Techdirt earlier reported that Seth Godin, author of "Everyone's an Expert (About Something)," was unhappy because his book was published and for sale after it had been on line for free (link here). The story has now been resolved by the New York Times (link here.)

Originally licensed and published under a Creative Commons license that allows anyone to republish and sell it, Godin objected that it was dishonestly sold as a new edition. The publishers then put it out with a note that it was the same edition as the free one available on line. The author accepted that.

Nevertheless, the fact that the book was for sale produced some criticism of Godin as he could have put it out under a different Creative Commons license that allows anyone to make use of a published work but only on a not-for-profit basis.

It seems to me that the critics have got that wrong. Many people are willing to pay for the convenience of having a hard copy version and producing that has costs. If there is a profit involved, as some critics objected, that motive got the book printed. If the price were too high, others were free to print it as well, likely bringing the price down.

The consumer was well served here, better than if it had been put out under the more restrictive Creative Commons license.

Perhaps the 'new edition' thingy was just a reflex action on the publisher's part to obtain its own copyright in the work?

This really comes down to the author's moral right of integrity.

If the book was the author's edition, it should be accurately attributed as such, if not, then attributed as the publisher's derivative (given the author evidently had no involvement in making a new edition) - and assuming the license permitted derivatives.

But, otherwise, yes, publishers should be encouraged to print hardback versions of copyleft books - and, they deserve every penny they make in profit.