Hey, you found our company! I expect the friend who pointed you toward it was a mutual friend, in fact. Thanks for spreading the word. (Although in a legal-blog context I feel obligated to point out we're not buying the copyright; copyrights remain where they are. We're crowdfunding a licensing fee.)

H'ok it's true that the store didn't go under. It just seemed that way, along with so many of the other stores in that area closing. My bad, sorry.

" When the biggest of the lot went under it seemed like confirmation that nothing could compete with Amazon and other online offerings. But lo, Harvard Book Store is back...." Harvard Book Store actually never went under, if that's what you're refering to. The store's been in continuous operation since 1932, and was sold to Jeff in 2008 by Frank Kramer, the son of the founder. Thanks for bringing up the Forbes story, and the great job Jeff's done since he took over.

I have to laugh at the fancy statistics and created my own similar one in response: 100% of UK citizens that were asked said they were led by the Labour party in September 2009, but when followed up on a year later, had changed their response to 'the coalition'.

Luis it's a valid question - I'll address it in today's blog post.

True that. I should've mentioned them. So this adds another platform to the mix, but it's still a minor niche play. This merger ought to be about a lot more.

Luis, without copyright, undiscovered artists are going to have to start small and give away initial works as loss leaders (self-promotion). As their fan base (hopefully) builds so economies of scale EVENTUALLY make it worthwhile offering to do an exchange with them, e.g. 100 fans commission a work at $10 each (out of a larger audience) - then they share it with their friends for free and then the audience builds, and so on. Each time the commission grows (if the artist is good). But, yes, cultivating the crowd must occur before the crowd will fund.

Crosbie Fitch, thank you for the link; while my assumption on how she cultivated her crowd was incorrect, my original question still remains on how effective crowd sourced funding is if you have not already cultivated a crowd? I see this more as validation that Amanda Palmer is now "successful" rather than being trail blazing. She's put in the work and has had her art connect with enough people to get this result. Paint me as too much of a pessimist to see this as a model non-established artists can utilize as effectively.

Luis Cruz, check out Mike Masnick's response to your 'pertinent question': http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120430/11150918717/no-record-label-amanda-palmer-raises-over-100k-just-six-hours-kickstarter.shtml#c1118

Here's the pertinent question; how well would this Kickstarter have done if she hadn't already acquired a world-wide fan base via her record contract? I've seen Kevin Smith espouse the same philosophy; avoid the corps and go it alone. But if you don't already have a crowd like they do, how effective can crowd sourcing be?

There are already Nook apps for iOS and Android: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/nook-by-barnes-noble/id373582546?mt=8 https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=bn.ereader&hl=en

I was going to use createspace until reading these comments. I went through the whole process and have the book ready for me to accept and publish with createspace right now, but after what was said here I think I will look for something else. I have searched for other publishing companies and POD ones, but can't seem to find any that won't charge for having a book printed. The ones I've seen are like $500 and up to have a book published with them. I don't have that kind of money to put into it and certainly not when there's no guarantee it will sell well or even at all. From what I have seen on createspace there hasn't been any fees asked of me to pay to have it published, but then what's the point of using their services if there are going to be issues with receiving royalties and they may print another copy of it and you get nothing from the sales. Ugh! Does anyone know of any legitimate publishing companies or POD ones that won't charge for getting a book published and will actually pay you the royalties?

Should; Can; and almost certainly Won't.

Michael: from what I read it's just the set of Tom Doherty imprints, which are owned by Macmillan. I haven't seen anything about this being carried to their other lines (though I wouldn't be surprised if it did).

The Declaration of Independence The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.1 — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 1 Per Wikipedia This has been called “one of the best-known sentences in the English language”, containing “the most potent and consequential words in American history.” The passage came to represent a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted. So, john e miller, Congress has power to SECURE the author's inalienable, natural, exclusive right to their writings, i.e. to protect their natural right (equal power) to exclude others from their writings. NB We have no natural power to give someone our writings (include them) and then exclude them - as copyright holders are gradually realising today, even with draconian enforcement powers). Congress can only secure the right to exclude others from our writings that we already have (that we were imbued with by our creator/nature). Congress does not have power to annul its citizens right to copy, to abridge their liberty to share and build upon their own culture. The Constitution did not stipulate that Congress had the power to grant the privilege of copyright - unlike its stipulation that Congress had the power to grant Letters of Marque. So, Congress should and can abolish the privilege it had granted without Constitutional power, i.e. the US Copyright act of 1790 and all enhancements thereafter.

It's not just TOR/Forge, it's all of Macmillan.

What Article I Section 8 of the 1787 US constitution *does* say is that Congress shall have the power -- 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; So the 'abolishment' of copyright would require a constitutional amendment saying that Congress does not in fact have such right as above which would not seem to be a high priority on the National agenda... ... Hypnotism or otherwise.

Androgynous Cowherd, a "clear reading" of the US Constitution will reveal to you that the copyright act of 1790 is not mentioned (nor is The Statute of Anne of 1709), nor is its purpose, which is declared in the 1790 copyright act to be "the encouragement of learning". It is pure hypnotism that people believe the US Constitution says anything about copyright (the right to copy, annulled in the majority, to be left, by exclusion, in the hands of a few - copyright holders). It is deep programming that has nearly every US citizen faithfully declaring that The US Constitution specified copyright would promote the progress of science - and that it therefore empowered Congress to grant this privilege. READ IT AGAIN

Its sole official purpose, as stated in the Constitution, indubitably is to benefit the public. Of course, others do have other purposes for it, and some of those peoples' other purposes for it are at odds with the official purpose, but those latter people are misusing it, more or less by definition.

A clear reading of the Constitution plainly establishes that the purpose of copyright is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Enriching authors with a temporary monopoly is the means to that end. The Register of Copyrights is, indeed, putting the cart before the horse by claiming that that means is the end. As for the inevitable abolition of copyright law by the public, given the proliferation of file-sharing tools and sites I'd say it's already well under way.

... and you are spending your time exploring and explaining what should come *after* Abolition of Copyright?

John E Miller, you can now add extradition to the list (qv Richard O'Dwyer). Enforcement will ratchet up until something snaps... Meanwhile, as you say, "on planet Earth", some of us are exploring and explaining what must fill the vacuum left by copyright's abolition, both in terms of law and the means by which artists exchange their art for the money of their fans - when there are no publishing corporations to purchase and exploit state granted monopolies arising. Are you impatient?

Quote M. Crosbie Fitch: http://www.ip-watch.org/2010/11/26/study-of-public-domain-copyright-at-wipo-offers-recommendations/ Once upon a time, before a wicked Queen made a dreadful bargain, people were free to sing each other’s songs. And three centuries later, bankruptcy or jail awaits the delinquent youth who dare offend those privileged with the suspension of their cultural liberty. Copyright to John Lennon’s work may well be a matter now out of Yoko’s hands. Either government abolishes this instrument of injustice, or the people will. Whereas an individual’s conscience may pang them to restore the public’s liberty, publishing corporations lack all such compunction – monopolies are as crack cocaine to these immortal entities. -- and as I (further) replied: "Meanwhile, on Planet Earth ..."

I have been with LS for the past three years. Comparing the book and shipping prices between LS and CS, CS is much lower. The one thing I'm noticing with LS is that their distributors are selling my books at quite a low price. In fact, I found out--from an LS employee, that they can get my books at 35% off. I'm positive some of these employees are selling my books--"New," and real cheap, on the Amazon site (you know those "Ma/Pa stores"). Some sell them so cheap, that they only sell them to make money from the shipping costs! I am disturbed to see that Cs may be doing this too. I found a printer, an hour from my home, who does print on demand. I will be going next week to see what price this printer can give me. If the price is a good one, I'll sell directly to Amazon, B&N and other bookstores myself. This will keep those Ma/Pa stores from outselling me. Anyone of you can sell directly to Amazon. The cost is $29.00 per year (no matter how many books you've written). Amazon requests 55% off your retail price (plus the shipping to Amazon). If you can get a good price from a nearby printer, this might not be a bad route to go. It'll certainly keep the Ma/Pa stores from outselling you!

Oh ouch. Very well, point taken. I promise to try and keep to more substantive matters.