THE BOOK cover
The Unwritten Book is Finally Written!
An in-depth analysis of: The sacrifice bunt, batter/pitcher matchups, the intentional base on balls, optimizing a batting lineup, hot and cold streaks, clutch performance, platooning strategies, and much more.
Read Excerpts & Customer Reviews

Buy The Book from Amazon


SABR101 required reading if you enter this site. Check out the Sabermetric Wiki. And interesting baseball books.
MOST RECENT ARTICLES
MAIL : You ask | We say

Advanced


THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

<< Back to main

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

The Publisher of The Book (Potomac Books) has finally paid us our royalties

By Tangotiger, 09:25 AM

UPDATE: Nov 6, 2010: The title of this thread has changed. The original title was:
The Publisher of The Book (Potomac Books) is delinquent on a portion of our royalties

***

Here is a summary of the facts, with new items noted below (after Aug 7, 2009):


On November 6, 2006, we (Tango, Andy, and MGL) entered into an agreement with Potomac Books for them to publish, advertise, and offer for sale, our book, The Book.

Paragraph 6 of our agreement reads as such:

“After publication of the Work, Publisher shall render annual statements of the Author’s earnings under this Agreement as of each December 31 and shall mail the statements and applicable payments during the following March, but not later than March 31.”

In early Spring of 2007, Potomac began selling The Book.

In March of 2008, as per the agreement, the first accounting of sales and our first royalty check was due.  It did not arrive by March 31.

Over the next few months, we sent emails, made phone calls, and finally an official “demand letter” was sent to Potomac.

In July of 2008, a statement and payment was received, over three months late.  No reasonable explanation was given for the delay.

By March 31, 2009, again, no statement or payment was received by us from Potomac.

Again, we sent them several emails, asking about the payment.  At least one email was sent to us informing us that payment will eventually be made.

In July (2009), we received a letter postmarked July 1, containing a statement but no payment.

On July 25, we sent another letter to Potomac containing the facts herein, informing them that if we do not receive payment, or proof that payment was sent, by July 31, we will publish these facts on our blog and that we will initiate legal action.

That deadline has passed and we have received no response to that email.  The above statement of facts was posted to our website.

On Aug 7, 2009, the Publisher of The Book (Potomac Books) has finally paid us our royalties.

(WHAT FOLLOWS ARE NEW STATEMENTS OF FACT.)

In the months following that, we presented negotiating points aimed at explictly specifying results for further breaches of contract, so that an amicable solution could be arrived, and not go through a court process. Nothing came of those negotiations other than Potomac’s statement that further payments would be made in a timely manner.

In March, 2010, we received, on time, the statement and royalty for The Book, printed version.  We received no statement and no royalty for the Kindle version.

In April, 2010, Potomac noted two items: (1) they were in the process of booking the Kindle sales into their system, and that when that was completed, they would report and pay on Kindle royalties but (2) that any Kindle sales would be paid at the standard royalty fee of 15%, rather than at the 50% rate for the electronic books. 

We believe the contract couldn’t be clearer that it should be 50%. We asked them for either an official letter claiming the 15% for the Kindles, or payment at the 50% rate by April 30, 2010.

We did not receive any confirmation from Potomac that they agree with our position of the royalty rate, nor have we received any payment for the Kindles.

In July, 2010, in a repeat of July 2009, we received a statement of account.  This statement was a duplicate of what was received in April 2010, and still contained no accounting of any kind for the Kindle sales.

On July 27, 2010, we advised Potomac that these statements of fact will appear on our website in seven calendar days.

On Aug 6, Potomac agreed that we are to receive 50% on the Kindle sales, and that payment would be forthcoming.

No payment has been received.  Starting in late August, we tried several times to reach Potomac to come to any kind of resolution.  We have not heard from them.

In late September, we once again advised them that these statements of fact will appear on our website in ten calendar days.  We have not heard from Potomac.

Today, Oct 13, 2010, we posted these statements of fact.

#1          (see all posts) 2010/10/13 (Wed) @ 10:22

Sorry gents - your publisher obviously sucks


#2    Darren      (see all posts) 2010/10/13 (Wed) @ 10:49

and in the meantime your legal fees continue to go up and up.


#3          (see all posts) 2010/10/13 (Wed) @ 10:50

Dang, and I just bought the book last week.


#4          (see all posts) 2010/10/13 (Wed) @ 10:54

Isn’t that breach of contract?  Does that breach entitle you to terminate the contract and get the rights back? 

Of course, I’m no lawyer, unlike certain of the authors.


#5          (see all posts) 2010/10/13 (Wed) @ 11:43

Unfortunately, this sort of thing isn’t all that unusual in the publishing industry. I wish you guys the best of luck in getting payment.


#6    wcw      (see all posts) 2010/10/13 (Wed) @ 12:58

Potomac is owned by Books International, isn’t it?  Those would seem deep enough pockets, and this case would seem clear and simple enough.  Why avoid legal action?  Extract damages, attorney’s fees and your rights.

This is not legal advice and IANAL.


#7    Filbert Auchincloss      (see all posts) 2010/10/13 (Wed) @ 12:59

Monsieurs: Is there any “backchannel” or other way of buying your Book sans paying your stinky publisher for it? I’m willing to cut you boys a check directly for a copy. Post on the logistics of that matter, s’il vous plait. Your plight reminds me of Eric Weisstein’s battle with CRC Press after he had created the MathWorld web site for Wolfram Research (makers of the magnificent Mathematica software). While Eric’s situation differed from yours, the behavior of the publishers involved (whether CRC or Potomac) was/is bad.


#8    Rally      (see all posts) 2010/10/13 (Wed) @ 13:13

I am no lawyer, so don’t accept anything I say as authority.

But I think if Tango tried to sell a copy himself through this website, he’d be in breach of contract.  Sure, the publisher is as well, but if this goes to litigation probably best to keep the focus on their wrongdoing and avoid counter-arguments.

But if you want to buy The Book without giving any new money to the publisher, get a used copy off Amazon.  They’ve already made their money off that book from the original sale, any new sale proceeds are just between the private seller, UPS/FedEx/USPS, and Amazon’s commission.


#9    Rally      (see all posts) 2010/10/13 (Wed) @ 13:15

And better yet, use the Amazon link at the top of this page and I think Tom gets a cut.  I see used copies for only $6.


#10    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2010/10/13 (Wed) @ 13:24

The available sales channels are the standard ones (Amazon, publisher’s site, Barnes and Noble, etc). You should continue to make your purchases as you normally would, with the idea that the royalties will eventually be paid to us.


#11    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2010/10/13 (Wed) @ 13:30

Note,as shown in the main thread, that we have received royalties for the printed copies, and on time.  Outstanding are those on the Kindle sales.


#12    MGL      (see all posts) 2010/10/13 (Wed) @ 19:32

I am speculating, but given that we have received past royalties late, that we have not received any of our electronic royalties from last year, and given that they have not responded to any of our most recent emails (about the electronic royalties), there is no guarantee, to say the least, that we are going to get any royalties for this year, and I would make an even money bet that if we do, they will be sent late, as in the past.

From what I can remember about contract law, a breach or non-performance by one party does not necessarily render a contract null and void.  Typically, your remedy for breach is damages to make you whole, which in our case would be paying royalties due plus perhaps interest and late fees.  It usually requires a pretty substantial non-performance or breach to rescind a contract, for example, if they were not selling our books at all, or they had not paid us in 2 years.

Also legal fees are not typically given to the prevailing party in any lawsuit, although that can happen too.

The breach here is small enough (money-wise) that we would probably sue in small claims court.  Most small claims courts do not do anything but award monetary damages, so asking a judge to rescind our contract is not going to happen in small claims court.  That would probably have to happen by mutual agreement or in another court.  I suppose we could unilaterally declare the contract void and start selling the books on our own and they can sue us if they want.

Basically, we just want the money we are due, at the time it is due or reasonably soon thereafter.  We can be flexible of course, which we have been in the past, but lately I don’t think that they are communicating in good faith (in fact, they are not communicating at all).

So here we are.


#13          (see all posts) 2010/10/13 (Wed) @ 22:11

This is just a shame, fellas. When I was reading the book I remember finding it interesting that the publisher located so close to my hometown. I guess I won’t ever be recommending them…


#14          (see all posts) 2010/10/14 (Thu) @ 01:28

One wonders if the publisher is on the other side with their payments being delayed by the retailer or distributor. “I am not paying you until I myself get paid” This is quote common in some industries, you may call it the delay chain train.  It takes a while for payments to trickle down the supply chain.


#15          (see all posts) 2010/10/14 (Thu) @ 03:35

"One wonders if the publisher is on the other side with their payments being delayed by the retailer or distributor. “I am not paying you until I myself get paid” This is quote common in some industries, you may call it the delay chain train.  It takes a while for payments to trickle down the supply chain.”

Which of course does not explain why they don’t give the authors the courtesy of an explanation and an estimated timeline.


#16    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2010/10/14 (Thu) @ 09:30

pft: Remember, the non-payment is for Kindles only, not the hardcopies.  When I’ve dealt with Amazon as a seller, they are very efficient in their payments.


#17    JD      (see all posts) 2010/10/14 (Thu) @ 17:18

MGL/12 - You said this: “Also legal fees are not typically given to the prevailing party in any lawsuit, although that can happen too.”

I’m not debating the truth to that. I don’t know one way or another.

But IF this is true, there’s something SERIOUSLY screwed up. I would be okay if it were written in the law that in a matter like this, the prevailing party has their legal fees (I’d even go something like Legal fees x 100 or some very large amount) paid. It’s just not right that a person can get screwed over and over again and once the legal system decides they have, in fact, been screwed that they’re going to continue to get screwed.

My question: Wouldn’t “only necessary because we got screwed by you” legal fees be part of the damages requested in any sort of court case? (This goes for all situations, not just this one).


#18    MGL      (see all posts) 2010/10/15 (Fri) @ 18:30

JD in England (where we actually get much of our legal system from) the winner typically gets their legal fees paid for by the other party. That is also true for most other European countries and Canada and Australia I think.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems.  The principal disadvantage to having the loser pay the winner’s fees is that it would be very difficult and discourage people without a lot of money from filing lawsuits.  If I want to file a lawsuit for $1,000, but if I lose it is going to cost me $10,000 in legal fees, am I going to do that unless I am 99% sure that I am going to prevail?  No.

Of course the advantage and justification for “loser pays” is that it is generally thought of as more fair and it discourages weak and frivolous suits.  On the other hand, if you are sued (or you sue someone else) and you have a legitimate defense (or offense) but you happen to lose, you are not going to be happy if you have to pay the other side’s legal fees.

“Loser pays” also encourages quick settlements, which is usually a good thing.  It also tends to encourage better business practices for fear of being sued.

There is no easy solution.  Interestingly, Alaska is the only state in the U.S. that has “loser pays” written into its civil law, although it is only a partial reimbursement for the prevailing party.

In some cases under the “American system” you can request reimbursement of legal fees if you win, for example, when successfully defending frivolous lawsuits or when the actions of the other party are especially egregious or wanton…


#19    harveywall      (see all posts) 2010/10/17 (Sun) @ 22:47

I just sent them an email telling them if they don’t pay you in a timely manner, I’ll not purchase anything from them again.  Email address: 


#20    MGL      (see all posts) 2010/10/18 (Mon) @ 14:42

We appreciate all the support, thanks.  If it were not for The Book, we would not have this blog.

For those of you who don’t know, a large portion of our royalties we donate to charity.  None of us (Andy, Tango, and MGL) does any of this for money.  Which is one reason why, I think, the quality of the information we put out and the discussions we spawn, are, for the most part, of good quality, and more importantly, are honest and unbiased.

It seems apparent that Potomac has no interest in responding to our emails or to this thread, which they likely have read or heard about.


#21    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2010/10/19 (Tue) @ 16:54

I updated the post so that all the text appears “below the fold” / “after the jump”.  You’ll notice this from the main page.


#22          (see all posts) 2010/10/29 (Fri) @ 12:31

Mgl, nonpayment, particularly repeated nonpayment and failure to timely cure is a material breach that would entitle you to walk away and seek damages. In this case walking away is more valuable than damages if another publisher is interested.

And I am writing as a lawyer and contract law professor. Email if you want to brainstorm it (mgl and tango only, please)


#23    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2010/10/29 (Fri) @ 14:10

That’s very kind of you.  I sent you an email.


#24    MGL      (see all posts) 2010/10/30 (Sat) @ 00:05

Yes, thank you.  Tango sent you an email and I may do the same.


#25          (see all posts) 2010/10/31 (Sun) @ 16:03

Mgl, nonpayment, particularly repeated nonpayment and failure to timely cure is a material breach that would entitle you to walk away and seek damages. In this case walking away is more valuable than damages if another publisher is interested.

While I don’t disagree as a general principle, nobody can give any useful legal advice without actually seeing the contract. It may specify different remedies.  And, for instance, all the talk above about the “American rule” vs. “loser pays” may not apply; many contracts have an attorneys’ fees provision.  Moreover, the contract may specify arbitration rather than litigation for resolving disputes.  Finally, the choice of law and forum selection clauses in the contract tell us where and how this needs to be litigated.


#26    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2010/11/01 (Mon) @ 00:20

David, I dispute the “any useful” in its most literal sense.

Mr Heel has provided us with valuable legal advice off-list, before, and after, seeing the contract. 

Dude is very sharp.  Based on our limited exchange, I was pretty impressed with what he had to say.  I’d recommend him to anyone who had need for a lawyer in his state.


#27    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2010/11/06 (Sat) @ 18:02

A check for the Kindle royalties, at 50%, has been delivered and received.  The title of this thread has been updated to reflect this fact.

Thanks to everyone for their indulgence and support in this particular matter.


#28    Ron Kaplan      (see all posts) 2010/11/09 (Tue) @ 22:28

Wow. A fascinating look at the inner workings of publishing. This was a real eye-opener.


#29    Benerson Little      (see all posts) 2011/01/04 (Tue) @ 15:26

Potomac has recently sent me two letters trying to modify a several-year-old contract so that I accept a royalty rate equal to that of the hardcover rate, as opposed to the 50 percent for electronic editions stated in the contract. I’m refusing, of course, and am also referring the matter for information to the Authors Guild and Writer Beware. Of course, I had to hold my third book hostage until they paid back advance and royalty payments for two other books, and even now they’re long overdue on 2009 royalties and the submission advance for the third book. Avoid Potomac at all costs, at least if you want to get paid.


#30    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2011/01/04 (Tue) @ 15:55

We also received the request to change our e-book sales from 50% to 15% in return for nothing.  I have received emails from more than one other author that they made this request to them as well.


Page 1 of 1 pages


Name (required)
E-Mail (optional; WILL be published)
Website (optional)

<< Back to main


Latest...

COMMENTS

May 25 14:44
What sabermetrics is NOT

May 25 14:14
Pete Palmer’s new book: Basic Ball

May 25 13:18
Do pitcher’s reach back for velocity when needed?

May 25 13:04
“Why Kickstarter works”

May 25 12:51
Chad Curtis

May 25 12:40
Largest demonstration in Canadian history?

May 25 11:32
Howard Stern

May 25 11:26
Lack of hustle during a game

May 25 10:58
Rooting for laundry

May 25 02:38
NFLPA lawsuit against collusion