Hephaestus Books Publishing

[monsnoleedra]

I was doing some general searching to update my books wanted list and I happened to come across a number of books with the publisher listed as Hephaestus Books. What made it so intersting was that the price for these items ranged from 15.00 on the low end to 75 on the high end. Now even that was not as unusual to me as the warnings that went with each one. Specifically

Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles from Wikipedia or other free sources online. Hephaestus Books represents a new publishing paradign, allowing disparate content sources to be curated into cohesive, relevent, and informative books. To date, this content has been curated from Wikipedia articles and images under creative commons licensing, although as Hephaestud Books continues to increase in scope and dimension,more licensed and public domain content is being added..

So what do you think of this idea? From a scholary perspective I know Wikipedia is not an allowable or accept source document. Then factor in that none of the material has to be proved or even accurate nor submitted to any sort of quality control. I just see this as another example of the proliferation of erroneous material and information.

[Starglade]

::blinks slowly:: That's a "new paradigm," all right. It's a blatant rip-off scheme! "Here, we've collected a bunch of free stuff from around the internet that's never been vetted and we're charging you real-book-publishing prices for it. Good thing we're smarter than you, right?"

Somehow, and I will freely admit I don't know how the laws work in this regard, I don't quite believe this is what "creative commons" was meant to do. I would not only run very far in the opposite direction, I'd consider looking into what kinds of charges could be brought, if any. This just hits me wrong on SO many levels it's not funny.

ETA: I'm not the only one thinking that, either. This is from 2011.
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/?p=6829

[Starglade]

Replying to myself rather than editing the post:

I suggest doing a search for the so-called author/publisher, Hephaestus Books. I believe you will be enlightened by what you find. Google-fu is definitely your friend in this situation.

[monsnoleedra]

Replying to myself rather than editing the post:

I suggest doing a search for the so-called author/publisher, Hephaestus Books. I believe you will be enlightened by what you find. Google-fu is definitely your friend in this situation.

There definately is a lot of stuff out there on them. The sad or bad part to me is they are listed on so many places. Which by buyer beware type tactics seem sot support themand their wikipedia based books. You really have to dig to find the charges against them on a lot of the sites.

[Starglade]

There definately is a lot of stuff out there on them. The sad or bad part to me is they are listed on so many places. Which by buyer beware type tactics seem sot support themand their wikipedia based books. You really have to dig to find the charges against them on a lot of the sites.

Perhaps my personal bias showed through in my opinion of the search results. I had no problem whatsoever finding negative press about them. I'm probably also biased thanks to being a Kindle owner; there're a LOT of crap e-books out there for free or low prices, so my BS meter's been used more often in the last year than in all the years before then. (Not saying HB products are e-books, just drawing the parallel in BS level.)

[monsnoleedra]

Perhaps my personal bias showed through in my opinion of the search results. I had no problem whatsoever finding negative press about them. I'm probably also biased thanks to being a Kindle owner; there're a LOT of crap e-books out there for free or low prices, so my BS meter's been used more often in the last year than in all the years before then. (Not saying HB products are e-books, just drawing the parallel in BS level.)

Oh they show through ok but the average person I think is just going to be looking for Amazon.com or some other source that promotes them. They may check it out closer once they've been stung once but normally not I'd hazard to guess.

It's like if it wasn't for the subject material I probably would not have noticed right off the bat and paid closer attention to the disclaimer. Yet because I am very suspect of published works and try to get the best academic books I can thier combinations of subjects and titles hit me wrong.

Can't really speak on the e-books thing as I do not tend to use them as the screens on the readers i've seen are pretty small and kill my eyes.

[HeartShadow]

::blinks slowly:: That's a "new paradigm," all right. It's a blatant rip-off scheme! "Here, we've collected a bunch of free stuff from around the internet that's never been vetted and we're charging you real-book-publishing prices for it. Good thing we're smarter than you, right?"

Somehow, and I will freely admit I don't know how the laws work in this regard, I don't quite believe this is what "creative commons" was meant to do. I would not only run very far in the opposite direction, I'd consider looking into what kinds of charges could be brought, if any. This just hits me wrong on SO many levels it's not funny.

ETA: I'm not the only one thinking that, either. This is from 2011.
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/?p=6829

it is NOT how creative commons works!!!!! I publish online under a CC license - and it's VERY specifically for NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. Selling it? COMMERCIAL.

It's NOT a derivative work if you're copy-pasting someone else's stuff!

*pissed as hell. set them on fire*

[RandallS]

So what do you think of this idea? From a scholary perspective I know Wikipedia is not an allowable or accept source document. Then factor in that none of the material has to be proved or even accurate nor submitted to any sort of quality control. I just see this as another example of the proliferation of erroneous material and information.

They aren't doing anything illegal or wrong from the sound of it, but the prices they are charging for taking freely usable material and putting it in collections seems from high to outrageous. As for being inaccurate, many Wicca 101 books are proof that normal writing/publication methods are not always great in the accuracy department. Overall, however, color unimpressed and unwilling to spend a dime on their products.

[HeartShadow]

They aren't doing anything illegal or wrong from the sound of it, but the prices they are charging for taking freely usable material and putting it in collections seems from high to outrageous. As for being inaccurate, many Wicca 101 books are proof that normal writing/publication methods are not always great in the accuracy department. Overall, however, color unimpressed and unwilling to spend a dime on their products.

It might not be illegal, but it's DEFINITELY wrong, if only in the "falseness in advertising" issue.