We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019) • Hacker News Board

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#51

Post by lastres0rt » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:19 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #18

tytso wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Publishers front nearly all of the deelopment costs of the book --- e.g., the advance, the printing costs, whatever editing work that gets done, etc. Publishers don't have to pay all of these costs; they could make the authors front all of those costs, which reduces their risk. There is a name for that sort of arrangement; it's called a "vanity press". But funny thing, most authors don't want to use vanity press, and…

> Publishers front nearly all of the deelopment costs of the book The largest development cost for a book is the labor to write the book, and the training required to be able to do so, and that is fronted entirely by the author. Advances tend to be very small and are a loan from the publisher to the author. Printing costs have been going down for decades. Print on demand now means that publishers have complete contro…

... but what about graphic novels?!

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#52

Post by ergothus » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:46 PM UTC

vorpalhex wrote: post #46

ergothus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the trick: Higher powers are how society applies repercussions. Note: I'm aware U.S. Govt 1st amendment doesn't restrict anything but the govt. I think we're both talking about the general concept of free speech, not that particular example. Let's take the example of twitter. People swamp twitter with misinformation and toxic behavior. As individuals, we're all free to ignore/block the annoying/misleading peop…

Sure, so the current US admin used it's "higher power" to force the EPA to remove all references to climate change. It legally can not use that power for non-government entities, including those mirroring that content. And you're suggesting it should be able to? > Except that the toxic people drive the others away And who gets to decide who is toxic? I've seen a user have a meltdown because someone compared democrati…

> > Putting the burden on each individual to filter everyone

> Is a recognition that humans are free agents and get to make their own choices in life.

And also puts the biggest burden upon those in the minority, even if the majority thinks they shouldn't have that burden.

> No man or woman is fit to play the censor.

But apparently they can drive other men and women away. It's defacto censorship, just of another source.

> What harm? Mean words on the internet?

Yes. Pointing out (and sharing) where you live, perhaps some details about your kids, and discussing the tragic consequences of families that lose children is just one example of "mean words on the internet". And maybe, per the above, the govt shouldn't be able to do anything about that. But saying that we, as society, just need to get thick skinned about that and suck it up as individuals is naive as to whom we are empowering and whom we are harming. We have more options than just dealing with things as individuals.

I'm not likely to respond further - my goal was not to debate the topic, but to share that there are some nuanced views on the topic of companies practicing some level of limitations on the free speech of others - anything more is well past the penumbra of the article. You clearly disagree with my views, and you clearly aren't alone, but I feel I've expressed my view well enough.

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#53

Post by pjc50 » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:48 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #32

marcus_holmes wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they should no longer be under contractual obligation to publish it That entirely depends on what the contract says, which is probably why they're adding these clauses to the contracts. The point is that there's no background "moral clause" in contract law. If you sign a contract, and then discover that the other person is a sex offender/nazi/actually Hitler, that doesn't matter. You still need to fulfil your oblig…

> Because getting on the wrong end of a Twitter dogpile is astonishingly easy to do. If the stakes were higher, and not only future careers but all existing contracts would be ruined, that would just inspire more dogpile. IANAL, but this is a good time to remind people that, in the U.S., but actively trying to sabotage a contract between two parties may be tortious interference[1], and something one can be sued for.…

Are you arguing that pointing out to Hachette that Woody Allen's daughter accuses him of sexual assault should render someone liable? And this is supposed to be the pro free speech position?

Nobody on Twitter did anything but speech, did they?

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#54

Post by pjc50 » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:49 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #49

pinkfoot wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough: actual murders or direct threats thereof.

Curious, does it imply people in prison for rape murder and assault should not be able to have a book written, what about providing an interview?

This is already law in a lot of places. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#55

Post by mc32 » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 7:53 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #54

mc32 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious, does it imply people in prison for rape murder and assault should not be able to have a book written, what about providing an interview?

This is already law in a lot of places. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_Sam_law

That’s not the same. That says they cannot profit monetarily. So in this case of what’s his face had judgements against him, or indeed was serving a felonious sentence the state could seize proceeds. It doesn’t give them the right to censor publishing.

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#56

Post by mc32 » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 8:08 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #48

mc32 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s next lawyers and attorneys refuse to represent people of poor moral standing or worse are known felons? WTF are we coming to?

Lawyers can and do refuse to represent people who have behaved badly towards them. The rules for criminal defense lawyers are usually much stricter on who they can refuse, but it can still happen. In particular, misconduct towards your lawyer will get you dropped.

Ok, but do they with frequency drop clients due to moral incompatibility?

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#57

Post by lliamander » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 8:18 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #53

lliamander wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because getting on the wrong end of a Twitter dogpile is astonishingly easy to do. If the stakes were higher, and not only future careers but all existing contracts would be ruined, that would just inspire more dogpile. IANAL, but this is a good time to remind people that, in the U.S., but actively trying to sabotage a contract between two parties may be tortious interference[1], and something one can be sued for.…

Are you arguing that pointing out to Hachette that Woody Allen's daughter accuses him of sexual assault should render someone liable? And this is supposed to be the pro free speech position? Nobody on Twitter did anything but speech, did they?

> Are you arguing that pointing out to Hachette that Woody Allen's daughter accuses him of sexual assault should render someone liable?

I'm not talking about that specific case, but about the problem of twitter mobs in general (which is what the parent comment was talking about). It may apply to that case or not, but I'm not rendering judgement on that here.

> Nobody on Twitter did anything but speech, did they?

Telling the truth is not a tort. Often the behavior of twitter mobs rises above simply "telling the truth" and may involve epithets, slander, etc. which are not protected.

EDIT: Also, saying "break your contract or else we will harass you" is probably a tort

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#58

Post by hammock » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 9:39 PM UTC

hammock wrote: post #16

jimbob45 wrote: post #7

I would go so far as to say that these clauses aren't even slimy, they're just lazy. If the publishers are truly scared that the author's behavior could lose them substantial amounts of money, then there have existed for decades far more terrestrial constructs for them to use - tying compensation to total sales numbers, tying compensation to milestones, or even just lowballing them. To tie their compensation to what…

>If the publishers are truly scared that the author's behavior could lose them substantial amounts of money The risk is not recouping their investment, but rather degrading the overall enterprise value of their entire publishing business through bad PR. Unless the author agrees to tie their pay to the performance of the entire enterprise (which why would you), something like a morality clause is a better option.

If one or more of the four people who have downvoted my comment could explain themselves we might all learn something here.

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#59

Post by lliamander » Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 7:13 AM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #38

lliamander wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are already many forms of speech that have limited or no protection in the United State: perjury, defamation, incitement, threats, obsceneties, fighting words, commercial speech, and copy-written works. I have yet to see a proposal for additional classes of unprotected speech that materially benefit the social discourse.

Are you referring to the govt or more broadly? Because (in relation to the article) we're talking about companies and social groups making decisions, not just the govt. Notably, I think the US 1st amendment is basically based around the idea that we, collectively, will take social action above the personal level. If you remove that ability, my defense of the 1st amendment reduces notably. I see the social discourse p…

What categories of speech outside of the categories I've listed would be valuable for private entities to restrict?

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#60

Post by 0x4477 » Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 12:46 PM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #37

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " Putting the burden on each individual to filter everyone is NOT taking "no" stance, it's taking the stance that those most willing to "speak" (which includes expressive actions) are given power. When the talking is for good things, that's great. But the people least willing to consider other people, the people lacking empathy, will have no restraint on what they say (or do, expressively) unless imposed. Long befo…

> It is tantamount to saying "The adult voting public cannot be trusted to identify 'wrong' beliefs themselves; The issue isn't "identify", nor "trust". It's effort. The adult voting public are the ones that should be picking (and auditing!) those that are taking on the effort, as well as drawing the line as to where the effort is worth handing off and where it is worth keeping in personal hand. Requiring everyone to…

> The issue isn't "identify", nor "trust". It's effort.

This is merely shifting the goalpost in the game of censorship.

How is

>"The adult voting public cannot be trusted to _invest sufficient effort_ to identify 'wrong' beliefs themselves"

functionally different from

"The adult voting public cannot be trusted to identify 'wrong' beliefs themselves"

?

The particular reasons for someone believing that the public cannot be trusted to identify 'wrong' beliefs still assumes that the public cannot be trusted to identify 'wrong' beliefs and puts us right back where we started. Not to mention, how is that a better argument than any other qualification for the same idea? Why not education as opposed to effort? Or experience?

The ultimate issue is that any way you spin it, it leads to a centralized authority being entrusted with the task of determining what is and isn't wrong and that is a fundamental non starter if we are to try and preserve free speech in a meaningful way. No one entity can be trusted to be the arbiter of morality for everyone.