We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

Post by kwhitefoot » Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 3:51 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #11

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…

> tying compensation to total sales numbers, tying compensation to milestones, or even just lowballing them. Author contracts already do all of those things. Advances have gotten lower and lower over the years ("lowballing them"), and typically pay out incrementally at various phases of completion ("compensation to milestones"). Once the book is done, most of the author's compensation comes from royalties ("tying com…

How things have changed. Byron was a rock star author at the same time as he was described as 'mad, bad, and dangerous to know' By Lady Caroline Lamb.

Post by ergothus » Thu, Mar 12, 2020, 5:29 PM UTC

0x4477 wrote: post #60

ergothus wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 canno…

> 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"

You've inserted the word "trust" in there - I was saying we all shouldn't HAVE to.

Let me insert "trust" into your argument, not to be troll-ey, but to show how that's biasing the argument needlessly, and I'll also answer your question.

I recognize my limitation to not be an expert in everything, including distinguishing experts in all fields from those that falsely claim to be.

I recognize that others are ALSO so limited. If you want to call that not trusting people, feel free, and let's adjust this argument to be "there are other people who feel as I do" - the conclusions will be the same.

We (myself and these like-minded others) wish to select those we do trust to filter out the worst abuses. We'll set up rules to say on what basis these decisions are made.

Of course, any system is prone to abuse, but we judge that our ability to monitor this group is better than our ability to monitor literally everyone.

You aren't trusting us to do that.

> 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

Considering my position here that absolute free speech turns out to be harmful, this feels like a tautology.

Humans have been filtering and evaluating words from others throughout history. Often poorly, even without a centralized authority involved. Often a centralized authority filters words poorly. Yet in the face of both of these words have been heard, progress is made. Perhaps the more important aspect is that we individuals value hearing the words of others, even words we don't like, and push back against excessive filtering, without requiring that no filtering be done.

You aren't trusting us to be able to do that.

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

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