1237c48ddb54
c_echo



Hello Bob - 

BS>>> Obviously, you did miss part of this. The reason I wanted
BS>>> to reach him was to see if I could obtain reprint rights
BS>>> from he and Pearson/Prentice Hall. If so, then both he
BS>>> and PH would receive royalties. 

>> I would expect Prentice/Hall to have enough contacts with
>> bookstores to sell the book without needing to get involved
>> with contractual obligations with individuals. 

BS> Obviously true. The problem is volume. 

Maybe. 

BS> C has been eclipsed by C++, C#, Java, and other languages
BS> in the minds of the general computer book buying public. PH
BS> (and other publishers) consider it a dwindling niche
BS> market, which is why it hasn't been reprinted lately. In
BS> order to be commercially justifiable, PH has to see being
BS> able to sell a printing of tens of thousands of copies per
BS> run. They don't see that in the case of this book, and
BS> they're probably right. That leaves it in publishing limbo
BS> - still sought, but off the radar screen for commercial
BS> publication. 

Has Prentice Hall contacted you with these reasons or are you
assuming that these are the reasons? 

I remember reading that publishers will make arrangements with
subcontractors who do limited 'runs' if there is a demand/need
for a particular manuscript they own but at a higher than usual
cost to the purchaser(s). 

>> If you are hired by an American company to write
>> instruction/documentation for their existing software and,
>> in the process, encrypt it down to three pages that only
>> make sense if the reader buys a book only _you_ can sell
>> them it would appear a conflict of interest to me. If I was
>> the person who hired you I would also fire you for doing
>> that. 

BS> How fortunate, then, that I'm not working for you. ;-) 

There are others like me out there, I am not the 'last'. 

BS> In that case, however, I'd compare the cost of my time to
BS> write the document without the book with the cost of the
BS> book. The book would cost roughly an hour's worth of my
BS> time and would save a minimum of two hours (and probably a
BS> lot more) of my writing time. Even if I were the author and
BS> self-publishing, it would still make good economic sense to
BS> pay for work already done at a price which allows the
BS> publishing costs to be amortized over multiple customers. 

I think the demise of this book illustrates that the company
wants to control the original manuscript (in it's entirety) to
prevent the loss of needed documentation over time. If they
only need a book they don't need you to review it for them. 

>> I hear this frequently but truth is no one is that good. I'd
>> wager there are three or four others out there as good or
>> better. 

BS> OK, find them. 

Pay me. 

BS>>> If you don't read Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic, you don't
BS>>> look for an English-speaking author to produce a new
BS>>> Bible, you find a way to translate and reprint the
BS>>> existing one. For software QA and departmental standards
BS>>> folks trying to write C coding standards, Straker's book
BS>>> *is* the Bible. 

>> > Apparently not or the book would still be sold here. ;-) 

BS> As previously noted, that depends totally on the size of
BS> the audience. The comparison with the Bible is good in
BS> another way, though. Even if there were only a handful of
BS> Christians, it would probably still be published by
BS> dedicated believers. As it is, it's also published by
BS> commercial entities based on the size of the target
BS> audience. 

Money talks. If anyone wants the book the right price will get
it for them (as many as they will pay for). 

BS> In the case of Straker's book, those who rely on it are few
BS> and their numbers aren't growing at a significant rate.
BS> Further, most of the "true believers" already have a
BS> personal copy. This spells commercial poison, so the only
BS> one likely to publish it anymore would be one of the
BS> faithful. 

Let's not get carried away here, Straker is no deity. 

>> I'm referring to your style. If you attempt to force me to
>> buy a book from you to interpret what you write my response
>> would be to stop reading what you write. 

BS> That's OK, I'm willing to take someone's money in order to
BS> write what they want, cribbing liberally from Straker in
BS> the process. It will take more time ($$$) and I don't have
BS> to share those consulting dollars with anyone. However, in
BS> the client's best interest, I should at least make an
BS> effort to let him pay less money for reams of documents
BS> already in existence for only the publication cost (which I
BS> must share with the copyright owners). 

Nice of you to offer to share. :-) 

I don't think the company wants a clone of Straker's book. I
think they want to control their documentation and avoid the
problem you are having because you have no control over Straker
or Prentice Hall and they are dumping you. 

>
>        ,                          ,
>      o/      Charles.Angelich      \o       ,
>       __o/
>     / >          USA, MI           < \   __\__
 

--- * ATP/16bit 2.31 * 
... DOS the Ghost in the Machine! http://www.undercoverdesign.com/dosghost/