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

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

#21

Post by Finnucane » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 5:03 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…

>Advances tend to be very small and are a loan from the publisher to the author.

No, not a loan. An advance does not normally get paid back if it doesn't earn out.

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

#22

Post by grawprog » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 5:05 PM UTC

ergothus wrote: post #19

As someone that has grown to have a more moderate view over free speech over time, I think morals clauses truly do have two sides. There are behaviors that most everyone finds reprehensible, and when someone commits them we want to be able to shun them, to remove our connection. There are many times in the past when this shunning has been abused to censor or otherwise oppress others. Generally people feel like they b…

>As a solution to this dilemma, some advocate strong "non-moral" stances (ala "free speech") where everyone can do as they want, unrestricted

Since when is that the definition of free speech? Free speech has nothing to do with a lack of repercussions to what you say, and especially do, it's about having the right to say things, even if disagreeable, without systemic silencing or punishment from a higher authority. It doesn't mean you can't shun the crap out of people saying dumb shit though.

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

#23

Post by thaumasiotes » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 5:16 PM UTC

Finnucane wrote: post #21

munificent wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>Advances tend to be very small and are a loan from the publisher to the author. No, not a loan. An advance does not normally get paid back if it doesn't earn out.

But it does get paid back if it does earn out. The payout profile looks basically the same as a non-recourse loan.

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

#24

Post by munificent » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

Finnucane wrote: post #21

munificent wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>Advances tend to be very small and are a loan from the publisher to the author. No, not a loan. An advance does not normally get paid back if it doesn't earn out.

That just means it's a forgiven loan. The point is that the advance does not add to the money the author makes on top of royalties. Advances are not an additional cost to the publisher. They are an investment with some risk, but they control that risk by choosing the size of the advance.

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

#25

Post by pjc50 » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 5:17 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #10

Good on them. I don’t know what the hell is happening but I don’t understand how people who support the ACLU and every other 90s liberal who supported free speech unencumbered can now get on board with this censorship which shamelessly hides behind “private cos are not the gov, so it’s not real censorship. You don’t have to like the people, you can hate them, despise them, shame them whatever, but people should not b…

Similarly, once a company has found out (or been reminded) that their author is a sex offender, they should no longer be under contractual obligation to publish it - that would be compelled speech, no?

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

#26

Post by mc32 » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 5:29 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #25

mc32 wrote: post #10

Good on them. I don’t know what the hell is happening but I don’t understand how people who support the ACLU and every other 90s liberal who supported free speech unencumbered can now get on board with this censorship which shamelessly hides behind “private cos are not the gov, so it’s not real censorship. You don’t have to like the people, you can hate them, despise them, shame them whatever, but people should not b…

Similarly, once a company has found out (or been reminded) that their author is a sex offender, they should no longer be under contractual obligation to publish it - that would be compelled speech, no?

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

WTF are we coming to?

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

#27

Post by ergothus » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 5:29 PM UTC

grawprog wrote: post #22

ergothus wrote: post #19

As someone that has grown to have a more moderate view over free speech over time, I think morals clauses truly do have two sides. There are behaviors that most everyone finds reprehensible, and when someone commits them we want to be able to shun them, to remove our connection. There are many times in the past when this shunning has been abused to censor or otherwise oppress others. Generally people feel like they b…

>As a solution to this dilemma, some advocate strong "non-moral" stances (ala "free speech") where everyone can do as they want, unrestricted Since when is that the definition of free speech? Free speech has nothing to do with a lack of repercussions to what you say, and especially do, it's about having the right to say things, even if disagreeable, without systemic silencing or punishment from a higher authority. It…

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 people, and the company (the higher power) does not interfere. Ideal, right?

Except that the toxic people drive the others away. White supremacists attack and threaten people of color. Toxic bros attack and threaten women. Misinformation swamps the good information, and only the people that are already experts can tell the difference (and the misleading people will claim to be experts, so...).

If your response to above is "threats are illegal", you've not paid attention to how threats can made sufficiently arguable to be legal, but still clear enough to threaten.

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 before they suffer any personal social repercussions they care about, they will have inflicted their harm upon a lot of people.

Preventing our "higher authorities" from taking action is reducing the power of collective people to take action. Sometimes collective people are wrong, but sometimes they are right, and that's why I say the topic isn't simple.

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

#28

Post by mc32 » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 5:32 PM UTC

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…

Let’s hope this attitude doesn’t trickle down into the legal profession where we have attorneys and layers in general refusing service to people who are morally corrupt /bankrupt or are previous felons. Or, don’t spend public dollars defending “bad” people.

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

#29

Post by lliamander » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 5:46 PM UTC

grawprog wrote: post #22

ergothus wrote: post #19

As someone that has grown to have a more moderate view over free speech over time, I think morals clauses truly do have two sides. There are behaviors that most everyone finds reprehensible, and when someone commits them we want to be able to shun them, to remove our connection. There are many times in the past when this shunning has been abused to censor or otherwise oppress others. Generally people feel like they b…

>As a solution to this dilemma, some advocate strong "non-moral" stances (ala "free speech") where everyone can do as they want, unrestricted Since when is that the definition of free speech? Free speech has nothing to do with a lack of repercussions to what you say, and especially do, it's about having the right to say things, even if disagreeable, without systemic silencing or punishment from a higher authority. It…

The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects free speech from government regulation, but that does not mean it is free speech.

Free speech as a concept absolutely does mean an absence of consequences for, or at least a relative tolerance of, speech that people in society may generally disagree with.

It stems from the belief that the truth can sometimes be unpopular, and that in order for us to benefit from the truth we must give people some latitude to be unpopular.

The 1st Amendment does not enforce free speech in the social sphere merely because that is not the purview of the Constitution.

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

#30

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Wed, Mar 11, 2020, 5:57 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #10

Good on them. I don’t know what the hell is happening but I don’t understand how people who support the ACLU and every other 90s liberal who supported free speech unencumbered can now get on board with this censorship which shamelessly hides behind “private cos are not the gov, so it’s not real censorship. You don’t have to like the people, you can hate them, despise them, shame them whatever, but people should not b…

> "I don’t know what the hell is happening but I don’t understand how people who support the ACLU and every other 90s liberal who supported free speech unencumbered can now get on board with this censorship which shamelessly hides behind “private cos are not the gov, so it’s not real censorship."

What makes you think old-school liberals are on board with any of this? I would guess that they, like myself, are lying low to avoid being libeled, harassed, and/or "cancelled" by those who favor those things but they don't support such values.

For those old-school liberals and the rest of the political spectrum out there, just remember that one thing that can't ever be "cancelled" is your vote in primaries and on Election Day. Please go out and vote for what you believe in.