I think this signals a broader change where authors hold onto and manage more of their rights directly (not
just erights and print, but audio, film, graphic novel, foreign translations, etc).
But I think I'd go the Hugh Howey role and just sell off the print rights,
keeping erights to myself.
Steven Pressfield does the calculation here, showing how the print - only deal still makes money for publishers — and shows further how EL James (50 Shades of Grey) author would have actually made MORE by forgoing the RH deal and just
selling erights.
Frankly, all they'd need to do is
make eRights equitable to what an author can get on their own, and authors would sign on.
There's been a call for sometime for publishers to give
better erights... and that's not happening.
It makes sense for publishers to distribute print and authors to
distribute erights — why?
I know that when my agent starts negotiating my 5th novel with my print publisher, I will want him to try and nab
those erights.
Their contracts are becoming wickedly draconian in regard to
erights.
It's also worth noting that Joe Konrath has discouraged aspiring authors from going indie right off the bat [EDIT: See April 7 Update, below] and encouraged new writers to seek a literary agent first, but at the same time Joe has mentioned that he's unsure of whether or not he wants to give up
the erights to his future books because he knows from experience how valuable they are, and how valuable they will be.
However, that's probably only profitable (right now) for clearly established authors who have a backlist and control of
those eRights.
Locke keeps all of
his erights.»
However, I think it would behoove a publisher to consider altering
their eRights strategies to the point authors are enticed to work with them.