Because access to the courts is a key element of citizenship in a democracy, and because lawyers are expensive experts, we are expected to provide a certain level of service to the members of the public who cannot afford our services pro bono. This is not for the benefit of the people who receive the services: it’s for the benefit of society. Because society works better when people believe that they have some minimal access to the legal process even if they don’t have a lot of money. And I both donate to legal aid funds and provide general information to members of the artistic community in that proud tradition.

However, saying that a for-profit private company which provides a service which nobody actually needs is, in my opinion, rather an abuse of the concept. Sure, it wouldn’t hurt for them to do a little charity work – which is what this would be – but saying that they are somehow obligated to do so is pushing it way too far, again in my opinion. Maybe that’s reading more into your “should” than you intended, but that’s what I took away from your use of the word.

“…or we will know people who have sued such and such company and lost their writing time down the rabbit hole of legal troubles.”

Everybody listen to the nice blogger lady. Guys, I am an extremely experienced intellectual property attorney. I’ve sued infringers and contract-breachers ALL OVER THE WORLD. And I will tell you in so many words that if a controversy I am involved in hits a courtroom I feel that I have utterly failed in my duty to my client.

Now, that isn’t entirely fair. Every time I’ve sued somebody it was because they just would not listen to reason and I knew I was going to win and there was absolutely zero chance I was going to lose, or at least the lawyer’s equivalent of zero chance. (Think Fair Witness: “Right this minute, it’s white on this side. Won’t promise it’ll stay that way if I turn my head.”) And, more importantly, I knew it would be worth it to win.

But the reason I feel this way is that the sad and honest truth is this: Even when you “know” you’re going to win and you know that if you win you will both be awarded reasonable damages and you will be able to collect them – and them’s big ifs – being involved in a lawsuit is enormously frustrating. It’s distracting and it’s expensive and it’s depressing because you are just constantly being reminded of the conflict through hostile and impenetrable communications. You do not want to be in a lawsuit. I don’t mean, “You don’t want to be in one if you can reasonably avoid it.” I mean, “You want to move heaven and earth and possibly some undefined metaphysical fundament upon which they jointly rest to stay out of one.”

This is the essence of that old saying I quoted before: “Pay me a little now, or pay me a lot later.” And you won’t just be paying me. You’ll be paying yourself, or rather you’ll be losing time and money and motivation that could be vastly better spent. That is why I fight so hard when I negotiate licenses: I want the other party to know that if they don’t live up to their obligations they have no chance in court, and therefore except for the aforementioned irrational types, the temptation to breach and say “What are you going to do, sue me?” will simply not exist. That’s why you need me. (Well, not me literally. People like me.) Not in case you have to sue. To make it so ridiculously impractical to sue, or so frightening to contemplate suit in the first place that the other side has an extremely large incentive to deal fairly.

And with the BNA as a client, they have it made as far as reputation. The BNA was a featured speaker at the 2010 RWA conference and everyone in the romance genre recognizes her name and status. Romance authors would default to trusting them.

Please let me know if there’s anything I can do to help spread the word about this. It sickens me that my fellow romance authors could be taken in by them.

I talked with them at breakfast one morning and they sounded great, helpful, author and service oriented. If they’d asked to do a guest post on my blog about what e-services companies can do to help authors, I might not have checked into them deep enough to uncover these problems before saying yes. So I’m feeling like I dodged a bullet. Yikes!

This attitude refuses to acknowledge that some aspiring indy writers that could find your advice helpful may have severe difficulty paying up front capital for these services. Maybe they should get a loan from their parents. (sorry that last line was a little unfair, but I think it might drive the point home concisely.)

I fear that by not acknowledging this, the people that I hope find your blog post via the link I made in the writers forum I frequent may feel excluded from its full intended value as a result of their financial position.

Riders 101:

http://www.janisian.com/reading/riders.php

Never to late to review since it recapitulates the lesson/nail KKR has been hammering — read and understand the contract.

Warning flags should be heeded.

JJB