer expires July 30. Please call us at 301-695-1707.
There are authors who are now claiming they purchased 50 books on July 26th, the very day they got this email. When they got their statement, they noticed the 50 books weren't reflected on the statement. (remember, the pitch in the above ad specifically points out you get royalties on the purchases and it will pay off immediately.)
One of the authors emailed PA about this and was told (his words not a direct quote from PA "I may have ordered on the 26th, but the sale was not completed on that day, thus disqualifying me from any royalty payouts from the New York Times special."
I absolutely refuse to believe PA is that stupid. Them putting off payment until FEB because of their cash crunch, I believe, but blatant fraud? Wow.
In this case, it doesn't matter what PA wants to do. It can't rewrite Business Law on its own. Trying to change that would require changing the entire code for the country and a whole lot of case law to boot. Also, the courts hold businesses to a higher standard concerning this than they do customers because businesses are supposed to know these things.
What I brought up is from a law book that I studied in college when I gained my degree in Business Management. PA might like to try to change the laws, but it's too late for all the existing contracts since those would then have to be renegotiated in writing to include such matters.
Also, PA doesn't use Net 90 or anything else. You know as well as I that they take payment up front. In this instance, doing that has screwed them royally over the royalties they're trying to avoid paying. By the way, even with Net 90 or any other period, the date of the sale would be unaffected. That would only affect the payment by the customer to PA. The date of the sale is what's important in this matter and PA can't change that to suit itself.
Just read the post directly above mine. That adds even more into the equation against PA. This shows an intent to defraud since the email announcing the Special Discount with Royalties (SDwR) was announced only the day before some of the authors took advantage of it. For PA to then claim that their sales were too late when those authors reacted before the deadline only proves that PA intended to defraud those authors. Doesn't matter how much money was involved. This is an instance where the Maryland AG should go after punitive damages as well as criminal charges.
By the way, it wasn't stupidity on PA's part. It was greed.
Not counting royalties until payment might fly, but if they make their authors pay with a credit card when they order under those promotions then the sale contract is as of the date the credit card was charged. When did the person who ordered on the 26th have their order charged against their credit card?
Got sidetracked posting this and wrote it and hit enter before I could see Dave's post above. Maybe the differences in numbers are because they can't count above 10 without losing track and having to start over again?
Doesn't matter about the credit cards. That only affects when the money is deposited in PA's account. It doesn't change the date of the sale.
PA knew to begin with that the orders wouldn't be returned or refused. Their system of purchases takes that into account already because that's what makes their scam work. They know that their authors won't return anything because the authors need the sales to prove that they're real authors. The late announcement date of the Special Discount with Royalties only works against PA. You can't set a cutoff date and then use a hidden cutoff date instead. That's fraud.
So the hidden date must have been before the email date? That's as legal as advertising a car at a dealership that is always "sold right before you got here."You can't set a cutoff date and then use a hidden cutoff date instead. That's fraud.
BTW the authors are posting about statement errors on the PA board already.
...we have PA supporters sneaking around here in disguise, with lots of bluster and big talk. Why now? Well, the word going around is that our friends at PA have rapidly escalating legal bills, which are draining the company kitty, and which also explains all the new "buy your own books" promotions to their own authors. Think about it - you can determine the bottom line goal of any company most accurately when they are in crisis - how do they raise cash when they need it most? The obvious answer to that should tell most any prospective PA author all they need to know...
the light is already dawning for a few PA authors who are sitting there and looking at their checks in disbelief.
Welcome, all... I know some of you are lurking as not to bring down the wrath of PA on your heads, but believe me - the information you'll get here is priceless. If you want to post, post - but know that there's a lot more of us out here than PA wants you to believe; not just a few disgruntled authors who didn't have the urge to "promote their work" as HB Marcus and his cronies would have you believe.
You busted your hump to promote your book; harassed bookstore managers and paid publicists, fought through paperwork to fight the no-return policy and maxed out your credit card for a good "deal" that PA promised you. And then you get a check that's not even worth the cost to mail it out.
Welcome - YOU'RE not at fault. You did the best you could with your product, but you were handicapped from the start. PA did it to you and you've nothing to feel bad about. Ignore Marcus who's going to tell you that it's your fault; that you didn't hustle enough, didn't spend enough. You have the proof in your hand in that paltry check. You did everything right and PA walked away with your money.
PA is at fault here - not you.