from the you-can't-throw-the-book-at-them dept.
If you're a consumer, that piece of digital wordsmithery you purchased probably isn't worth the paper it isn't printed on. Like most digital media available for "purchase," ebooks are often "sold" as licenses that allow the publisher to control use of the product indefinitely, whether through DRM or by simply attaching EULAs no one will ever read to every download.
This works out great for publishers, who can make irrational, unilateral decisions to pull their catalogs from platforms as a "bargaining tool," leaving purchasers without access to their purchased goods. But publishers (including music publishers like UMG) only use the term "license" when it's most advantageous for them. When it comes to paying authors, the terminology suddenly changes. Now it's a "sale," with all the disadvantages for authors that entails.
"Sales" is a historical term, meant to reference physical sales and the additional costs (printing, packaging, shipping) built into the process. Licenses -- and the ebooks attached to them -- have none of these costs, hence the higher payout rate. But, according to a recently-filed lawsuit, Simon and Schuster is treating ebooks like physical sales in order to pay authors lower royalties.
The fine article digs deeper into the precedents and the pertinent wording in the various agreements for those who want to get their teeth into the details. Case-by-case lawsuits don't appear to be a particularly satisfying solution to what appears to be endemic in the industry. Is a solution instead for the content creators to stick their middle finger up at the traditional publishers, and find other ways of getting their creations into the market? Insight from content creators is most welcome.
