Welcome to ethiopoint.com

The Business of Self-Publishing (self publishing) Self-publishing has become a common practice for many writers. Writers’ reasons for self-publishing are varied, but it is commonly known that many writers want the accolades of having published work, no matter who publishes it. The freedom and business aspects of publishing work independently are desirable to many writers. A self-published writer is one who is in control of every aspect of their published work. The term self-publishing is defined as the publishing of books and other media by the authors of those works, instead of being established by third-party publishers. The advancement of technology has caused an increase in the self-publishers world, but it still only represents a small percentage of the publishing industry in terms of sales. The proliferation of media channels and web logging has contributed to the increase in self-publishers. The business of publishing books and other media independently is one that is unique and different from any other business. The most distinguishing characteristic of self-publishing is the absence of a traditional publisher. The author of the content takes on the role of the traditional publisher. The author is given editorial control of the content, arranging for printing, marketing the material, and distributing the material to consumers and retailers. The published books may be printed on demand with no inventory, which places a large amount of financial risk for the venue on the author’s shoulders. Many self-published authors end up subsidizing their work rather than making money from it. Digital printing technology has made it possible for the self-publishing concept to become mainstream in digital photo book printing. Self-publishers are able to get individually printed photo books from firms like Apple’s iPhoto, FotoInsight, Snapfish, and Printing-1. The motives for publishing work independently are varied, and there are numerous reasons for choosing to self-publish. One common reason is that the work of the author is not of interest to the commercial publisher, and otherwise not marketable. Some other common reasons for self publishing include an author’s preference to retain complete editorial control over content. Many writers are unwilling to compromise when it comes to the editing of their work, and some prefer to have their work presented “as is.” Writers may also be denied publication because they are unknown and don’t have a substantial resume. Self-publishing may also be an alternative for writers who have written material on a popular topic but that is only of interest in a small geographic area. Topics that address an obscure topic in which few people are interested may also be denied publication by commercial publishers. Writers of controversial works may also choose to self-publish, as many traditional publishers refuse to work with controversial writings. There are also some authors choose self-publishing because they want a larger percentage return from retail sales. Whatever the reason for self-publishing, authors should know that there is extensive work required in publishing a book alone. Publishing alone involves a long list of tasks, which include prepublication and publication. Prepublication includes editing or obtaining editing for the manuscript, proofreading, establishing yourself as a legal retail business, and obtaining an ISBN “Cataloging in Publication” number. The publication process involves formatting the manuscript, providing front matter and back matter, and providing cover art for the front and back covers and the spine of the book. Self-publishers must also obtain printing quotes, determine how the manuscript will be delivered to the printer, and pay for printing and delivery of finished books. Self-publishing is a business that many writers prefer to avoid, but for others it may be the only way to have the work printed and available to the public.

Copyright infringement insurance coverage Do You Need Copyright Infringement Insurance Coverage? People are creating more content now than ever: eBooks, blogs, web journals, MySpace Pages, Podcasts. Every where, in abundance, you’ll find people sharing their ideas and opinions, and creating entertainment for everyone. However, with all the resources available to us, how can we be sure that we’re not violating copyright law? Should we have copyright infringement insurance coverage? Copyright infringement is the act of using someone else’s copyrighted material – in any form – in our own use without proper allowances. In order to be allowed to use the material, all we may need to do is ask and give the owner royalties, attribution, or some combination thereof. But, occasionally, it’s easy to forget that we need to ask before we use something without rights. You’re allowed to use copyrighted works in a number of forms – educational and instructional uses, parody, commentary, and news are all forms where you don’t need to ask for use – it’s considered fair use under the copyright law. However, even if you’re using the item of copyright in one of these forms, it would still be wise to inform the owner of your intent before using it. Of course, you should contact a copyright lawyer before using anyone else’s work(s), but to keep yourself safe, copyright infringement insurance coverage may be a good bet for you and your colleagues. Should you have copyright infringement insurance coverage? Although this is a new concept, it is one we should look at closely as creators. A well-known adage “there is no completely original idea” comes into play in our current age – while it’s entirely possible for us to have a thought, and act upon the thought – there may be, somewhere, someone who has created close to the same material as we have, without our knowing. Did we create it first? Did they? Would they be able to sue you for copyright infringement? These are the things to ponder as we create our media – should we have copyright infringement insurance coverage? What is copyright infringement insurance coverage? This coverage would be insurance for covering the cost to settle lawsuits brought in regards to copyright infringement – it would be a small amount of coverage. For example, you would only need around $5,000 to cover the court and attorney fees associated with a case, if a suit were brought against a person. Theoretically, you would only pay under $25 per year and would cover up to the five thousand dollar settlement should a case be brought against you. How would you use copyright infringement insurance coverage? Hopefully, you’d never have to use your copyright infringement insurance coverage. But, it would be there in case a charge was ever brought to you on copyright infringement With so many of us – bloggers, columnists, podcasters – creating our own content, it’s in our best interest to consider something such as this. We may not always get the rights we need in order to use a work, either whole or in part. As you can see, it can be critical to have copyright infringement insurance coverage as a blogger, podcaster, columnist, or other content creator. It’s imperative that we know our rights to use something (or to NOT use something) and what we can do to protect yourself. Copyright infringement can carry a serious penalty, and insurance coverage is a good way to insure that you’re protected from hefty fines. Talk to you current insurance provider and copyright lawyer to find out what you need to do, and what you need to know, to get proper insurance for your needs.

Copyright Music Infringement Copyright Music Infringement is Not Preferred Method for Music Lovers In recent years, copyright music infringement has seen an unprecedented leap in scope and scale. This is largely due to online services that allowed unchecked file sharing among their subscribers. While this abuse of copyright is not by any means limited to music, this is where the most profound effects of file sharing have been observed. Industry giants of file sharing are cropping up left and right with the demise of the pioneer for illicit file sharing, Napster. The Recording Industry Association of America (or RIAA) has made copyright music infringement their primary cause to fight. They estimate that peer-to-peer file sharing takes around 4.2 billion dollars each year worldwide from the coffers of the music industry. I really cannot blame them that is a fairly large chunk of change. The problem with their estimates however is the assumption that people would actually buy every piece of music they download or that they aren't buying the music they would have bought at any rate. While I by no means condone copyright music infringement or any other copyright infringement I do believe they are overestimating the damage to the industry that is being done by these file-sharing programs. One of the primary arguments that the RIAA is using in order to, hopefully, discourage people from not supporting their favorite groups and artists by buying their recordings, is the fact that new and struggling bands are less likely to continue making music because it will no longer be profitable. The bulk of musician's incomes are the result of royalties, which depend entirely on the sales of their albums. The RIAA is using the legal system to back them up by taking the fight to court. Recent claims made by the RIAA include one rather controversial claim that people ripping CDs they have bought and paid for does not constitute fair use because CDs are not "unusually subject to damage" and that if they do become damaged they can be replaced affordably. This assertion has raised more than a few eyebrows and is giving rise to opponents of the RIAA who claim that the lawsuits and crackdowns against those presumed guilty of copyright music infringement are actually hurting music sales and the profits of the music industry. During the height of Napster popularity (the hallmark by which all file sharing seems to be compared) CD sales were at their highest rate ever. People were exposed to music and groups they otherwise may not have heard without file sharing. As a result of enjoying the music by these groups people went out and actually bought the CDs of the music they enjoyed. It's ironic that the very lawsuits designed to stop copyright music infringement have actually managed to stifle file sharing enough that CD sales are dropping noticeably around the world. Opponents and critics also challenge that rather than being a source of copyright music infringement, peer 2 peer networks offer unprecedented exposure for new artists and their music. Another argument against the RIAA is that the real reason for the lawsuits against file sharer is because they want to keep the prices for CDs over inflated while keeping the actual royalties coming to the artists relatively low. The copyright music infringement claims made by the RIAA have become suspect. The music industry is currently working on ways where fans can legally download music. This will mean that fans have access to the music they love from their PCs and directly to their music playing devices without resorting to illegal copyright music infringement. The truth is that most people want to do the right thing and given viable alternative will elect to do so.