Amazon is in the process of systematically removing public domain titles from publishers, leaving a free version , and only one paid version.

You must justify to them why yours must stay, even if you have been publishing with them for a long time.

When Amazon bought Mobipocket, they were making money on ebooks. They still are. But it seems strange why they would cut the financial throats of the people that brought attention to ebooks, and cut their own revenue stream.

This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people’s works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.

It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn’t post that either.

The correct form for a notice is: “Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]“

2) “If I don’t charge for it, it’s not a violation.”

False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that’s main difference under the law. It’s still a violation if you give it away — and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is a USA exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn’t include wide-scale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money.

3) “If it’s posted to Usenet it’s in the public domain.”

False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, “I grant this to the public domain.” Those exact words or words very much like them.

Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this writer’s opinion we should all pray it isn’t true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly granting permissions “for the sort of copying one might expect when one posts to Usenet” and in no case is this a placement of material into the public domain. It is important to remember that when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission. Furthermore it is very difficult for an implicit license to supersede an explicitly stated license that the copier was aware of.

Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post the item in the first place. If the poster didn’t, then all the copies are pirated, and no implied license or theoretical reduction of the copyright can take place.

(*) Copyrights can expire after a long time, putting something into the public domain, and there are some fine points on this issue regarding older copyright law versions. However, none of this applies to material from the modern era, such as net postings.

Note that granting something to the public domain is a complete abandonment of all rights. You can’t make something “PD for non-commercial use.” If your work is PD, other people can even modify one byte and put their name on it. You might want to look into Creative Commons style licences if you want to grant wide rights.

4) “My posting was just fair use!”

See EFF notes on fair use and links from it for a detailed answer, but bear the following in mind:
The “fair use” exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That’s vital so that copyright law doesn’t block your freedom to express your own works — only the ability to appropriate other people’s. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn’t find time to write your own story, or didn’t want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren’t.

Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work — in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously, copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford’s 200,000 word memoir for a magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words — why he pardoned Nixon.

Note that most inclusion of text in followups and replies is for commentary, and it doesn’t damage the commercial value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it is almost surely fair use. Fair use isn’t an exact doctrine, though. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general they don’t apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use.

The “fair use” concept varies from country to country, and has different names (such as “fair dealing” in Canada) and other limitations outside the USA.

Facts and ideas can’t be copyrighted, but their expression and structure can. You can always write the facts in your own words, though.

See the DMCA alert for recent changes in the law.

5) “If you don’t defend your copyright you lose it.” — “Somebody has that name copyrighted!”

False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away. You also can’t “copyright a name” or anything short like that, such as almost all titles. You may be thinking of trade marks, which apply to names, and can be weakened or lost if not defended.
You generally trademark terms by using them to refer to your brand of a generic type of product or service. Like a “Delta” airline. Delta Airlines “owns” that word applied to air travel, even though it is also an ordinary word. Delta Hotels owns it when applied to hotels. (This case is fairly unusual as both are travel companies. Usually the industries are more distinct.) Neither owns the word on its own, only in context, and owning a mark doesn’t mean complete control — see a more detailed treatise on this law for details.

You can’t use somebody else’s trademark in a way that would steal the value of the mark, or in a way that might make people confuse you with the real owner of the mark, or which might allow you to profit from the mark’s good name. For example, if I were giving advice on music videos, I would be very wary of trying to label my works with a name like “mtv.” You can use marks to critcise or parody the holder, as long as it’s clear you aren’t the holder.

6) “If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me.”

False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called “derivative works” — works based or derived from another copyrighted work — is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process. If you write a story using settings or characters from somebody else’s work, you need that author’s permission.

Yes, that means almost all “fan fiction” is arguably a copyright violation. If you want to publish a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need Paramount’s permission, plain and simple. Now, as it turns out, many, but not all holders of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to “fan fiction” or even subtly encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that it is entirely up to them whether to do that.

There is a major exception — criticism and parody. The fair use provision says that if you want to make fun of something like Star Trek, you don’t need their permission to include Mr. Spock. This is not a loophole; you can’t just take a non-parody and claim it is one on a technicality. The way “fair use” works is you get sued for copyright infringement, and you admit you did copy, but that your copying was a fair use. A subjective judgment on, among other things, your goals, is then made.

However, it’s also worth noting that a court has never ruled on this issue, because fan fiction cases always get settled quickly when the defendant is a fan of limited means sued by a powerful publishing company. Some argue that completely non-commercial fan fiction might be declared a fair use if courts get to decide. You can read more

7) “They can’t get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!”

Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright you would usually get sued, not be charged with a crime. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a principle of criminal law, as is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Sorry, but in copyright suits, these don’t apply the same way or at all. It’s mostly which side and set of evidence the judge or jury accepts or believes more, though the rules vary based on the type of infringement. In civil cases you can even be made to testify against your own interests.

“Oh, so copyright violation isn’t a crime or anything?”

Actually, in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony. So watch out. (At least you get the protections of criminal law.) On the other hand, don’t think you’re going to get people thrown in jail for posting your E-mail. The courts have much better things to do. This is a fairly new, untested statute. In one case an operator of a pirate BBS that didn’t charge was acquited because he didn’t charge, but congress amended the law to cover that.

9) “It doesn’t hurt anybody — in fact it’s free advertising.”

It’s up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don’t rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, ask them. Usually that’s not too hard to do. Time past, ClariNet published the very funny Dave Barry column to a large and appreciative Usenet audience for a fee, but some person didn’t ask, and forwarded it to a mailing list, got caught, and the newspaper chain that employs Dave Barry pulled the column from the net, pissing off everybody who enjoyed it. Even if you can’t think of how the author or owner gets hurt, think about the fact that piracy on the net hurts everybody who wants a chance to use this wonderful new technology to do more than read other people’s flamewars.

10) “They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it.”

To have a copy is not to have the copyright. All the E-mail you write is copyrighted. However, E-mail is not, unless previously agreed, secret. So you can certainly report on what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says. You can even quote parts of it to demonstrate. Frankly, somebody who sues over an ordinary message would almost surely get no damages, because the message has no commercial value, but if you want to stay strictly in the law, you should ask first. On the other hand, don’t go nuts if somebody posts E-mail you sent them. If it was an ordinary non-secret personal letter of minimal commercial value with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all E-mail), you probably won’t get any damages if you sue them. Note as well that, the law aside, keeping private correspondence private is a courtesy one should usually honour.

If you are only using the Kindle web site to process your orders, you will need

A PayPal Account

A Checking/Savings Account

If you are using your own site, you will probably need another payment processor like AlertPay or 2Checkout.com

Do not waste yor time using a Credit Card Service.  The ones listed above are fine.

How to Win Friends and Influence People, by Dale Carnegie

Animal Farm and 1984, by Geroge Orwell

The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald.

In plain English, if you publish a work that is the legal property of someone else without their permission, you are guilty of copyright infringement.

This is a serious charge, and should never be ignored.  Recent court cases have shown that juries are sympathetic to the person being infringed upon, and have awarded damages into the MILLIONS.

So what do you do if you are sent a “notice of infringement letter”, also called a Cease and Desist Order?

1. Do not panic.
2. Read the e-mail/letter carefully.  Find out why they believe you have infringed upon them. 
3. Find out what they need to satisfy the complaint. If you have supporting documentation to prove that you have not infringed upon them, provide that.
4. Do what they want and do it quickly.

In the case of a Kindle Book, you might have used artwork for the cover that was not yours.  You may only have to change the artwork to make the complaint go away.

If, however, the text of the Kindle Book is not in the Public Domain (which means it has a legal owner), you will have to stop publishing the work.

In both cases, you may have to pay a fine, as well as reimburse the true owner for the sales you may have made using the infringed upon work. We hope you have records.  If you do not, you are at the mercy of the complainant, and you may wind up in court.

If you have willfully ignored the person sending the complaint and continue to profit from it, be prepared to consult an Intellectual Property lawyer.  And unless you have documentation to support your side, you are going to get sued, and you are going to lose. 

We have found this to be rare with our customers and peers when they were upfront with the complainant.

Be smart.  Be careful.

We are NOT going to approach the way you think we should. Why?

This is the formula that worked for us.

You will start publishing your books through Mobipocket, a division of Amazon.

Why? You get to capture revenue from two different sources (More on this later)!

Here are the starting set of tools you need:

1. Internet Access – If you are reading this, chances are you already do, LOL
2. E-mail Address
3. Word Processor
4. Graphics Creator/Editor
5. Adobe PDF creator/converter – We like Primo PDF, because it’s FREE!
6. MobiPocket Creator From Mobipocket

Click HERE to download the Mobipocket Creator software. Version 4.2 as of 6/4/2009.

Some things to consider:

Please use your own computer. Especially if you are going to be transmitting financial data. Don’t use Aunt Pookie’s computer. Her grandson might have trojans and keyloggers on it.

Please use an e-mail account other than yahoo, angelfire, geocities, or aol. Why? A number of spammers have used these addresses, and therefore most automated reply/verification/confirmation e-mails sent to legitimate users get blocked.

Even if you use an e-mail address that isn’t from one of those placces, does it look like this?

guitarherofreak@gmail.com rev_pimpdaddy@yahoo.com nastygirl69@aol.com

NOT very professional. Would you like a professional e-mail address? Then send an e-mail to legit@fshcomm.com. For a one-time cost of $50.00, you can create a professional e-mail address. Because they are a partner of ours, the cost gets reduced to $25.00.

Part IV will focus on the Accounts you are going to need. You DO want to get paid, don’t you?

“How to Win Friends and Influence People”, by the late Dale Carnegie.

If you have a Kindle, CLICK HERE.

If you have a PC, you can get a copy through Mobipocket. CLICK HERE.

Currently, there are over 20,000 works in the public domain.  There is room enough for everyone. 

If the Public Domain work is already on Amazon/Mobipocket, DON’T CREATE A LOWER-PRICED VERSION.

You might think that you’re going to steal business from the competition, but all it does is reduce the overall value to the customer.    The Top 3 Burger places don’t cut prices to get customers; they produce a quality product and market the heck out of it. You should too.

We see this with Affiliate Marketing books.  I buy it from the vendor for $1997.  I learn that I can buy more copies at $797, so all i have to do is sell 2 people, and I’m done.  One of those people buys the book from me, but decides that he will sell it for $897.  It was selling for $1997.  Not only did he leave $1100 on the table, but he can’t ever go back up in price.

And it goes on again.  The $897 buyer doesn’t use the regular channel, but uses PayPal to sell the book at $497, cutting out all of the people above him.  He (or she) has left $1500 on the table now and forevermore.

Don’t do this on Amazon.  I have taken a book that is relatively obscure, yet it sells a few hundred copies each year.  Take a risk! You (and your wallet) will be surprised at what people will read.

Be original and be kind.  The majority of the publishers on Amazon will forgive one trespass, but don’t be surprised to see them drop the price on all the ebooks YOU publish to get your attention.

Stay tuned!

The first thing you need to understand is that you have become a visionary.

We are not pulling your leg; You have chosen to do something that most of the population doesn’t understand or wants to understand.  That means that you see the value in our proposition.  You can see the dollar signs.

That’s the good news.

Here is the bad news: You are probably married to or surrounded by people that have no vision.

When we started publishing in December 2004, we pitched the idea to a friend of ours.  His words:

“Why would someone pay you guys when they could create the material themselves?”

“Why would anybody want to read books in digital format?”

This was the kind of guy who, if asked about a new search engine (pre Google launch), would have said:

“Netscape and Yahoo are great.  Who needs another one?”

Needless to say, he didn’t have the vision.

When we made $50 for the first quarter, all of our friends laughed.

They stopped laughing when we started making $1000 per month.

We don’t have the heart to tell them that we made $35,000 in 2008.

The lessons here:

1. TUNE OUT YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY.

2. NO ONE UNDERSTANDS VISIONARIES EXCEPT FOR OTHER VISIONARIES

Our next installment is not as painful as this one.  Trust us.

Whether you are doing this for a hobby or for a living, there are certains things that you need to do to be successful.  Some will be obvious, and some won’t.  But as we said before, we have been where you are NOW, and we want the best for you.  Learn from our mistakes.