Why do people buy 2nd hand Sky boxes?

In article , Robin
wrote:
On 12/01/2018 17:23, Jim Lesurf wrote: snip


I'm not aware of anything to stop authors etc writing that into their
contracts with publishers. If it's a practical problem for authors
why don't they do that?

There is nothing preventing the author from trying to do so. But they
may get a flat refusal. Then have to decide if they want to see if
anyone else will publish the work on that basis. Often authors and
performers sign because they worry that otherwise they won't 'get the
gig'. Many many simply want to be published and paid, without thinking
about this until later.

Well of course they *may* get refused. But reversion rights were a bog
standard part of publishing agreements for many a year. I just checked
that they still are according to people who know much moire than me. Eg:

The problem, again, is to ensure that is in the contract or enforcable by
some other means. And Magazines generally *don't* reprint articles, but may
reserve the rights to exclusively do so at some unknown future point.
Indeed, this may be more common now we have the web, e-publishing, etc,
because they hope for a future bonus from holding on to the rights. (That,
in essence, was what the Linux mag I referred to told me as an instance.)

So the distinction here is between what authors/performers should (seek to)
get agreed, and what the publisher is willing to offer. You can seek what
you like, but may be refused. And even when in the right, legally, taking a
magazine publisher to court isn't likely to encourage them to buy any
future work from you. So for many authors/performers reality isn't as easy
as it may seem.

For books (particularly fiction) they line of would-be-authors is miles
long. So book fiction publishers can be picky if they fancy because they'll
say they are taking a risk. You can ask, but refusal often offends. :-)

Successful fiction magazines have large slush piles, but are used to buying
first serial rights, so that is a different situation. As is writing
factual material for specialist magazines where the number of potential
writers is more limited.

https://www.writersandartists.co.uk/...ing-agreements

Note, BTW how that heavily relies on the situation for a *book* and what
you should aim to get. In reality, YMMV, especially when writing magazine
articles of parts of publications. And if you write an item on growing
roses for a gardening mag you probably don't have the option of trying it
on a steam railway magazine if the gardening mag didn't offer the rights or
payment you wanted. 8-]


And the same is true of music where contracts can provide for rights to
reverse automatically if the agreement is not honoured - eg royalties
not handed over.

That isn't the same as above because it would be a breach of contract.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:33:38 +0000, Chris Green wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 14:45:44 +0000, Chris Green wrote:

Indy Jess John wrote:
On 12/01/2018 11:23, Chris Green wrote:

If I could buy (say) a book and know that most of
the money I pay goes to the author I'd be much happier.

The trouble with that comparison is that a book has to be typeset,
printed on paper and then bound and shipped to the retail point so that
you can buy it.

Rarely nowadays, for me anyway, most of the books I read are
electronic and I read on a tablet or similar. No printing,
typesetting (though there is some formatting needed I agree), no
paper, no shipping.

... and they often have the cheek to charge *more* for an electronic
copy of a book.


0% VAT on printed books, 20% VAT on electronic copy. That's one reason
why.

Yes, I know that, but the production cost of an electronic book is
essentially nothing compared with that of a print book.

So if a print book does really cost (say) £6.99 I'd guess the cost of
the same book in an electronic edition would be a few pence, adding
20% to that doesn't get to more than £6.99.

Don't forget that the price includes the publisher's profit and the
author's royalties as well as production and distribution costs.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On 13/01/2018 12:28, Jim Lesurf wrote:
snip

For books (particularly fiction) they line of would-be-authors is miles
long. So book fiction publishers can be picky if they fancy because they'll
say they are taking a risk. You can ask, but refusal often offends. :-)

It's neither new nor surprising that there's a long queue of budding
authors. (Just as there are footballers, models, actors etc.) What is
relatively new is the extent to which authors have legal protection. As
reflected in the PA code of practice.


https://www.writersandartists.co.uk/...ing-agreements

Note, BTW how that heavily relies on the situation for a *book* and what
you should aim to get. In reality, YMMV, especially when writing magazine
articles of parts of publications. And if you write an item on growing
roses for a gardening mag you probably don't have the option of trying it
on a steam railway magazine if the gardening mag didn't offer the rights or
payment you wanted. 8-]

That result seems to me no different in kind from anyone in any area of
endeavour who specialises in a product for which there are very few
buyers. But if you think there's a serious market failure you could
lobby for a statutory regulator who sets the price - although I think
probably only after the transitional Brexit deal.

And the same is true of music where contracts can provide for rights to
reverse automatically if the agreement is not honoured - eg royalties
not handed over.

That isn't the same as above because it would be a breach of contract.


A publishing agreement for written work is just as much a contract as
those for music, video etc.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 11:48:35 +0000, Indy Jess John
wrote:

Really? We actually have a policy that encourages the use of a
material resource, instead of something that occupies zero shelf space
and requires no packaging or fuel to deliver it? Why on earth would we
do anything as daft as that?

It is probably a default from the way the legislation is written. If
the description is "printed material" or something similar because
newspapers are vat exempt, then an electronic version which is not
printed becomes liable to VAT as a default rather than as a specific
intention.

Maybe, though ultimately what matters to me is the cost to me, which
is usually less than a printed book, and it's a lot more convenient,
which makes it what I believe they call a "no-brainer".

Rod.

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 11:10:06 +0000, Robin wrote:

2) A "fish or cut bait" requirement. i.e. if a work is left
unpublished for, say, 5 years, the author/performers should have the
right to terminate any publication agreement and find another
publisher *if* their existing one is incapable or refuses to reprint
on terms equivalent to previously.

I'm not aware of anything to stop authors etc writing that into their
contracts with publishers. If it's a practical problem for authors why
don't they do that?

There is nothing preventing the author from trying to do so. But they may
get a flat refusal. Then have to decide if they want to see if anyone else
will publish the work on that basis. Often authors and performers sign
because they worry that otherwise they won't 'get the gig'. Many many
simply want to be published and paid, without thinking about this until
later.

There seems plenty of scope for the Law to make certain types of
contractual clauses illegal, the above being a good example. Generally
if anything is "optional", it's whoever has the money and/or power
that gets to exercise the option, which is exactly the kind of
imbalance that laws are supposed to even out.


I am unclear what you are asking should be outlawed given authors and
publishers routinely agree contracts with provision for reversion. See
my reply to Jim.

Essentially any kind of Faustian contract. As an example, I once
happened to appear in the background of one of those "behind the
scenes" extra sequences associated with a DVD production I worked on
(because they shot the material before asking anybody if they minded),
and we were all then asked to sign a release form or contract of some
sort because the publishers wouldn't proceed without this.

I wish I'd kept a copy because I can't recall the exact wording so
will have to paraphrase as best I can, but it included a clause that
effectively permitted them to publish images of me forever on any
media including any media yet to be invented. Eventually I signed
rather than hold up the production, realising I wasn't a prominent
part of the video anyway, but I was amazed it was legal to offer a
contract such as this. I was told it was "industry standard".

Not long previously, one of the actors had protested about pictures of
him that had been taken for a specific purpose subsequently being used
to advertise something to which he was ethically opposed, but he had
no power to prevent it because of some clause in whatever he had
signed to get the gig. I suppose it had been "optional" in the sense
that he would have had the "option" of refusing to sign until the
contract had been altered to his satisfaction, but as we all know the
reality of this would be nothing of the sort. The only way to save
people from the effects of iniquitous contract clauses like this would
be to make it illegal for companies to offer them in the first place.

Rod.

On 14/01/2018 00:10, Roderick Stewart wrote:

Essentially any kind of Faustian contract. As an example, I once
happened to appear in the background of one of those "behind the
scenes" extra sequences associated with a DVD production I worked on
(because they shot the material before asking anybody if they minded),
and we were all then asked to sign a release form or contract of some
sort because the publishers wouldn't proceed without this.

I wish I'd kept a copy because I can't recall the exact wording so
will have to paraphrase as best I can, but it included a clause that
effectively permitted them to publish images of me forever on any
media including any media yet to be invented. Eventually I signed
rather than hold up the production, realising I wasn't a prominent
part of the video anyway, but I was amazed it was legal to offer a
contract such as this. I was told it was "industry standard".

Not long previously, one of the actors had protested about pictures of
him that had been taken for a specific purpose subsequently being used
to advertise something to which he was ethically opposed, but he had
no power to prevent it because of some clause in whatever he had
signed to get the gig. I suppose it had been "optional" in the sense
that he would have had the "option" of refusing to sign until the
contract had been altered to his satisfaction, but as we all know the
reality of this would be nothing of the sort. The only way to save
people from the effects of iniquitous contract clauses like this would
be to make it illegal for companies to offer them in the first place.

Rod.


Very interesting.

Bill

In article , Robin
wrote:
On 13/01/2018 12:28, Jim Lesurf wrote: snip

For books (particularly fiction) they line of would-be-authors is
miles long. So book fiction publishers can be picky if they fancy
because they'll say they are taking a risk. You can ask, but refusal
often offends. :-)

It's neither new nor surprising that there's a long queue of budding
authors. (Just as there are footballers, models, actors etc.) What is
relatively new is the extent to which authors have legal protection. As
reflected in the PA code of practice.

That plays a game with the phrase "have legal protection". The default
level provided by law hasn't really changed. The item you reference
indicates what authors should expect or ask for - not invariably what they
*must be offerred*, by law, for a contract to be legal.


https://www.writersandartists.co.uk/...ing-agreements

Note, BTW how that heavily relies on the situation for a *book* and
what you should aim to get. In reality, YMMV, especially when writing
magazine articles of parts of publications. And if you write an item
on growing roses for a gardening mag you probably don't have the
option of trying it on a steam railway magazine if the gardening mag
didn't offer the rights or payment you wanted. 8-]

That result seems to me no different in kind from anyone in any area of
endeavour who specialises in a product for which there are very few
buyers.

Agreed. Except that of, course, if I make and sell widgets, I can sell them
one at a time as I make them and find clients. However a publisher may
choose to stop selling copies leaving me with no alternative if they bought
all rights and I felt I had to accept that. Some people may feel that have
to accept such a deal, and do. To blame them is to blame the victim.


But if you think there's a serious market failure you could
lobby for a statutory regulator who sets the price - although I think
probably only after the transitional Brexit deal.

A regulator would be an irrelevance unless the legal rules were changed
anyway.

And the same is true of music where contracts can provide for rights
to reverse automatically if the agreement is not honoured - eg
royalties not handed over.

That isn't the same as above because it would be a breach of contract.


A publishing agreement for written work is just as much a contract as
those for music, video etc.

You still haven't noticed that a *breach* of contract is a different issue
to having a poor contract. That's a odd/puzzlng blind spot given some of
your comments implying your background in this area.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Roderick Stewart
wrote:
Not long previously, one of the actors had protested about pictures of
him that had been taken for a specific purpose subsequently being used
to advertise something to which he was ethically opposed, but he had no
power to prevent it because of some clause in whatever he had signed to
get the gig. I suppose it had been "optional" in the sense that he would
have had the "option" of refusing to sign until the contract had been
altered to his satisfaction, but as we all know the reality of this
would be nothing of the sort. The only way to save people from the
effects of iniquitous contract clauses like this would be to make it
illegal for companies to offer them in the first place.

It is slightly more complicated than that because modern copyright law
includes what tend to be referred to as "moral rights" that are
"inalienable".

These include the right to prevent use or re-use, or altered use, that may
harm your standing in terms of the kind of work involved or as a person, or
mis-represents you. Legally, you *can't* signs these rights away. Any
clauses in a contract that try this on can be struck down by a court.
Opening in turn a possibility of suing for damages.

The problem, of course, is that you may then have to sue a large company.
As well as the worries about cost and possible rejection of your arguments
by the court, that can mean risking deterring other similar companies ever
employing you because they can find others who are more malliable.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa...o/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 14/01/2018 10:05, Jim Lesurf wrote:
snip

That result seems to me no different in kind from anyone in any area of
endeavour who specialises in a product for which there are very few
buyers.

Agreed. Except that of, course, if I make and sell widgets, I can sell them
one at a time as I make them and find clients. However a publisher may
choose to stop selling copies leaving me with no alternative if they bought
all rights and I felt I had to accept that. Some people may feel that have
to accept such a deal, and do. To blame them is to blame the victim.

You both label them "victims" and plant the thought that I have blamed
them for being such. Nice on.

But if you think there's a serious market failure you could
lobby for a statutory regulator who sets the price - although I think
probably only after the transitional Brexit deal.

A regulator would be an irrelevance unless the legal rules were changed
anyway.

And the same is true of music where contracts can provide for rights
to reverse automatically if the agreement is not honoured - eg
royalties not handed over.

That isn't the same as above because it would be a breach of contract.


A publishing agreement for written work is just as much a contract as
those for music, video etc.

You still haven't noticed that a *breach* of contract is a different issue
to having a poor contract. That's a odd/puzzlng blind spot given some of
your comments implying your background in this area.


You referred to "the above" but snipped from your reply the above it:

"It’s important to ensure that the author can get back the rights to
their book if the publisher either fails to stick to the terms of the
contract or lets the book go out of print. Historically, if the
publisher left a book out of print for 6–9 months after receiving a
written request to reprint it, rights would revert. However, ebook and
print-on-demand formats mean that standard ‘stock level’ reversion
clauses no longer provide adequate protection and new triggers for
reversion need to be agreed. This might be a rate of sale or revenue
threshold. It is well worth reclaiming rights to out-of-print books as
it may well be possible to re-license them later on."

So, to try to avoid misunderstanding, I was referring to the way
publishing agreements can and do provide for reversion by way of breach
of contract.

And yes, many authors don't have such contracts and feel they are hard
done by. They have been lobbying for years for better protection and
have persuaded the Commission and many MEPs. I gather - solely from the
press, I have no interest or contact beyond that - they'll get something
soon. But the wording of the draft Directive and some of the amendments
make me think the biggest winners may be the media lawyers.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Just been onto Sky about getting a new sky + box only to be told that they don't do them anymore & the only option is Sky Q at £199 or £40 plus £12 per month just for the privilege of having access to stuff I don't want. Now that's what I call a rip off.