# Random House 'Hydra' Imprint Publishing Terms



## Steerpike (Mar 6, 2013)

Well, at least the terms from one of their agreements. Looks like an imprint to avoid. There are a number of sites online where people are commenting on this. This one is from John Scalzi:

Note to SF/F Writers: Random House’s Hydra Imprint Has Appallingly Bad Contract Terms


----------



## CupofJoe (Mar 7, 2013)

I don't agree with it and I hate to say it but that all sounds like fairly standard stuff in the "new economy".
and they wonder why people self-publish...


----------



## Devor (Mar 7, 2013)

Wow that looks bad.  Self-Publish over _that_ God-awful contract, for sure.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin (Mar 8, 2013)

The funny thing is...some of the stuff Scalzi mentions in those essays (he wrote another one about one of RH's other new vanity epub operations, using an actual contract he had in hand) are staples in modern NYC publishing contracts. Things like clauses which give the publisher rights for duration of copyright are normal. And far from agents telling writers to run away, most agents are telling their writers to sign those contracts.

Admittedly, they're not generally as bad as the Hydra ones - that's TRULY a "worst in breed" example. There are some absolutely horrific contracts out there from "big five" imprints that agents are telling writers to sign, though. As much as I like John's writing and think he's been a great SFWA president, I think it's alarming that he's so out of touch with what's actually being offered in contracts over the last few years for writers of less stature than himself.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 8, 2013)

*Random House / Hydra Responds:

*


> Dear John, Victoria, Jaym and SFWA Members,
> 
> We read with interest your posts today about the new Random House digital imprints and our business model. While we respect your position, you’ll not be surprised to learn that we strongly disagree with it, and wish you had contacted us before you published your posts. We would appreciate you giving us an opportunity to share why we believe Hydra is an excellent publishing opportunity for the science fiction community by posting ours below to them.
> 
> ...


*
*


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 8, 2013)

*SFWA Responds to the response
*


> Dear Ms. Dobson:Thank you for your letter regarding Random House and Hydra, and your interest in speaking with us.
> Unfortunately, there is very little to discuss. SFWA has determined to its own satisfaction that Hydra does not meet our minimum standards for a qualifying market, as its contract does not offer an advance. Additionally, your attempt to shift to the author costs customarily borne by the publisher is, simply, outrageous and egregious. The first of these things alone would disqualify Hydra as a qualifying market. It is the second of these things, however, that causes us to believe that Hydra intends to act in a predatory manner towards authors, and in particular toward newer authors who may not have the experience to recognize the extent to which your contract is beyond the pale of standard publishing practices.
> You extol your business model as “different”; the more accurate description, we believe, is “exploitative.” We are particularly disappointed to see it arising out of Random House, a well-regarded, long-standing publishing firm. Bluntly put, Random House should know better.
> If Hydra is willing to assume the costs long assumed by publishers rather than attempting to shift those costs to authors, and is willing to pay advances in line with SFWA minimum rates at the very least, we will be willing to reconsider it as a qualifying market, and as a suitable home for writers. Until that time, however, we cannot do either, and will warn writers about Hydra.
> ...


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Mar 8, 2013)

I notice in the Random House response that she says:



> As with every business partnership, there are specific costs associated with bringing a book successfully to market, and we state them very straightforwardly and transparently in our author agreements. These costs could be much higher--and certainly be more stressful and labor-intensive to undertake--for an author with a self-publishing model. Profits are generated once those costs are subtracted from the sales revenue. Hydra and the author split those profits equally from the very first sale.



How are there profits on the very first sale if there's all these up-front costs to pay back? There can only _be_ profit on the very first sale if there's no up-front costs. There's _revenue_ from the very first sale, but there can't possibly be any profits yet.

I haven't seen the contract myself (it appears neither Scalzi or Writer Beware link to it) but it's hard to imagine that they're both completely wrong.


----------



## Devor (Mar 9, 2013)

Admittedly, they transfer both risk and profits to the author, but they do so knowing that the vast majority of books under this contract won't succeed.  Instead of never collecting royalties because they don't pay out their advance, many authors will never collect royalties because they won't pay out the upfront costs.  And only a handful of heavy sellers will do better under this contract than otherwise, but Hydra clearly thinks there's little chance of that any individual book.

The worst, though, is that since these are ebook-only deals, they actually have relatively little to offer by way of promotions and marketing.  The big advantage of a mainstream publisher is the chance to be on shelves, and that isn't here.  So there isn't much they can do to promote you that you can't do yourself.


----------



## MichaelSullivan (Mar 10, 2013)

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> The funny thing is...some of the stuff Scalzi mentions in those essays (he wrote another one about one of RH's other new vanity epub operations, using an actual contract he had in hand) are staples in modern NYC publishing contracts. Things like clauses which give the publisher rights for duration of copyright are normal. And far from agents telling writers to run away, most agents are telling their writers to sign those contracts.



I love your posts Kevin - I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing!! Why isn't Scalzi complaining about that toward traditional publishers?



Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> Admittedly, they're not generally as bad as the Hydra ones - that's TRULY a "worst in breed" example. There are some absolutely horrific contracts out there from "big five" imprints that agents are telling writers to sign, though. As much as I like John's writing and think he's been a great SFWA president, I think it's alarming that he's so out of touch with what's actually being offered in contracts over the last few years for writers of less stature than himself.



I don't think he's out of touch...I think he's "in the system" and signs them and thinks "that's just the way it is."  I tried to get a fixed length term on my last contract - no way to get that to budge.  In my next book I demanded a fixed length term - and that was a "deal breaker."  So I'm going to self-publish Hollow World.  

Four authors have gotten print-only deals...so there is some chipping away...but each of them sell in the 500,000+ range.  Part of the problem is authors are perpetuating the system because so many sign rather than saying, "Hell no!"


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Mar 13, 2013)

MichaelSullivan said:


> Four authors have gotten print-only deals...so there is some chipping away...but each of them sell in the 500,000+ range.  Part of the problem is authors are perpetuating the system because so many sign rather than saying, "Hell no!"



It's easy to understand why it happens, though. The supply of writers _far_ exceeds the demand, I think. People will spend their whole lives writing just for a _chance_ at success. So anything that looks remotely like success, a writer (one who has not yet had actual success) will likely leap at.


----------



## Telcontar (Mar 13, 2013)

The same is true for many creative endeavors. I used to pursue acting professionally, and learned quickly that even successful area actors - who've been making their living on the stage for decades - make extremely little income. I met a 60 year old woman who says she averages maybe 20k a year. She does shows year-round (time investment probably equates to a 50 or 60-hour work week). 

There are so many people chasing the dream that it pushes down the value of any one of us, and our work. The new age of the artist-entrepreneur (with self-publishing) will hopefully help the situation both by offering another option to artists AND by forcing some business sense into our gestalt culture.


----------



## MichaelSullivan (Mar 16, 2013)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> It's easy to understand why it happens, though. The supply of writers _far_ exceeds the demand, I think. People will spend their whole lives writing just for a _chance_ at success. So anything that looks remotely like success, a writer (one who has not yet had actual success) will likely leap at.



Oh without a doubt, not to mention that there are some things that unless you do have sales at astronomical levels, you just won't be able to do anything about. I always love it when I see aspiring authors say, "I'll only sell my ebook rights." or "I'll only take a limited term contract" and "Everything is negotiable." These are all great ideals but they have little foundation in the reality that is traditional publishing.


----------



## MichaelSullivan (Mar 16, 2013)

Telcontar said:


> The new age of the artist-entrepreneur (with self-publishing) will hopefully help the situation both by offering another option to artists AND by forcing some business sense into our gestalt culture.



That is certainly my hope, as well.


----------



## Graylorne (Mar 16, 2013)

MichaelSullivan said:


> That is certainly my hope, as well.



Mine also, that's why I am glad I retained the international rights to my Revenaunt-series and sold only the Dutch ones. Now I can selfpub them under my own imprint. I am, at this moment at least, not even interested in a regular publisher's contract. I'm not at all fond of all the restrictions. Let's see were this brings me, first.
And your succes is quite inspirational, Michael.


----------



## MichaelSullivan (Mar 17, 2013)

Graylorne said:


> Mine also, that's why I am glad I retained the international rights to my Revenaunt-series and sold only the Dutch ones. Now I can selfpub them under my own imprint. I am, at this moment at least, not even interested in a regular publisher's contract. I'm not at all fond of all the restrictions. Let's see were this brings me, first.



I'm always happy when an author doesn't sell "World rights." I've made a TON of money through selling foreign language deals (14 so far).  Unfortunately I couldn't get "North American English" rights so all English language rights are Orbit's.  In the future I hope/plan to do NA only.




Graylorne said:


> And your succes is quite inspirational, Michael.



Thanks - I'm glad to be of assistance anyway I can.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 17, 2013)

As the CEO of a publishing company...

(OK, that's tongue firmly planted in cheek since I formed a company just to publish my books.)

Is this a horrible deal for an author?

I'm self-pubbing.  My expenses are going to run well over $1500 total.  That's not a huge deal for me (though not insignificant by any means), but, for some, that's quite a chunk of change.  In exchange for someone fronting those costs, you give up half the future profits of your book.

Sounds like a decent deal if you don't have the upfront money to spend.  I'd say that this is preferable to trying to make a go of it without editing and a good cover.


----------



## MichaelSullivan (Mar 17, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> As the CEO of a publishing company...
> 
> (OK, that's tongue firmly planted in cheek since I formed a company just to publish my books.)
> 
> ...



Yes it is horrible because there is more at stake.  You are losing 50% of the money made by what they put out...but they have tied up all kinds of rights - possibly until 70 years past your life and you can't do anything.  The book is "essentially dead" to you.

Consider this...


I made twice as much as my six-figure advance on foreign sales than I got for my English rights
Your fans will probably be cut off from paperback book forever - they have the rights and the chances of them exercising them is slim to none
Similarly with audio rights.

Saving u $1,500 isn't that hard.  Cut out going out to eat for a while, or drink less beer, or any other "luxury item."  Do a "Kickstarter campaign" to earn the "up front money."  Work on a shoe string budget - If you shop hard you can get a cover for $150 and editing for $350.  Start off small - and reinvest for more editing and better covers as the income flows in.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 17, 2013)

MichaelSullivan said:


> Yes it is horrible because there is more at stake.  You are losing 50% of the money made by what they put out...but they have tied up all kinds of rights - possibly until 70 years past your life and you can't do anything.  The book is "essentially dead" to you.
> 
> Consider this...
> 
> ...



Michael,

I get your point.  I really do.  I'm looking at this from a very different perspective, however.

First, I've read a lot of posts on these forums from people saying that there is absolutely no way for them to come up with that kind of money regardless of the necessity.  It's hard for me to say that I know their financial situation better than them, so I tend to believe them.

Second. most people self publishing, especially for a first book, aren't going to sell all that many copies.  The first book is a huge learning experience.  This seems like an okay way to test the waters without devoting many of your own resources.

That being said, I would never do this.  I have confidence in my ability to produce something that will eventually earn much more than the $1500 I'm going to spend and I can easily come up with that money to invest in myself.

If I were having money troubles or didn't have that confidence, I could see using a service like this.


----------



## MichaelSullivan (Mar 17, 2013)

I find two parties involved in the mistreatment of authors.

1. Publishers who write incredibly lopsided contracts that take all the power from the author and gives it themselves.
2. Authors who are so desperate that let emotion trump logic.

The following quote by Bob Mayer is in relationship too Harlequin Romance, and their lousy contract, but you can insert just about any "name brand" publisher you want.



> The problem is, HQ has a legion of wanna-bes who will sign a contract with HQ with their own arterial blood regardless of what's written in it.



Personally, I think the brand is tainted and it's probably not a logo you want on your book to begin with.


----------



## Devor (Mar 17, 2013)

BWFoster:

The typical fair contract would have the publisher putting up something like:

$1,500 in cost
$5,000 advance

This contract has the publisher giving half the royalties to the author after that same $1,500 is covered.  This means that the book has to raise _$11,500_ for the author to break even with the typical "fair" contract.

Consider the following:

 - The publisher thinks you're going to fail, so they're not putting up much money to begin with.

 - The publisher hedges this bet by claiming extra rights to the book, meaning that if you're a success, they've got you committed to their terms for the rest of the contract instead of taking the risk of negotiating a new contract later.

 - We're assuming that $1,500 is the cost, but that's the publisher's decision, and they have considerations to consider outside the success of your book, like keeping cover artists and editors on call.  If they expect your book to sell over $1,500, what's to stop them from blowing that on cover art or editing or ancillary costs that are more elaborate than you even need?

Under what circumstance is this a better deal than the typical "fair" contract?  Only if the book is more successful than $10,000 + costs, but not successful enough to do anything else with it.  But even in that case, I'm not really sure what you need the publisher for - they're not really very good at promoting ebooks at the moment.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 17, 2013)

> Under what circumstance is this a better deal than the typical "fair" contract? Only if the book is more successful than $10,000 + costs, but not successful enough to do anything else with it. But even in that case, I'm not really sure what you need the publisher for - they're not really very good at promoting ebooks at the moment.



Seems like you would consider this under two circumstances:

1. You think your book is going to be a huge hit but don't have the upfront costs.

2. You can't get a traditional publishing deal.



> The typical fair contract would have the publisher putting up something like:



How do you define fair?  Seems to me your "fair" contract is simply the "way it's always been done."

Traditionally, the publisher assumes much more of the risk.  Things are changing, though, and publishers are trying to figure out how to adjust.  It's hard for me to fault them too much for trying to adapt to the times.  Used to, they could afford to lose a ton of money on some books because other books made up for the loss.

I think it's hard now for them to find those moneymakers.  To stay alive, they need to figure out how to shift some of the risk to the author.

As an author, why should I expect someone to assume all the financial risk for my book?

I think this gives an author another choice.  Before an author considers this choice, there are questions they need answered:

1. What level of service am I getting as far as editing and cover?
2. What marketing support and expertise am I getting?

Go into it with your eyes open, but I don't see this as somehow unfair.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 17, 2013)

> Authors who are so desperate that let emotion trump logic.



I get where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that is the case here.

I just don't get why I should feel entitled to have someone else take all the risk.

Personally, I think it's a good idea for a publisher to provide a choice to an author: Do you want an advance with lower royalties or no advance with higher royalties?


----------



## Devor (Mar 17, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> How do you define fair?  Seems to me your "fair" contract is simply the "way it's always been done."
> 
> Traditionally, the publisher assumes much more of the risk.  Things are changing, though, and publishers are trying to figure out how to adjust.  It's hard for me to fault them too much for trying to adapt to the times.  Used to, they could afford to lose a ton of money on some books because other books made up for the loss.
> 
> ...



I don't think that's right.

Typically, they offer you an advance, invest money and absorb the costs because they know they'll eventually find a hit to make up for it.  Most books turn out a loss for them, and a few successful books carry that loss.  That's your basic venture capitalism model.

By hedging the risks upfront, they're no longer playing by the venture capitalist model.  That means they don't think they can turn out hits in the long run to carry those costs.

The only conclusion I can make is that they have no idea how to make an ebook into a hit.  So what do you need them for?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 17, 2013)

> The only conclusion I can make is that they have no idea how to make an ebook into a hit. So what do you need them for?



There are MILLIONS of ebooks being published.

The chances of one succeeding is small.

Good editing, good cover art, and expertise at marketing/promotion improve chances of success, but, in lieu of already having a big name, there appears to be nothing that guarantees success.

This publishing option gives you:

1. Access to expertise that you didn't otherwise have (presumably.  I have no idea if Hydra can help you sell books or do a good job editing.  I'm just saying that it makes sense.)
2. They take some of the personal risk from you.  Some people don't have $1500 of their own money to sink into their book.  (How is this not a good option for that situation?)


----------



## Devor (Mar 17, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> This publishing option gives you:
> 
> 1. Access to expertise that you didn't otherwise have (presumably.  I have no idea if Hydra can help you sell books or do a good job editing.  I'm just saying that it makes sense.)
> 2. They take some of the personal risk from you.  Some people don't have $1500 of their own money to sink into their book.  (How is this not a good option for that situation?)



Maybe if it stopped with costs and an even split.  None of that warrants the copyright issues.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 17, 2013)

Devor said:


> Maybe if it stopped with costs and an even split.  None of that warrants the copyright issues.



How so?  That ups the potential that they will make some kind of return on their investment.

It just seems that, when you're evaluating the concept of a "fair" contract, it's purely from the side of the author.  It just seems to me that the discussion should be what is fair for both sides.


----------



## Devor (Mar 17, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> How so?  That ups the potential that they will make some kind of return on their investment.



Since the author doesn't make money until the costs are covered, then after that point both the author and the publishing company are making money.  If the publishing company has anything to offer, then it should get a reasonable number of authors breaking the cost threshold and not have a problem making money.  That's especially true because they can control the costs as much as they want to.

So why would they need the additional revenue from a hit?

If they're a venture capitalist model, then they're investing up front and that warrants a right to a long-term share of the profits.

If they're not investing anything in you up front, why should you give them copyrights long term?  You might as well get a credit card to cover the costs.  There's a case for 50/50 being worth the up front costs.  But not the extras.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 17, 2013)

Devor said:


> Since the author doesn't make money until the costs are covered, then after that point both the author and the publishing company are making money.  If the publishing company has anything to offer, then it should get a reasonable number of authors breaking the cost threshold and not have a problem making money.  That's especially true because they can control the costs as much as they want to.
> 
> So why would they need the additional revenue from a hit?
> 
> ...



What time frame is reasonable, then?


----------



## Devor (Mar 17, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> What time frame is reasonable, then?



If it were just through the first run or the first few years or for as long as the publisher was willing to actively promote you, or as long as the publisher was putting up costs, or list you in a promotions catalogue or so on, then 50/50 would probably be fair enough.  But _for the length of copyright_ with subsidiary rights included?  No dice.

If they just want to partner with you to share some costs and profits, that's fine.

If they want to buy your work forever, they need to pay you for it.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 17, 2013)

Devor said:


> If it were just through the first run or the first few years or for as long as the publisher was willing to actively promote you, or as long as the publisher was putting up costs, or list you in a promotions catalogue or so on, then 50/50 would probably be fair enough.  But _for the length of copyright_ with subsidiary rights included?  No dice.
> 
> If they just want to partner with you to share some costs and profits, that's fine.
> 
> If they want to buy your work forever, they need to pay you for it.



I can live with that thinking.  The contract should be a definitive length.  Forever is too long considering what they're putting into the deal.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 17, 2013)

I'd caution anyone against signing away rights for the life of a copyright without some good reversion language in the event things don't pan out. Imagine five years later, the book isn't selling, the publisher isn't doing anything and you can't do anything with it because you don't own it anymore. Keep in mind, too, that a copyright assignment also transfers rights to prepare derivative works. So maybe a few years later you still believe in the story but with more experience under your belt you want to rewrite it, or you want to continue with those characters and setting in a new story and go a different route with publication - a copyright assignment throws up potential roadblocks for a lot of things you might want to do with a work in the event the relationship with the current publisher doesn't work out.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin (Mar 21, 2013)

I think it's vital to remember that the author is investing quite a lot into each book, as well as the publisher.

Suppose a novel takes you 200 hours to write; that's something like a $10,000 investment by the writer. And many novels require quite a lot more hours than that. You MUST count your time as valuable, if you expect the publisher to value it.

These contracts are aimed at novices who know nothing about the industry, and are preying on the uninformed who are simply desperate to get a contract with a big publishing house, no matter the cost. It's a predatory contract, pure and simple, completely favoring the publisher and devastating to the writer.

No respectable agent will ever submit to those houses. No experienced writer will, either. These operations, much like the Author Solutions scams, are targeted at novices who simply don't know any better yet.


----------



## MichaelSullivan (Mar 21, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I'd caution anyone against signing away rights for the life of a copyright without some good reversion language in the event things don't pan out. Imagine five years later, the book isn't selling, the publisher isn't doing anything and you can't do anything with it because you don't own it anymore.



All big-six contracts are life of copyright - period.  So if you go with a small indie press, yes you can get a limited term contract (5 or 7 years most common).  The reversion language in all these contracts set the bars too low (imho).  Usually something like 300 sales a year, or $100 - $500 in income a year).  These reversion levels aren't at this time highly negotiable. I've talked to a lot of agents who have tried and the best they get is to get them raised $50 or $100.  To get them to even what I would call "marginally acceptable" ($1,500 a year) is...at this point out of the question.



Steerpike said:


> Keep in mind, too, that a copyright assignment also transfers rights to prepare derivative works.



I know of no legitimate publisher who would take an author's copyright.  They are all licensing the right to sell the work in certain territories in certain formats and languages for a certain amount of time.  If they want copyright - don't sign.



Steerpike said:


> So maybe a few years later you still believe in the story but with more experience under your belt you want to rewrite it, or you want to continue with those characters and setting in a new story and go a different route with publication - a copyright assignment throws up potential roadblocks for a lot of things you might want to do with a work in the event the relationship with the current publisher doesn't work out.



You can't rewrite a story with an active contract in place.  You can continue those characters in a new story as long as your non-compete clause doesn't restrict such.  The non-compete is probably the clause you need to watch the hardest of all the contract languages because it extends beyond just "this" contract and effects future works.


----------



## MichaelSullivan (Mar 21, 2013)

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> It's a predatory contract, pure and simple, completely favoring the publisher and devastating to the writer.



Unfortunately, ALL publishing contracts favor the publisher...even those not deemed as "predatory" or "egregious."


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 21, 2013)

MichaelSullivan said:


> I know of no legitimate publisher who would take an author's copyright.  They are all licensing the right to sell the work in certain territories in certain formats and languages for a certain amount of time.  If they want copyright - don't sign.



Good points. I read a blog post about Hydra's initial contract that said they 'took' copyright, which I interpreted as assignment and not license. That wasn't correct. I'd be leery of any publisher who wanted an assignment as well. It's too bad the reversion language is generally so disfavorable to the author. I wonder if any of that will change as the publishing industry landscape continues to change.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 21, 2013)

Wow. Why are publishing contracts worth it again? I don't mean to be a defeatist, but if this is the way things are... wow. From what I''ve seen on this thread, it looks like I'd actually get more out of giving my books away to friends for free. At least then I'd know for sure people were reading it.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Mar 21, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Wow. Why are publishing contracts worth it again? I don't mean to be a defeatist, but if this is the way things are... wow.



History. Until the last few years, publishers had the market locked up. It was essentially impossible to self-publish and achieve widespread success.

When you've got a monopoly (or a big piece of one -- for all practical purposes the Big Six were a cartel), you can do whatever the hell you want. I frankly don't know why the government never threw the Sherman Act at them.


----------



## MichaelSullivan (Mar 22, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Good points. I read a blog post about Hydra's initial contract that said they 'took' copyright, which I interpreted as assignment and not license. That wasn't correct. I'd be leery of any publisher who wanted an assignment as well.



Yeah, the original Hydra contract was bad...but not even they would go that far. If they had, the gnashing of teeth would have been so much louder than it was.



Steerpike said:


> It's too bad the reversion language is generally so disfavorable to the author. I wonder if any of that will change as the publishing industry landscape continues to change.



I hope so too - But I'm not holding my breath. I know I tried, and my agent has tied with other contracts with other author.  She was telling me about a seven-figure deal that the publisher was willing to pull because of not wanting to budge on the reversion threshold. In the end, on that particular contract it moved from $500 a year to $600 a year.


----------



## MichaelSullivan (Mar 22, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Wow. Why are publishing contracts worth it again? I don't mean to be a defeatist, but if this is the way things are... wow. From what I''ve seen on this thread, it looks like I'd actually get more out of giving my books away to friends for free. At least then I'd know for sure people were reading it.



The contracts suck...being traditionally published - actually is pretty darn good. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that signing traditional REALLY helped out my career.  As with all things there are compromises that have to be made - I could have walked, almost did...but in the end I got a contract I could "live with."  These days, unless you are selling at huge volumes (like Hugh Howey) that's all you can hope for.


----------



## MichaelSullivan (Mar 22, 2013)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> When you've got a monopoly (or a big piece of one -- for all practical purposes the Big Six were a cartel), you can do whatever the hell you want. I frankly don't know why the government never threw the Sherman Act at them.



I agree...anyone who looked at the publishing contracts from all of the big-six (five) knows that they all walk the same party line and there is collusion to keep the terms universal.  The DoJ went after them about ebook pricing - I'm hoping someday they will do the same for authors.


----------

