The Fallacy of the Findaway “Victory”

Business Musings Current News free nonfiction On Writing

I just posted another blog on Findaway’s rights grab on my Patreon page. Again, I have made this post open to everyone. Usually, I don’t do that, and I won’t do it much in the future, but I want you folks to understand what just happened with Findaway. It’s a business lesson that all writers should learn.

Here’s the link to the post.

5 thoughts on “The Fallacy of the Findaway “Victory”

  1. Heya! Just as a heads up – Lucas is WRONG about a lot of things in his post on this topic. For example, he asserts that the TOS wasn’t a copy/paste from the Spotify user TOS; he’s in error about this. I have screenshots, if you want to see ’em. 😉

    The odds of someone *intentionally* taking the Spotify *user* TOS – the ones my teenage daughter agrees to when she listens to Spotify on her phone – and putting them in place as the Findaway *creator* terms are vanishingly small.

    He made STACKS of additional errors in his post. Too many to list here, unless you’re super interested.

    I spent about 48 hours consulting with a stack of attorneys on the topic while it was all going down, and after as well.

    The new terms aren’t ideal. But they’re basically no worse than KDP, in terms of rights grabs.

    Victory? Meh, maybe a little. We got them to correct a blatant and stupid error that made them look wildly foolish, but that’s about it.

    1. Perhaps you should compare the “new” agreement that you got them to give you to the original Findaway agreement. That’s how negotiation is actually done. You will see what the lawyers were actually doing. In particular, look at the way they do payments. Or rather, I should say, the way they no longer do payments.

      1. That would be these payment terms, linked to in the TOS and therefore included in the TOS as binding?

        The payment terms page is better written than the main TOS, IMHO.

        At this point I’ve spoken to five different publishing-employed attorneys regarding this TOS. While there are some niggling issues (a TOS aimed at non-lawyers should be easily understandable by non-lawyers, ideally, and the main Findaway TOS is not – but neither is KDP’s or most other ones we agree to), their opinion was unanimous: there are no major flaws in the current TOS.

        1. Kevin, you miss the point of the essay entirely. I don’t care about the current “new” Findaway TOS. I want you to compare it to the TOS that existed before Findaway merged with Spotify. That’s the important one. A backer analyzed it on my Patreon page. Go there and read the comments. I don’t have time to explain–again–that this is a bait and switch, not with the 2 TOS’s that you are looking at, but with what Findaway promised **before** it merged. And “publishing-employed” attorneys? What the hell is that? An IP attorney? I consult with intellectual property attorneys, and they always recommend comparing the original terms with the proposed new terms.

          You can keep posting here if you like. I’m not going to answer any longer, because I have 2 businesses to run and a writing career to manage. I’ve pulled my work off Findaway and so have my businesses. You are responsible for your own career and your own decisions. It looks like you will make a different choice.

          1. I think you’re right. I’ve *definitely* missed the point! 🙂

            I’m looking at the two TOS side by side right now, and they basically say the same thing. So… I’ve very, very, very definitely missing the point. So have all five IP attorneys who’ve looked it over (yes, by “publishing-employed” I meant IP attorneys specifically working within the publishing industry).

            If you can share WHICH clauses were changed in a way that you think is concerning, that would be helpful.

            As for Dawn’s analysis on your Patreon… She’s wrong about most of what she wrote. For example, she claims “There is no mention of percentages in Spotify’s new ToS.” This is completely false, as the link I sent you above demonstrates. She doesn’t mention any other specific complaints, but rather just claims Spotify is up to no good.

            Which I’m perfectly willing to believe! This WAS the same company which tried to sell AI training rights to Apple just a year ago, after all. Findaway adding sketchy clauses to TOS isn’t a new problem. We should always be watching any TOS change from ANY corporation with careful eyes.

            But the IP attorneys I’ve spoken with *unanimously* disagree with your take, and your source blogger Lucas made up most of his information. What’s a good journalist to do, when they discover the source they cited lied?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *