Posing as the chief digital officer of a Big Six publisher, E-Reads’ own Richard Curtis got a sneak peek at Floppatronic’s new Pfleeber reading device and has reviewed it for Publishers Weekly.

His verdict? “‘Kindle Killer’ is an overused term,” writes Curtis. “but if anything deserves it more, we’ll eat our laptop.”

Curtis awards the device 4 1/2 stars, withholding a full five because of the gadget’s dumb name.  Here are some features he finds so compelling:

• Its 8.5″×5.5″ dimensions are almost Grecian in their perfection.
• It weighs a mere 15 ounces, yet it’s more flexible than the Plastic Logic Que.
• Its operating system is 50-pound paper stock bound on the left-hand seam.
• The bright ivory-white surface enables us to make out 10-point text clearly in ambient light even at an astounding 20-degree reading angle.
• The pages make a satisfying pffftt with each activation, simulating the sound made by the iPad.

In fact, the Pfleeber sounds suspiciously like another and quite familiar reading device but we can’t quite put our finger on it. The fact that Curtis’s review appears on PW’s “Soapbox” page where his satires are often published leads us to wonder if our leg isn’t being pulled…

Check it out here and see if our suspicions are correct.

Cliff Guren and Pam Turner, executives of Skiff, the recently developed e-book platform, have just announced the company’s acquisition by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.

In a review of e-book readers last January we cited Dan Nosowitz, Gizmodo’s reviewer, who gave Skiff high marks for beauty, slimness, weight, screen size and functionality: “I just got a chance to play with the big-screened, touchscreened Skiff Reader, which is targeted at periodicals. It’s incredibly thin, incredibly light, and they’ve even got a color screen prototype—Kindle and Nook should be scared.”

Kindle and Nook may not have been scared then but perhaps they will be now. Rupert Murdoch has given numerous hints that he wants to develop his own e-book reader(See Press Baron Murdoch Ready to Get E-Ink on His Fingers?)  and now he has one off the shelf.

Here’s the notification emailed by Guren to publishing partners.
******************************

Dear Skiff Publishing Partner,

I’m writing to share with you that Skiff’s publishing platform has been acquired by News Corp. As News Corp. announced yesterday, this acquisition is part of News Corp.’s commitment to premium digital journalism and to developing new ways for publishers to monetize their content online and via a wide range of devices.

We are pleased that News Corp. has recognized the value of Skiff’s accomplishments and we attribute that in part to the fine partners that have worked with us to this point.

In connection with this sale, Skiff, LLC will be winding down its current operations. We fully expect News Corp. may want to consider opportunities to renew the relationship we’ve had with you at Skiff. In the meantime, we appreciate your continued discretion under the confidentiality agreement that we have in place.

While some members of the Skiff team will be joining this effort, Pam Turner and I will be heading off to pursue other opportunities. As a result, I wanted to let you know that Lee Shirani (lshirani@skiff.com) will be following up with you.

Pam and I deeply value your support. We consider ourselves privileged to part of the publishing community. Thank you… We look forward to working with you again.

My personal contact information going forward is as follows [Deleted]:
Regards,

Cliff Guren and Pam Turner

Cliff Guren
Vice President, Content Acquisition

Her: I read a wonderful book the other day.
Him: On what?
Her: On relationships
Him: No, I mean on what device did you read it? Kindle? Nook? Sony? iPad?
Her: Kindle. Anyway, this book said some really important things about how couples communicate.
Him: Kindle? You could probably see an enhanced version with all kinds of extras on the iPad. Is it audio enabled?`
Her: I don’t know. Would you like to know what the author said about listening to the other person?
Him: Will I be able to see it on YouTube? Hey, why are you packing your suitcase?

This sad exchange might be cited by Deborah Tannen if she ever decided to update You Just Don’t Understand, her insightful book describing how difficult it is for men and women to communicate with each other.  The “Her” in the story was talking about what interested her (her relationship with Him) and the “Him” was talking about what interested him (cool stuff).

This divergence between content and form manifests itself more and more as the format crowds out content in media’s bid for our attention. Books are a salient example. As the publishing industry shifts from paper to screen, the qualities of the book itself just don’t seem as significant as the packaging and delivery technology. It’s begun to be reflected in editorial attitudes: ”Great concept, marvelous characters, super plot. But the author has no platform and a boring website. Sorry.”

Even reviewers have contracted the disease, especially those who cover the media online. Jason Kottke, posting a blog entitled The New Rules for Reviewing Media, observed “I’ve noticed an increasing tendency by reviewers on Amazon (and Apple’s iTunes and App Stores) to review things based on the packaging or format of the media with little regard shown to the actual content/plot.”

Unlike newspaper and magazine reviewers, says Kottke, their Internet cousins ask “whether a book would be good to read on a Kindle, if you should buy the audiobook version instead of the hardcover because John Hodgman has a delightful voice, if a magazine is good for reading on the toilet, if a movie is watchable on an iPhone or if you need to see it in 1080p on a big TV, if a hardcover is too heavy to read in the bath, whether the trailer is an accurate depiction of what the movie is about, or if the hardcover price is too expensive and you should get the Kindle version or wait for the paperback. Or, as the above reviewers hammer home, if the book is available to read on the Kindle/iPad/Nook or if it’s better to wait until the director’s cut comes out.”

Kottke has put his finger on a significant trend, but although he neither condones or condemns it, we’ve expressed growing concern (see Watching Books) that literature will be judged on the most superficial grounds: not how artistic it is, but what’s the best gadget to read it on.

“In the end,” writes Kottke, “people don’t buy content or plots, they buy physical or digital pieces of media for use on specific devices and within certain contexts.”

Troubling.

Richard Curtis

Once again it’s time to play You Be the Agent.

Today’s question is, How much is one line of poetry worth? Not a lot, you say? Suppose you represented the Robert Frost estate and someone requested permission to use the line “And miles to go before I sleep” in an anthology. Still think it’s worth nothing?

That’s the kind of question that comes up daily in every literary agency. But with the introduction of digital technology, decisions that were once fairly cut and dried have become head-spinningly complex. Marc Aronson, in an op-ed piece published in the New York Times, stated the issue cogently: “In order for electronic books to live up to their billing, we have to fix a system that is broken: getting permission to use copyrighted material in new work. Either we change the way we deal with copyrights — or works of nonfiction in a multimedia world will become ever more dull and disappointing.”

What does Aronson mean? “Given that permission costs are already out of control for old-fashioned print,” he writes, “it’s fair to expect that they will rise even higher with e-books. After all, digital books will be in print forever (we assume); they can be downloaded, copied, shared and maybe even translated. We’ve all heard about the multimedia potential of the iPad, but how much will writers be charged for film clips and audio? Rights holders will demand a hefty premium for use in digital books — if they make their materials available in that format at all.”

Aronson thinks it’s high time for a new permissions model grounded in the realities of the digital paradigm. “Instead of paying permission fees upfront based on estimated print runs, book creators would pay based on a periodic accounting of downloads.” Though accounting for sales under this system might at first seem daunting, the micropayment management such as Paypal is already commonplace.
Aronson is onto something. Expect to hear more about it.

Richard Curtis

Every Blogger owes a debt of gratitude to newspapers and magazines. This posting relies on original research and reporting performed by The New York Times.

The Author’s Guild issued a sharp rebuke to publisher John Wiley & Sons for delivering a sort of Trojan Horse to authors.

The “horse” came in the form of a notice to authors who had contracts with newly acquired Bloomberg Press that the company was downwardly adjusting its royalty rates. Buried inside a saccharine (“We are pleased to inform you…”) salutation was a message that Wiley was conforming Bloomberg’s royalty to the rate stipulated in Wiley’s boilerplate – an “adjustment” that would pay the authors 24% and 43% less than they were getting.The authors were invited to sign an amendment.

The Guild’s outrage that authors were being snookered was expressed in unusually strong language. “The contract amendment, which provides no threshold level of sales for a work to be considered in print, essentially grants Wiley a perpetual right in an author’s book for a pittance. The 5% of net receipts royalty rate for print on demand editions is as lowest we have ever seen.” And “This is no way to do business. The letter is shocking from a publisher of Wiley’s stature.” “In our view, Wiley should tear up any signed letters it has received and start over, forthrightly explaining to its new authors the contractual changes it is seeking and how this may affect their income and their right to terminate their publishing contracts.”

We haven’t viewed Bloomberg contracts but assignment language in many publishing contracts guarantees that an acquiring company cannot change contractual terms without the express consent of the author. Signing the amendment would do just that, and the Guild wants to make sure authors know that it is a potential trap.

The full text of the Guild’s notice is below.
Richard Curtis
————-
Wiley’s Deceptive Letter to Bloomberg Press Authors: “We are pleased to inform you” that we will be slicing your royalties up to 50%

John Wiley & Sons acquired Bloomberg Press, the books division of Bloomberg, in March. At the end of April, it began sending a letter to hundreds of Bloomberg Press authors purporting to inform them “about a few differences in the accounting systems of Bloomberg and Wiley that it will be helpful for you to know about.”

While this sounds innocent enough, it isn’t. If signed by an author, the letter is actually a contract amendment that will materially and adversely affect the royalty rates of many Bloomberg Press authors.

Among other things, this contract amendment would:

1. Change royalty rates based on retail list price to rates based on net receipts. We’ve reviewed several Bloomberg Press contracts. All provide for royalty payments based on the retail list price (although we understand that there may be many based on net receipts). The Wiley letter misleadingly presents this to the author as good news: “We are pleased to inform you that we will be paying your royalties on the net amount received…” This change will, for many authors, effectively slice royalties by up to 50% for some book sales. Wiley’s letter fails to disclose that.

2. Empower Wiley to keep an author’s book in print with a lowball print on demand royalty of 5% of net receipts. (Bloomberg Press had no print on demand program.) The contract amendment, which provides no threshold level of sales for a work to be considered in print, essentially grants Wiley a perpetual right in an author’s book for a pittance. The 5% of net receipts royalty rate for print on demand editions is as low as we’ve seen.

We’ve asked an independent royalty auditor to review the affects of these contractual changes on royalty income. The royalty auditor found reductions of 24% to 43% using actual sales figures and applying Wiley’s amendments. (The precise affect of the amendments will vary by title, depending on particular categories of sales of the work.)

The Authors Guild strongly urges Bloomberg Press authors to not sign this letter without careful consideration. If you have received this letter, consult your agent or a publishing attorney or contact a lawyer in our legal department so you understand precisely how this amendment would affect your rights and royalties. Important: if you have already signed the letter and returned it to Wiley, contact our legal department immediately. Non-Guild members are welcome to contact us as well. All communications will, of course, be held in confidence.

This is no way to do business. The letter is shocking from a publisher of Wiley’s stature. In our view, Wiley should tear up any signed letters it has received and start over, forthrightly explaining to its new authors the contractual changes it is seeking and how this may affect their income and their right to terminate their publishing contracts.

The Authors Guild

Stephen Windwalker, editor of The Kindle Nation, reports on Teleread that “Ebooks accounted for 29% of all first week sales of The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest,” the third novel in the bestselling Stieg Larsson trilogy.

According to Michael Cader, posting on his Publishers Marketplace website, out of 425,000 units, 125,000 were e-books. That comes to an extraordinary 29.4%. If percentages like that hold up for future frontlist releases, it will be hard to argue that the paradigmatic e-book tipping point has not yet arrived.

RC

Alleging that another agent tried to poach one of her agency’s clients, ICM mega-agent Esther Newberg lit into rival Andrew Wylie in a public denunciation aired at the recent Book Expo of America in New York’s Javits Center. The author in question was not named.

Wylie’s reputation for raiding literary chicken coops is so well known in the agency field that he is nicknamed “The Jackal”. “The British press,” reports the New York Post, “is usually credited with tagging Wylie with the Jackal nickname back in 1995, when he obtained a $750,000 advance for [Martin] Amis after persuading the British writer to dump his longtime agent, Pat Kavanagh, even though she was the wife of Julian Barnes, a best friend of Amis’ at the time.”

Newberg declared war on Wylie, vowing “I am just lying in wait for the moment when I can get back at him.”

Client-stealing is not uncommon in the literary agency profession, but it is usually conducted with more finesse than the Newberg-Wylie fracas.  As I pointed out in Are Literary Agents Friends or Rivals? “Antagonism between agents flares up over the interpretation of just how loudly, sweetly, and aggressively an agent sings his firm’s praises to an author represented by another agent. You might think of it as the Smoking Gun theory of client-stealing: if the author walks in the door of another agency in a state of uncertainty but walks out clutching a signed agreement with his new agent, it can be inferred that something considerably more than a soft-sell occurred behind that door.”

Though agents can gain a certain degree of protection by issuing client contracts, it’s hard to keep an unhappy author against his or her will.

Every agent has been the recipient of a “Dear John” letter citing “differences in philosophy” and similar nonsensical explanations that are really thinly disguised pretexts for the fact that another agency filched the author. One agent told me he’d been informed that his former client had decided to go with a big bicoastal agency because it had movie clout. What kind of books did this author write that were perfect vehicles for major motion pictures?  Regency romances! Though a gentleman, the exasperated agent told this author, “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.”

You can read all the gory details in Secret agent clash by Keith J. Kelly, Jennifer Gould Keil and Michael Gray.

Richard Curtis

Every Blogger owes a debt of gratitude to newspapers and magazines. This posting relies on original research and reporting performed by The New York Post.

“The envelope, please”, that trite phrase used to announce the winner of an Oscar, took on a new meaning when some five thousand individuals received notices that they were being sued for illegally downloading the Academy Award-winning film The Hurt Locker, Ethan Smith reports in the Wall Street Journal.  The recipients had copped the film using BitTorrent, the file-sharing protocol.

Unlike the lawsuit brought against music downloaders by the Recording Industry Association of America, this action was brought by one producer, Voltage Pictures LLC. In fact – and mystifyingly – the Motion Picture Association of America distanced itself from Voltage’s action. A spokesperson wrote that “The MPAA and our member companies have absolutely nothing to do with these lawsuits.”

Suing end users is fraught with dangers and imponderables.  For one thing, it’s bad public relations. Smith cites that RIAA subpoenas were served to “very young children, old people who said they didn’t own computers, even a dead person.”

Nevertheless, such actions are a sign of how outraged copyright owners are about having their work robbed. The RIAA was willing to incur a PR black eye in exchange for intimidating would-be thieves.  And perhaps they did, especially when those would-be’s learned that it had cost one defendant $675,000 (see File Share This for details).

Suing file-sharers is not like suing your neighbor for running his lawn mower into your car. “The process of suing people for downloading can be complicated and costly,” Smith reminds us. “After the relatively straightforward task of recording the Internet protocol, or IP, address of each person offering a piece of media, the plaintiff must learn who that numerical address belongs to, generally by sending a subpoena to the Internet service provider associated with it.”

We’ve had lawsuits against music downloaders and now we have one against film downloaders.  Are e-book downloaders next?

If victims of piracy have any say about it, the answer will be a resounding Yes. And there are a lot of victims. Are you one of them? Does your blood boil when you see yourself ripped off and your mugger laughing at you? Maybe you will take heart from the Wall Street Journal‘s account, which you can read in full here.

Richard Curtis

In an attempt to roll back the tide of digital piracy, England’s Parliament recently passed an act designed to disconnect service to households where copyright infringement is taking place. (For background read Brits Fiddle While E-Pirates Dance on Authors’ Graves)

Though it might prove to be an exercise in futility, the law attempts to recognize and punish Internet lawbreakers where it really hurts: clamping their feeding tube. The US government does not seem to consider e-piracy to be worth so much as a shoulder shrug, though illegal downloading of copyrighted musical, literary and artistic content has become as widespread as China’s.

Cory Doctorow, an unrepentent apologist for file sharing – a practice favored by content thieves because it operates just inside the boundaries of the law – believes that Britain’s statute will not fly. In a blog posted on the Guardian‘s website, he contends that customers whose juice is turned off will simply seek other illegal means to download content without having to pay for it. “Those who download most avidly will simply change tactics,” he argues.

Doctorow’s position is based on the assumption that given a choice, people will choose to break the law.  I am far from certain that that at base humans are no damn good. If that were true it would be impossible for legitimate businesses and governments to function.

Of course, obedience to the law must of necessity be reinforced by fear of punishment.  Surely Cory Doctorow doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with that? A healthy respect for the law is the foundation for any worthwhile human endeavor including those that Doctorow himself is engaged in.

A commercial model based on reasonable sanctions seems far preferable to Doctorovian anarchy: faced with the prospect of having their monitor go black, most customers will opt for paid, legitimate service.

It is vital for the sake of our blossoming e-book industry to appeal to the better nature of consumers of digital content – while combating those who flout the law and seduce others to do the same. As for the latter, we will have a lot more to say in due time.

You can read Doctorow’s argument here and decide which side of the angels you choose to be on.

Richard Curtis

E-book sales are growing exponentially.  Print book sales are flat.  So -  how long will it take for e-books to punch through the print books envelope?

Before you raise your hand, work this into your calculations: e-book sales are on track to top $400 million in 2010.  The print book business is estimated at $24 billion. That’s 60x e-book revenues.

That equation has not daunted Sony, manufacturer of Kindle’s rival e-book reader, from projecting that in five years E will surpass P, according to Shane Richmond, Head of Technology for Telegraph.co.uk. Richmond writes that the president of Sony’s digital reading business division actually cut his projection from ten years to five after observing that “The same patterns that Sony had seen in the digitization of music and photography are now being repeated in the books market.”

Full article here.

Richard Curtis