Fiona L. Woods's Blog, page 179
September 20, 2022
Announcing Restricted Book Delivery - BookFunnel Blog
Today, when Panzer was tootling around the Catosphere, he decided to make a stop at the BookFunnel Blog. There our intrepid kitty traveler found a post about BookFunnel's new Restricted Book Delivery feature for authors.
I don't want anybody watching me.
The blog post explains how the new Restricted Book Delivery feature works. Authors now have the option to not allow readers to download the book files when they "download" a book. This means the author controls whether the reader gets the book files or reads the book in BookFunnel's cloud. The post covers more than the Restricted Book Delivery feature. Authors also have the option to track if a reader does read the book, how many pages they read and can then delete a reader, if they don't read the book or don't finish reading it.
Panzer says, "Hmm ... So will authors tell readers what they're doing?"
Note: This is a long post. Bring a big glass of tea, two chocolate chip cookies and a brownie for today's reading.
To read the post tootle over to Book Funnel Restricted Delivery
* A tip of the kitty fedora to Nate Hoffelder for the information
I don't want anybody watching me.The blog post explains how the new Restricted Book Delivery feature works. Authors now have the option to not allow readers to download the book files when they "download" a book. This means the author controls whether the reader gets the book files or reads the book in BookFunnel's cloud. The post covers more than the Restricted Book Delivery feature. Authors also have the option to track if a reader does read the book, how many pages they read and can then delete a reader, if they don't read the book or don't finish reading it.
Panzer says, "Hmm ... So will authors tell readers what they're doing?"
Note: This is a long post. Bring a big glass of tea, two chocolate chip cookies and a brownie for today's reading.
To read the post tootle over to Book Funnel Restricted Delivery
* A tip of the kitty fedora to Nate Hoffelder for the information
September 19, 2022
A Monday Panzerism
Panzer on equestrian skills:
See ... No saddle needed.*
I am not scratching the furniture ...
I am learning how to ride the couch without a saddle.
*From Cat Wisdom for humans
See ... No saddle needed.*I am not scratching the furniture ...
I am learning how to ride the couch without a saddle.
*From Cat Wisdom for humans
September 16, 2022
Henry Holt Lays Off Metropolitan Books Staff - Publishers Weekly
This morning Panzer made a quick stop at the Publishers Weekly site. There he found a post about Metropolitan Books demise.
No reason why?
According to Jim Milliot's post, Henry Holt has laid off the staff at Metropolitan books. Henry Holt gave no information about the closure.
Panzer says, "I have nothing to say about this."
Note: This is a very short post. You won't need any refreshments when you read it. To read the post tootle over to Metropolitan Books
No reason why?According to Jim Milliot's post, Henry Holt has laid off the staff at Metropolitan books. Henry Holt gave no information about the closure.
Panzer says, "I have nothing to say about this."
Note: This is a very short post. You won't need any refreshments when you read it. To read the post tootle over to Metropolitan Books
September 15, 2022
Scam Alert: Scammers Impersonating Acorn TV - Writer Beware
Panzer was tootling around in the Catosphere today and decided to make a stop at the Writer Beware site. There he found a post about scammers and Acorn TV.
You think I'll believe that?
According to Victoria Strauss' post, there's a scam going around in the writing community on Twitter. Writers are contacted by people claiming to be recruiters for Acorn TV. The scammers claim Acorn TV needs writers and will pay $5000 for two stories per week. Apparently, this scam has been around in another form since 2021.
Panzer says, "This little kitty is glad he went to the Writer Beware site today."
Note: Because this post contains samples of the bogus tweets sent by the scammers, this is a long post. Bring whatever you want to eat and drink while you read the selection.
To read the post tootle over to Scam Alert
You think I'll believe that?According to Victoria Strauss' post, there's a scam going around in the writing community on Twitter. Writers are contacted by people claiming to be recruiters for Acorn TV. The scammers claim Acorn TV needs writers and will pay $5000 for two stories per week. Apparently, this scam has been around in another form since 2021.
Panzer says, "This little kitty is glad he went to the Writer Beware site today."
Note: Because this post contains samples of the bogus tweets sent by the scammers, this is a long post. Bring whatever you want to eat and drink while you read the selection.
To read the post tootle over to Scam Alert
September 14, 2022
Amazon faces new antitrust lawsuit filed by California AG alleging anticompetitive practices - GeekWire
Today Panzer made a stop at the GeekWire site. There he found a post about a new lawsuit against Amazon.
I want to read the contract.
According to Taylor Soper's post, California's Attorney General (AG) filed a lawsuit against Amazon. The AG says Amazon's contract with sellers forces them to not sell their products at a lower price on other platforms. Amazon's disputes this and says sellers set their own prices. A similar lawsuit was filed against Amazon by the District of Columbia which the judge in that case dismissed.
Panzer says, "Interesting to see what happens with this case."
Note: This is a long-medium length post. Bring a cup of tea and a brownie for today's reading selection.
To read the post tootle over to Amazon faces lawsuit
I want to read the contract.According to Taylor Soper's post, California's Attorney General (AG) filed a lawsuit against Amazon. The AG says Amazon's contract with sellers forces them to not sell their products at a lower price on other platforms. Amazon's disputes this and says sellers set their own prices. A similar lawsuit was filed against Amazon by the District of Columbia which the judge in that case dismissed.
Panzer says, "Interesting to see what happens with this case."
Note: This is a long-medium length post. Bring a cup of tea and a brownie for today's reading selection.
To read the post tootle over to Amazon faces lawsuit
September 13, 2022
Clued in Mystery
Panzer was tootling around in the Catosphere when he stopped in at the Clued in Mystery podcast site.
Some interesting listening here.
At the site authors Sarah M. Stephen and Brook Peterson discuss the books they like to read, the different sub-genres of mystery, examinations of different mystery authors and their works, and, occasionally, an interview with a mystery author. The podcast is free.
Click on an episode's cover to be taken to the podcast. The episodes range from 15 minutes to 30 minutes in length.
To listen to the podcasts tootle over to Clued in Mystery
Some interesting listening here.At the site authors Sarah M. Stephen and Brook Peterson discuss the books they like to read, the different sub-genres of mystery, examinations of different mystery authors and their works, and, occasionally, an interview with a mystery author. The podcast is free.
Click on an episode's cover to be taken to the podcast. The episodes range from 15 minutes to 30 minutes in length.
To listen to the podcasts tootle over to Clued in Mystery
Publishers, Internet Archive Trade Reply Briefs in Book Scanning Case - Publishers Weekly
Today's trip into the Catosphere took Panzer to the Publishers Weekly site. There with a little digging in the posts our intrepid traveling kitty found one about the latest developments in publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, Wiley, and Penguin Random House's copyright infringement case against the Internet Archive (IA). IA has been scanning hardback copies of books and then "lending" the scanned copies to people (and libraries) without paying publishers or authors.
So, we wait until October.
According to Andrew Albanese's post, the publishers and IA have filed their reply briefs to the Summary Judgement requests both presented to the court earlier this year. (In a previous post Panzer explained about the publishers' and IA's Summary Judgement requests.) The publishers' attorneys presented a 41-page reply to IA's request for a Summary Judgement in IA's favor and IA's attorneys presented a 41-page reply to the publishers' request for a Summary Judgement in the publishers' favor. The post quotes extensively from both reply briefs. Basically, the publishers brief says IA is a piracy site, not a library and IA's brief says publishers are trying to keep libraries from lending scanned books. On October 7 the publishers and IA will have the opportunity to submit reply briefs to these reply briefs.
Panzer says, "This little kitty didn't know Internet Archive was giving these scanned books out worldwide."
Note: This is a very, very, very long post. Bring a thermos of tea, a sandwich and a muffin for today's reading selection.
To read the post tootle over to Publishers vs. Internet ArchiveTo read Panzer's previous post tootle over to Summary Judgement
So, we wait until October.According to Andrew Albanese's post, the publishers and IA have filed their reply briefs to the Summary Judgement requests both presented to the court earlier this year. (In a previous post Panzer explained about the publishers' and IA's Summary Judgement requests.) The publishers' attorneys presented a 41-page reply to IA's request for a Summary Judgement in IA's favor and IA's attorneys presented a 41-page reply to the publishers' request for a Summary Judgement in the publishers' favor. The post quotes extensively from both reply briefs. Basically, the publishers brief says IA is a piracy site, not a library and IA's brief says publishers are trying to keep libraries from lending scanned books. On October 7 the publishers and IA will have the opportunity to submit reply briefs to these reply briefs.
Panzer says, "This little kitty didn't know Internet Archive was giving these scanned books out worldwide."
Note: This is a very, very, very long post. Bring a thermos of tea, a sandwich and a muffin for today's reading selection.
To read the post tootle over to Publishers vs. Internet ArchiveTo read Panzer's previous post tootle over to Summary Judgement
September 12, 2022
A Panzerism
Panzer on the ancient art of studying the back side of your eyelids:
Stay drowsy. Life's better.*
Life is what happens when you wake up
and ...
can't go back to sleep ...
It's over-rated.
*From Cat Wisdom for humans
Stay drowsy. Life's better.*Life is what happens when you wake up
and ...
can't go back to sleep ...
It's over-rated.
*From Cat Wisdom for humans
September 11, 2022
September 9, 2022
In Post-Trial Briefs, PRH Attorneys Say DOJ Failed to Prove Its Case Against S&S Merger - Publishers Weekly
Today's trip into the Catosphere took Panzer to the Publishers Weekly site. There he found a post about the Department of Justice's (DOJ) case against the Penguin Random House (PRH) and Simon and Schuster (S&S) merger.
I want to see the DOJ's brief too.
According to Andrew Albanese's post, Penguin Random House submitted its post-trial brief to explain why the Department of Justice has not proved its case to stop the merger with Simon and Schuster. The PRH brief says the DOJ only concentrated its arguments on lower advances for authors who have previously received advances of $250,000 or more. PRH says these authors won't suffer any monetary loses because of the merger. PRH also says the DOJ didn't address any harm to consumers caused by the merger. The post doesn't address the DOJ's post-trial brief, but they haven't seen it yet. The post contains several links for more information about the case.
Panzer says, "This little kitty wants to know, when is a publisher too big?"
Note: This is a long medium length post. Bring a glass of iced tea and a bowl of ice cream for today's reading selection. If you plan to follow the links in the post, you'll have to decide what to bring to eat and drink.
To read the post tootle over to DOJ vs. PRH
I want to see the DOJ's brief too.According to Andrew Albanese's post, Penguin Random House submitted its post-trial brief to explain why the Department of Justice has not proved its case to stop the merger with Simon and Schuster. The PRH brief says the DOJ only concentrated its arguments on lower advances for authors who have previously received advances of $250,000 or more. PRH says these authors won't suffer any monetary loses because of the merger. PRH also says the DOJ didn't address any harm to consumers caused by the merger. The post doesn't address the DOJ's post-trial brief, but they haven't seen it yet. The post contains several links for more information about the case.
Panzer says, "This little kitty wants to know, when is a publisher too big?"
Note: This is a long medium length post. Bring a glass of iced tea and a bowl of ice cream for today's reading selection. If you plan to follow the links in the post, you'll have to decide what to bring to eat and drink.
To read the post tootle over to DOJ vs. PRH
