To AI or Not to AI

Yep, that's the question these days. Especially when it comes to cover art for my books.

Will I ever use AI for writing a book? No, because it kind of defeats the purpose of writing. For me, writing is almost the same as reading. I'm often surprised by what my Imagination can come up with.

Like the zombie Andean condor forcing down a plane in Blood Sacrifice.

But for cover art, I've been reluctant to use AI. There's more than a few ongoing lawsuits in regards to training the AIs with copyrighted material and no permission from or recompense to the artists.

At the same time, the US Copyright Office has deemed AI-generated items as non-copyrightable since they were produced by a non-human. Kind of like the Monkey Selfie or the paintings of elephants, chimpanzees, and gorillas. On the other hand, the EU says that AI-generated art is copyrightable because it's generation is directed by a human's instructions.

 However, the Bern Convention currently fails to address who owns the copyright to an AI generated image because the treaty is massively behind the times.

In an effort to make people comfortable with using their AI, Adobe offers indemnification. Does this indemnification hold up in court? It hasn't been tested yet, so only the Creator and the Supreme Court knows if the indemnification will hold up.

And I can guarantee if Adobe loses its first lawsuit over the matter, it'll rip that clause out of its Terms and Conditions and hang its users out to dry.

I've talked to the cover artists I've used about the matter. Frankly, none of us quite know which way to jump, but one thing was glaringly obvious. AI is not going away.

Even Alexa on my Echo Dot agrees.

AI Law

Even though I haven't practiced law in over a decade, friends like to send me legal articles. Especially if the article deals with the rapid changes in the publishing industry.

My friend Angie sent this article from TechDirt:

Sanctions Hearing for ChatGPT-Using Lawyers Did Not Go Well

*facepalm*

There's a lot of people using ChatGPT. I get it. It makes a lovely shortcut on a lot of different projects. But ChatGPT is not foolproof. That's why I don't recommend using it for drafting fiction, non-fiction, or covers.

I definitely wouldn't use it for practicing law! That's what Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw is for.

If I were the judge, I'd probably recommend disbarment for both attorneys. This kind of crap was inexcusable. As I've said before the legal profession MUST be held to a higher standard. The strength of our judicial system relies on everyone doing their job properly.

Don't get me wrong, folks. I love technology. Angry Sheep Publishing wouldn't exist without it. But it needs to be used responsibly and ethically. Luckily, no one's life depended on these two yahoos using tech correctly.

But what if it was your attorney using ChatGPT to argue cases using fake cites?

Dry Powder and Black Ice

There was a nasty three-car pile up near us last night. At the intersection of the township road our neighborhood sits on and a U.S. highway, the slush of treated snow turned to black ice. It didn't help that according to witnesses, one vehicle in particular was speeding and darting around other cars and trucks in a no-passing zone.

Yesterday's snow was dry powder. The kind that's good for skiing, I'm told. It's been blowing off the roof as the wind pick up this afternoon. We'll see how much more snow we'll get and what kind. The predictions have been all over the place.

Why am I talking about winter issues? Because the publishing industry is fracturing to the point where I'm not sure what's going to happen next. If anyone tells you they do, that person is lying their ass off.

The first lawsuits have been filed in regards to using artificial intelligence for creative endeavors. Where once creators were clawing back their right by tooth and nail, or sometimes even by lawsuits, artists are now selling their entire catalogs. Justin Bieber was the latest, though the one who surprised me was The Boss. Apparently, not even Bruce Springsteen could pass up a quarter of a billion bucks. (And no, that "B" as in billion is not a typo.)

I'm exploring the possibilities of expanding merchandise related to my books, from t-shirts to Tarot cards. It would mean setting up an online store. It may mean finally hiring an assistant. I could keep Angry Sheep Publishing a small one-person business, but even DH thinks I need to focus on the creative aspects and have someone else help handle the day-to-day functions.

Of course, he volunteered. However, he's still dealing with his dad's estate while working a full-time job. And we're not sure if/when he can leave a regular job because of the legislative threats to Medicare and Social Security.

With that lovely set of concerns, I can see why a seventy-three-year-old Bruce Springsteen sold his entire catalogue. How else is he going to pay for his and his wife's care for the next twenty or so years?

Judge Pan's Decision on Randy Penguins

I still haven't read Judge Florence Pan's decision, but Publishers Weekly copiously quoted the judge in their article this week about the matter. It will be interesting to see what happens with PRH's planned appeal.

The whole case is unusual in that the DOJ took the side of the product producers (i.e. the writers) instead of that of the consumers. However, Judge Pan was quick to point out that Apple was slapped with $450 million fine after its trial back in 2013 because the Big Five idiotically admitted to the price-fixing during the course of their settlements with the DOJ. She essentially stated the Big Five were using the same type of collusion between themselves with their product producers.

It will be interesting to see how far Randy Penguins get with their appeals, considering Apple failed with their appeals in the 2012 price-fixing lawsuit.

DOJ Sues Randy Penguin over Simon & Schuster Merger

The big news in traditional publishing is the Penguin-Random House merger with Simon & Schuster. CBSViacom, Inc. has been seeking a buyer for their publishing arm for a while now, and Randy Penguin slapped $2.18B on the table and said, "SOLD!"

No, that is not a typo. B as in billion. The deal would make the Big Five into the Big Four. A lot of publishing observers have been expecting this even before CBS put their little brother up for sale.

Then the DOJ stepped in and said, "Noppity no," and they slapped an anti-trust suit on the deal.

A big part of Randy Penguin defense is "Look! Indies! We wouldn't control that much of the market." Some writers are grinding their teeth to nubs and other are laughing their asses off since the Big Five have refused to see indie publishing as even real publishing for the last ten years.

Here's my observations and thoughts on the matter:

1) Randy Penguin's defense is a back door jab at Amazon. As in PRH is trying to claim Amazon is the indies' publisher. There's a big difference between Amazon publishing a writer through one of their imprints and the rest of us to whom Amazon is one retailer (out of many around the world).

2) The DOJ is more than a little short-sighted in that they have no fucking clue of how the book industry works as a whole. They made the same mistakes with the tech industry when they were going after Microsoft thirty years ago.

3) While it's nice the DOJ is concerned about writers, the protections of anti-trust law are for the consumers. If the DOJ actually gave a fuck about the consumers, they would have tackled ebook pricing long before now.

4) Simon & Schuster are the last wholly American-owned large book publisher. You'd think CBS would be parading that around or the DOJ would. Nope, no one gives a rat's ass with $2.18B on the table.

5) How much longer will the increase in book sales be trending up? With the pandemic still ongoing, TV and movie production has been delayed and is finally getting back to a semi-normal pace. During that lull between late 2019 and late 2021, people were reading, but will they continue to do do with new video on the rise?

6) If the DOJ stops the sale, it is likely CBS will spin Simon & Schuster into its own company where it could die a slow quiet death. Unless someone with a fucking clue can rebuild it. But that would mean changing the cultural mindset of the company, which is unlikely.

So how will this all shake out? I don't know, but I'm popping some corn and melting some butter because it's going to be entertaining as hell to watch.

Amazon Took Scammer to Court and Won!

If the recent account banning didn't stun scammers, maybe Amazon's lawsuit will make them think twice.

Last year, Amazon filed five arbitration demands against various people, accusing them of fraudulent behavior in the KDP biosphere. Such behaviors include fake reviews, paid reviews, fake accounts, and click-farming.

Amazon is usually rather quiet in its legal dealings, but last week, they filed a petition to confirm an arbitration award. They accused Thomas Glenn of manipulating book rankings through his marketing service. Glenn, a resident of the Dominican Republic, never answered the original claims against him, not did he appear at the arbitration proceedings.

What does this mean to Average Jane Writer?

First of all, don't buy reviews. Don't use click farms to increase page reads. Don't gift thousands of books in an attempt to hit some bestseller list.

Be very, VERY careful if you hire any outside marketing person or company. Ask questions of the people/company you're considering. Ask a LOT of questions. If they get pissy with you or refuse to answer your questions or give you bullshit answers, don't walk away. RUN!

Or as one of Sheldon's previous roommates said, "Run far. Run fast."

And if you do decide to do one of these things, ask yourself if it's worth losing your Amazon account or your writing career.

The Latest Drama with Ellora's Cave

Things were quiet over the summer as each party in the Ellora's Cave v. Dear Author case worked its way through discovery. On Tuesday, September 1, both parties filed their motions for summary judgment. Deidre Saoirse Moen has continued to update the case's timeline, along with links to pertinent documents regarding the case.

I haven't had the chance to go through the motions and exhibits because of work and family obligations last week. My personal opinions from back in March on the case can be read here. Any additional thoughts or changes of opinion will be the subject of a separate post at a later date once I have a chance to read the documents. And there are a lot!

Two days after the motions for summary judgment were filed, RWA allegedly sent out a notice to all chapters concerning EC's violation of RWA's Code of Ethics for Industry Professionals. Supposedly, CEO Patty Marks admitted EC was not up-to-date on royalty payments. I am no longer a member of RWA, so I can't confirm this information through RWA's website. However, assuming it's true, it's nice to see one of the writers' orgs standing up to a publisher without wishy-washy language.

Ellora's Cave v. Dear Author: How Two Smart, Talented Women Managed to Ruin Their Images

I thought long and hard before I even started writing this blog post. I've been talking about the EC v. DA lawsuit here because it fascinates me from a legal standpoint. Frankly, I almost didn't write this because I know the trolls are out in force. In fact, anonymous trolls tried to turn TPV into a bloodbath last week. So, this is one of those rare instances where I am closing comments.

FULL DISCLOSURE: Since lack of disclosure is what got the subjects of this post into trouble, here's mine.

I submitted a story to EC when they were filling their Tarot Card theme line. My story was rejected. I only had contact with editor Brianna St. James. I'd normally give exact dates but I cleaned out all submission e-mails and responses dated prior to 2010 when I transferred my files from my beloved former laptop Isabella to my new computer at Thanksgiving. I also have two friends who wrote for EC and were instrumental in jumpstarting Alter Ego's career, Tea Trelawny and Lyla Sinclair. Yes, they are pseudonyms. No, I'm not going to betray their trust and tell anyone their real names. Neither of them has said anything to me regarding EC paying or not paying their royalties. In fact, the last time I had contact with either of them was in May and December, 2013, respectively, i.e. long before the current brouhaha started.

As far as DA goes, none of my books, under either of the names I use to publish, have been reviewed by a DA reviewer. I personally know a handful of romance writers who were reviewed by DA. The reviews ran the gamut of A to D+. One personal friend was denigrated by Jane Litte for having the audacity to use her agent to help her indie pub her books. These books were previously trad published, but my friend got the rights back before her publisher went under.

I do write erotica. I do not write New Adult. Whether or not that makes me a competitor is left up to you, the reader of this post, to decide.

Yes, I do review books here on this blog or Bloodlines, on Amazon, and on Goodreads (though not so much there anymore). When I do, it's under one of my author names. I don't review under a separate name. I don't review books for a third party such as a publisher or a review site. I sure as hell don't review books for money. And I definitely don't review my own books. Any books I have reviewed, I either bought or were free as part of a general promotion to the public through BookBub or Ebooksoda. I do review books in the genres I write.

If I can't give a book a 3-star rating or higher (or it's equivalent), I do not post a review anywhere. The reason I don't? If it's that disappointing to me, then I don't finish it. I believe it's unfair to write a review for a book I didn't finish reading. And life's too fucking short to waste time reading a book I don't like, much less writing the review for it.

The only review I've written that other folks might question is the one I wrote for my now-writing partner, Laura Kirwan. So here's the timeline:

8/1/14 - Laura e-mailed me privately about a comment I left on TPV. We struck up a conversation about publishing and law because we have similar backgrounds.
9/16/14 - I bought Laura's book, Impervious.
10/2/14 - I left a review of Laura's book on Amazon.
On or about 10/30/14 - A series of comment threads on TPV, joking about me being a lawyer for zombie rights, turns into a serious private conversation between Laura and me about writing a joint series. (Sorry, I'm fuzzy about the exact date, but I had a bad cold and was stuck in a hotel room while waiting for my car to be repaired.)
1/5/15 - After a ton of brainstorming and a hair of negotiation, Laura and I sign a contract to write the 888-555-HERO series.

Oh, and I'm currently reading Laura's second novel Crushed, I'm loving it, and I'll probably leave a review for it because I wouldn't go into business with someone who writes crap.

And last, but not least, I used to be an attorney. Key words there being "used to be." At one point, I was licensed in Texas, Ohio, and the Federal District Court - Southern District of Texas. My license in Texas is currently suspended (which I did deliberately by not paying the State Bar fee for inactive attorneys because I don't see the point of paying good money for not doing something), and my license in Ohio is currently inactive. My Federal license is partially based on my Texas license so I figure I'm suspended there as well. (I was pretty damn sick in 2007 when all of this went down, and I didn't care enough to call the Federal court to find out for sure.)

So that last paragraph means I'm not an attorney, I do not and cannot represent any of the parties mentioned below, and nothing I'm about to say can be construed as legal advice.

Okay, now that all the bullshit is out of the way.

* * *

On Tuesday, March 24, Jennifer Garrish-Lampe, who owns and operates Dear Author and blogs there as Jane Litte, revealed that she is also YA author Jen Frederick. The disclosure initiated a firestorm on the interwebs. Other publishing bloggers attempted to discuss the legal, business and review ramifications of the revelation often have had the comment section hijacked by supporters of both Dear Author and Ellora's Cave. Ellora's Cave sued Dear Author for defamation back in September. Dear Author countersued. The case is currently ongoing in Federal Court in Ohio.

While almost any court filing is viewable by the public in person since it's a matter of public record, you have to pay for online access through PACER. Deirdre Saoirse Moen has put together a timeline for the litigation using Courtney Milan's thread system.

THE LEGAL STUFF I FIND INTERESTING
As I said in a previous post, the truth is the ultimate defense in a defamation suit. EC is going to have to prove that any FACTS that DA presented in its original blog post that's at the heart of the lawsuit are a lie. It's up to the judge and/or jury to decide who's telling the truth about the facts, not me, not John Doe on the streets, not anyone else.

Normally after a lawsuit has been filed, the first thing ANY lawyer tells their client is don't talk about ongoing litigation to anyone. Why? Because a client may accidentally reveal something that may damage their case, or worse, their reputation.

People believe that the more they talk, the more they present their side of the story, then the more other people will believe them. And a lot of times, it's just the opposite.

Some civilians think the 5th Amendment, and therefore a Miranda warning, applies to all court cases. It doesn't; just criminal cases. The EC v. DA case is a civil case. The 5th Amendment right to not incriminate yourself does not apply. No official at the court is required to tell you to keep your mouth shut. Therefore, it's up to each side's attorney to remind them to be quiet about particulars of the case.

There are times when either the attorney or the client at his attorney's instruction may reveal certain information. And usually, the lawyer is smart enough, and calculating enough to reveal tidbits as part of their strategic maneuvers.

For the record, I'm not talking about refusing to comply with legitimate discovery requests. Discovery is when each side requests information from the opposing side before trial. Opposing counsel will try to make a request as broad as possible while your attorney will try to keep it as narrow as possible.

But back to talking about the case outside of court, sometimes even the attorneys majorly screw up about fighting the wrong fight.

For example, the humongous mistake Apple's attorneys made was trying to win their conspiracy case in the court of public opinion when their case was before a federal judge. What's doubly sad was this was the ATTORNEYS, not the Apple execs or employees, being stupid. Most federal judges don't put up with those shenanigans. I know. I have a second asshole from a butt chewing I received from a Federal judge for a relatively minor infraction in my first year of practicing law.

In EC's case, I'd bet good money that EC's lawyers told the corporation's principals to keep quiet, but the owner Tina Engler will not or cannot shut up. She keeps issuing tweets and commenting on blogs about the current EC lawsuit against DA. She's making the same mistake Apple's attorneys did. It doesn't matter what total strangers think concerning her finances, or who's lying or whatever else she may bring up in social media. She has to convince the judge that EC paid the company's bills and royalties and DA is lying about EC not paying the company's bills and royalties. That's an issue of fact that the judge decides.

Doing crap like this doesn't help your reputation. In fact, Tina's probably doing more damage to herself and her company than Jennifer's post could have possibly done, regardless if Jennifer told the truth or not. If I were Tina's attorney, I'd be pulling out my hair. Or filing a Motion to Withdraw. (Fancy way where the attorney says "I quit" in ongoing litigation. Sometimes the judge will let you quit. Sometimes she won't.) Sometimes, the very best thing you can do in your case is remain silent and let the attorneys handle it.

As far as Jennifer's revelation goes, the information that she is a publisher and writer like Tina could potentially influence the case, especially if EC proves they did pay bills and royalties. Then there's a question of malicious intent by Jennifer in writing a derogatory post about another writer/publisher.

(Before anyone gets their panties in a wad, "malice" has a special meaning in legal proceedings that differs from every day use.)

Regardless, Jennifer's attorney probably recommended that she reveal her author alter ego as a way of spin control since they've probably just started discovery. I'm sure he's very aware that you always want to be the one to control the release of your own information, especially potentially damaging information. While there will be fallout from the revelation, it usually isn't as bad if it comes from your side rather than your opponents.

I suspect the knowledge of Jennifer's pseudonym was about to be revealed through discovery or Tina's attorney found out through another method. There's also the factor that the LLC business filing of Jennifer and her husband's publishing company, the same company that originally published many of Jen Frederick's books, is a matter of public record.

Once the discovery process is over (And that's assuming it ever is. Engler is probably notorious in Summit County for her antics and failure to comply with discovery requests after the dressing down a Summit County judge gave her. Believe me, judges talk.), and if Jennifer's attorney can, he will probably file a Motion for Summary Judgment. Such a motion says the law is clear and there are no issues of fact for the judge to decide.

If the judge believes there is a fact in question, or EC's attorney successfully argues there's a legal question to be decided, then the case moves to the next step, which is mediation and/or trial.


PERSONAL OPINION
Once upon a time, I admired both Tina and Jennifer as smart, successful women. Tina started her own publishing company after constant rejections from established publishing houses, proved there was a market for erotica, and turned Jasmine-Jade Enterprises, Inc., into a multi-million dollar company. Jennifer created a highly successful book review blog that allowed readers to freely express themselves, questioned publishers' abusive treatment of writers, and stood up for reviewers' First Amendment rights.

Now?

Now, I see two women take their personal strengths and turn them into major weaknesses.

Tina has a gung-ho, in-your-face, take-no-prisoners attitude that worked well in jump-starting a one-person operation into a multi-million dollar empire. But in the process, she also became a typical CEO, where she depended on employees because one person simply cannot do such a job alone. That in itself is not a bad thing.

What I believe went wrong with the company was not having the right people with the needed skillsets in the right positions for the rapid growth of the corporation. From my reading of the court documents from former partner Christine Brashear's lawsuit against the corporation, Tina and the other officers of Jasmine-Jade Enterprises willfully disregarded their duties as officers of a corporation.

And as I've seen too many times before, when things are good in a company, everyone's happy. When the money dries up, things get ugly in a hurry. In the case of Ellora's Cave, they're facing the same problem as the big boys in New York, the influx of indie work competing in the field. Like many decent-sized companies, they were slow to adapt to the new competition. And then came the double whammy of the drop in income and the Kernel Pornocalypse, which damaged EVERYONE in erotica publishing, big and small. Most of us have adapted and are regaining sales. Ellora's Cave did not.

When writers started questioning the drop in income, I think Tina took it personally and started looking for a scapegoat. I truly believe that Tina thinks she is protecting hers and her company's reputation when she lashes out on social media. So now her take-no-prisoners attitude has circled around to where according to her own court pleadings, the following allegedly occurred:

- Some editors and cover artists are allegedly not getting paid.
- Some writers are allegedly not receiving royalties.
- Some editors, artists and writers are allegedly receiving payments on post dated checks that are months late.

Therefore, it's making people question Tina's integrity, and she probably feels she has to fight back.

Going on social media and harassing people isn't going to make Ellora's Cave's problems go away. It's not going to stop the evidence from being presented in court. And rather than own up and fix the problems, Tina's take-no-prisoners attitude will sink all of her business ventures. To me, this is the worst thing about sudden success. Frankly, I want to weep at the self-inflicted damage I'm seeing.

If anyone thinks this means I'm giving Tina a free pass, hell, no. It kills me that a talented writer has become as greedy and rights-grasping as the other publishers we indies are fleeing from. I want to see her grab the reins, get whatever debts or royalties owed paid up to date, and get Ellora's Cave back on track instead of wasting her time posting pictures of herself flipping off people on Facebook. However, I highly doubt that will happen.

Then there's Jennifer...

My real problem here is Jennifer's an attorney. We didn't attend the same law school. I wasn't licensed in any of the same jurisdictions as Jennifer, nor she mine. I can't vouch for what ethics requirements she might have had in law school or as continuing legal education (CLE). However, I can talk about the requirement I had.

The first rule is basically "Don't do something you know damn well is improper." The second rule was "Don't do anything that gives the APPEARANCE of impropriety." As an attorney, you're an officer of the court, you're an integral part of our judicial system, so don't FUCKING make the rest of us look bad!

What this comes down to is that I think Jennifer should know better.

On Dear Author, Jennifer has taken many writers to task for doing the exact same things she did, such as not being transparent about her pseudonym and for indie publishing. She set herself up, beginning with the advent of her Jane Litte persona, to be the police for the publishing community. It's not that her actions were wrong, but her stance on the matter as DA's Jane Litte was hypocritical, and therefore gave the APPEARANCE of impropriety.

The fact that she also got herself invited onto closed loops or friend-requested other writers on Facebook as Jen Frederick when she knew Jane Litte had been or would be denied access also leads to the APPEARANCE of impropriety.

The third problem is the Dear Author website is owned by Jennifer's company, Dear Author Media Network, LLC, and it reviews a lot of books.

For the background info, the FTC changed its regs a few years so that blogs that review products are required to state their financial interest in the products they review. For example, when I got free movie tickets from Studio Movie Grill to see Rush and I reviewed that movie on Wild, Wicked & Wacky, then I'm supposed to tell you I got the movie tickets for free. I didn't. Probably because I got so excited about Chris Hemsworth's gratuitous butt shots. But if any of you reported me to the FTC for non-disclosure, I'd probably get an e-mail from them just saying fix your disclosure because my only financial interest was the $8.00 ticket and I doubt if more than one or two of you went to see Rush based on my recommendation. (P.S. I did add the disclosure.)

Jennifer's situation is a little different. She allowed books that she wrote as Jen Frederick be reviewed and promoted on Dear Author without disclosing her financial interest in those books. Those bestselling books. Granted those books were reviewed by another reviewer than Jennifer, but it begs the question of whether the reviewer gave the books a glowing review because she knew it was Jennifer. Probably more than one or two readers bought Jennifer's books based on the DA review.

Again, I doubt the FTC would care beyond sending an e-mail to Jennifer saying fix your disclosure. But it doesn't mean a few readers wouldn't feel betrayed (and from some of the blogs, more than one or two readers are feeling that way), so we're right back to the APPEARANCE of impropriety

On the positive side, Jennifer, as Jane Litte, has stood up for the writer community numerous times, which to me, is a great and wonderful thing. In fact, a lot of people donated to her legal defense fund in the EC lawsuit. Heck, I even promoted it on this blog.

But now, some of the people who donated feel betrayed, not only for Jennifer's actions I've already mentioned, but also because Sarah Wendell organized the GoFundMe campaign to help DA with legal expenses in the EC case, and she knew that Jennifer Garrish-Lampe and Jen Frederick were the same person. Sarah is also one of the proprietresses of the romance book review blog Smart Bitches, Trashy Books. And Sarah and Jennifer Garrish-Lampe weren't transparent about their business relationship. As a result, the GoFundMe campaign now is tainted with (say it with me, folks) the APPEARANCE of impropriety.

For the record, I don't regret promoting the DA legal fund. I think fighting the EC lawsuit is necessary to prevent the chilling of any discussion regarding the publishing industry and books on the internet.

At this point, it no longer matters that what Jennifer did was almost perfectly legal. There's a big question concerning her ethical compass thanks to that appearance of impropriety.

Which is a damn shame.

As I've said before on this blog, I don't agree with a lot of what Jennifer says on her blog, but I'd defend her right to say it. But now it appears, what she said wasn't what she believed. She performed the same acts that she castigated many others for. So I'll question everything she says thanks to that damn appearance of impropriety. And others are now judging her the same way she judged them

Which is even more of a damn fucking shame because there were a lot of things she did well.

What I hope Jennifer does is make a REAL apology (because let's face it, if another writer had made the lame half-apology she did last Tuesday, Jennifer as Jane Litte would have roasted him alive), work on making Dear Author more transparent, and add disclaimers whenever her work is mentioned on the DA. All I'm asking of Jennifer is to live what she preaches.

* * *

After reading through what I've written, I now have to wonder what strength of mine will be my downfall. I'm under no illusions that I'm perfect. But looking at the history of two women I once admired, it scares the hell out of me.

The Dear Author/Jane Litte Defense Fund

If you're a regular reader of my blog or involved in the erotica community, you should know by now that Tina Engler, in her capacity as the primary owner of Ellora's Cave, Inc., has sued Jennifer Gerrish-Lampe, aka Jane Litte,of the popular blog Dear Author for defamation.

In my opinion, Jennifer didn't say anything that many other bloggers weren't already talking about--the death spiral of EC and its causes. For a company in the perfect position to take advantage of the e-book explosion, EC has failed to capitalize on the market changes. Personally, I think that Engler's desperate to shut up her critics, but going after an attorney wasn't the brightest move. Speaking from experience, if an attorney is sued or threatened with a lawsuit, we have a tendency to laugh and pull out the guns.

However, a lawsuit is still fucking expensive because no attorney in her right mind will represent herself in a case, and she definitely has to pay the other attorney. One nice thing is we generally know who the best in the business is. The second nice thing is the attorney we hire may cut us a deal on her rates. But the costs still mount up, and Jennifer's already put aside $20,000 of her own money to fight this case.

Sad to say, she's going to need a lot more to fight this. Sarah Wendell of the blog, Smart Bitches, Trashy Books has started a GoFundMe campaign for donations to help with the battle.

I'm going to make a statement that I hope my regular readers and new visitors understand:

I'm all for good snark, and I personally think both Jennifer and Sarah cross from snarkiness to downright meanness too much on their respective turfs, but I will defend to death their right to say whatever opinions they want on their own GODDAMN BLOGS!

Which means I'll be donating to the defense fund after I (hopefully) close on our house this week.

Bloggers, writers and readers shouldn't fear a lawsuit for criticizing publishers in public.

Angry Sheep, signing off

When You Find Out Your Heroes Have Feet of Clay

What do you do when you find out your heroes aren't as perfect as you imagined them to be?

I've followed Dave Farland (aka Dave Wolverton) for a long, long time. I love his style of writing. And considering he survived a stint in Hollywood with his morals and sense of humor intact, I thought he was a man of integrity.

Until I clicked open his latest Kick in the Pants e-mail this weekend. The second paragraph started:

"I've had a number of readers ask about the Amazon-Hatchette debate. As you may know, they're involved in a massive lawsuit."

Lawsuit? What lawsuit?  Amazon and Hatchette's last contract expired in March, according to an Amazon press release which Hatchette has not disputed. The disagreement is over new contract terms.

Neither side has filed a lawsuit because there's NOTHING to file a lawsuit over. Neither side has been legally wronged by the other at this point. They are trying to hammer out new terms because the old ones expired. (Okay, one party may be trying a little bit harder than the other, but that's between the two corporations.)

When I read that second paragraph of Kick in the Pants, my eyes stung. Why would David lie? Then in the third paragraph he admitted to having a contract with Hatchette UK. The rest of the statement went downhill from there, including jabs at everyone's favorite whipping boy, Hugh Howey. I was shocked by David's attitude since he's done his fair share of indie publishing. I clicked the window shut after reading it, and I took my anger and disappointment out on the old kitchen tile I'm removing.

You'd think that at nearly fifty years of age and a solid twenty-five years in American corporate and legal culture I wouldn't be this fucking naive. But I guess I am.

Maybe that's why I write. I can't deal with the world as it is.

Note: David's Kick in the Pants columns are normally posted on his website, but the site's been down since the wee hours of Saturday morning when I read my e-mail. I'll link to the post when I can.

[Edit to add: Here's the link to David's post.]

Judge Cote Takes a Bite Out of Apple

I should have commented on the DOJ v. Apple lawsuit yesterday when Judge Denise Cote handed down her decision in the matter. The problem was I couldn't stop laughing.

Folks, if you break the law, the excuse of "The Devil made me do it!" is NOT a defense. Substitute "Amazon" for "The Devil" and the results will be pretty much the same. Don't believe me? Try it the next time you get pulled over for speeding.

Not once did Apple present any evidence that they did not collude with five of what-was-then the Big Six publishing houses. (Random House, which was not accused of conspiracy to fix prices, has since merged with Penguin.)

If you don't believe me, feel free to examine the evidence (which is public in the U.S.), and read Judge Cote's opinion.

Of course, Apple will spend millions to fight this all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. On one hand, I'd love to be one of their attorneys.

On the other hand, I don't want to be associated with stupid clients.

Apple Kills Star Trek

Tell me again why Paramount hasn't sued the pants off of Apple?

TxDOT v. Christie Craig, et. al. - The End?

The attorneys have settled the lawsuit, and life goes on for Christie, Grand Central and Barnes & Noble. The terms are confidential. If I knew, I couldn't tell you.  *wink*

What I can say is that Don't Mess with Texas is going back for another printing. You'll see it on the shelves of your local bookstore soon. Or you can download a copy now from your favorite e-book retailer.

In the meantime, Blame It on Texas will be out in August. I can't wait. You see, Tyler has a special place in my heart as the computer geek of the agency.

The real question is whether TxDOT will ever own up to wasting my money on a frivolous lawsuit. Honestly, I doubt it. But I would like to remind certain elected officials in Austin that November 6th is less than six months away.

Uncle Sam Says 'No!' to Agency Pricing

According to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. Justice Department is planning to file suit against Apple, Inc., and five of the biggest publishing companies in the U.S. for price collusion. In the meantime, the European Union is still conducting its own investigation into the matter.

Go read the article. I'll wait . . .

As a consumer, I like getting as much for my money as I can. But when I go shopping for a birthday present for  DH and I'm paying less for a hardcover from his favorite author than I would for an e-book, something's definitely wrong with the system and I'm pissed..

As an indie publisher, I LOVE the agency model for two reasons:

1) I can undercut the big publishers because I have much lower overhead.

2) I want to be able to set my own prices.

The problem here is that Apple and the five accused publishers pretty much admitted in the Wall Street Journal prior to Steve Jobs's death that they agreed to their agency model arrangement to stop the Godzilla known as Amazon. (Please note: The article I originally linked to last March has been removed. This link is to a cached page of the article, and I cannot guarantee this link will be active after today.)

Right now, everyone's bemoaning Bob Mayer's prediction that e-book royalty/splits will go up. This isn't my biggest worry.

My biggest worry is that this lawsuit (or settlement if the execs at the accused companies have a clue) will eliminate agency pricing, and all of the e-book retailers will start a price war that puts us indies out of business.