Slashdot Mirror
Authors Guild To Members: De-link Amazon.com
theodp writes: "Angered by Amazon.com's practice of offering [prominently placed] used editions of relatively new titles, the Authors Guild is urging authors to replace Amazon.com links on their web sites with links to Barnesandnoble.com and BookSense.com.
Amazon spokesperson Patty Smith insisted the policy really "ends up helping authors and publishers" although neither the author nor the publisher receives royalties from Amazon's used book sales, and Smith could not cite an author or genre helped by the availability of used editions.
" CD: I'd imagine they don't want us to go to our local used book stores either? This is the second time they've tried to call Amazon to task for this.
Can I expect to see pickets of authors next time I go to a library?
The funny part of this is that the "used price" for the newer books is often higher than the retail price, so why would quick-to-click consumers buy the used version anyway? I can see where the author's guild is coming from, but really, is it that big of a problem?
you would think it'd be the same thing, except in /etc/hosts
Dumb anonycow!!!
... to be sold on the "used" list, the books had to have been bought, right? Which means the author already got their share of the sale. If this is after-market purchasing, it falls under classic copyright laws, which give the owner the right to sell such material for whatever price they deem. I can see their point of "prominently placing" the link to used books next to newer releases, but maybe it's just me: I never buy used books. :) Unless it's a school text, does anyone? Something my father got me into, I guess, only because I saw the state of his books post-read... nicotine stains, bits of crumbs in the bindings... eaugh. ...
First time posting, release the hounds!
Holy Bagels Batman:
If people start talking to other people, and agreeing on ideas, and practicing what they preach, who knows what will happen!
but seriously, while I personally have no problem with shopping for used books to save some $$$, what's not to like about authors speaking their minds. it's not like they hacked Amazon's website to remove the books - they simply made a group decision not to link to Amazon when it comes to promoting their book sales.
I really don't see the big deal here, and hope this doesn't become a flame war between people arguing over the virtues of used books, and those calling the authors elitist or whatever.
But, on the other hand, I haven't bought a book or CD new in the past 4 years or so. This is in protest of the collaboration and price fixing between publishers. I figure if they try to screw me, I'll find a legal way that hurts them in the pockets. So the ban on direct linkage, while it may appear to be a good idea for the authors, will only hurt the effectiveness of their site. I'll just end up going to half.com or Amazon anyway, and ignore their site completely.
Anyway, if the authors want more money/any money at all from used book sales, they should publish themselves, because the large publishing houses would hardly like to share a new source of income. I'd be glad to buy a book new even if it did cost a little more from an author who publishes independently a la Edward Tufte.
This shows a certain lack of social responsibility. Reuse is good, in particular of something like books. Presumably, if the original owners of the books had liked them enough, they would have kept them.
Now that technology has made it "easy" to resell used books, we finally hear complaints. Just like when technology made it "easy" to exchange music, which was done previously (remember cassette tapes?) but on a much smaller scale.
Thankfully we won't see watermarks placed on books, but I worry that now, in the guise of "protecting authors," there will be some new legislation to "crack down" on used book sales.
By continuing to display advertisements of used books (book v1.0) instead of the new book with the glossy cover (book 2.0 - same contents, new box - hey it works for M$), you are depriving starving young writers like Stephen King and J.K. Rowling of the money they need to provide for their families.
Failure to remove these ads may result in sanctions against you from the WIAA (Writing Industry Association of Amercia) and possible fines.
-------
Hey, pretty much the same shit seems to work for the RIAA...
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
In addition, as far as Holocaust deniers go, any publicity is good publicity, and anybody who buys a piece of Holocaust denial propaganda - whether new or secondhand - is an additional 'convert' to the cause - as far as deniers are concerned, most don't care whether one believes them or not - a new reader is potentially a new supporter... also, deniers cite often that anybody interested in their stuff must be positively inclined towards it - just check out what they write about their web page hits...
I heard that your library burnt down and destroyed your only two books - and one was not even coloured in yet.
Link it to this instead, the gaping anus is still there!
Of course, if publishers had realistic expectations of sales and the advertising/marketing for any given book was more likely accurate rather than a complete lie and if most high profile reviewers weren't in the pockets of the publishing houses then maybe this wouldn't be so much of a problem.
Through DMCA and other legislation, and now pressure from authors, the doctrine of first sale is dying a slow and horrible death.
This reminds me far too much of MPAA/RIAA tactics . . . what will we see next, ranting against libraries because they allow people to share books?
And here I thought all Evil Organizations had acronyms ending in AA . . .
I personally will make all of my future online book purchases from Tattered Cover.
How quickly we forget who is standing up for our rights.
... before we see pay per read?
If an author doesn't want it's book to show up as a used book at amazon he should write a book that people want to keep. Something that is good enough to read again one day. Those books won't show up as second hand at amazon...
The authors are complaining they are not receiving money for the sale of used books? Are they forgeting they have already received that money when those were sold the first time. Are we going to see EULA for books that license the reading right to a specific user (reader) and prohibit the resale of the license??
True warriors use the Klingon Google
This Author's Guild is just like arguing that librarys are bad for business because people will not buy books if they van get them from a public library, so "close all librarys!".
The used book shops and p.lib. are a way for: (1) people who don't have the money to be able to read books, (2) Get access to books already sold out, (3) To know unknown writers and make good pub to them if the book is good and probably get future (new) books from them.
So I don't see how they don't "profit" from this. I believe in the long run good authors will only profit from this.
------I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.------
Amazon provides an excellent service for the reading community, and therefore to publishers and authors. No, it doesn't lick publishers' boots like authors are forced to. And yes, it is big enough that it poses a menace to publishers -- it is big enough to exert a visible pressure on the market.
Acting against Amazon is stupid. It is futile -- the market chooses the best service, and doesn't give a shit about the publishers. It is also stupid, from a publishers' view. Destroying Amazon would decrease book sales overall. Isn't this obvious?!
This goes in line with movie producers wanting me to use a XPTO-approved device for viewing movies. Expected result -> I won't buy movies -> less business overall.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
Didn't Garth Brooks have a fit a few years ago about used CDs? Didn't they try to outlaw the used CD business?
Copyright is not license. Although they can soon change that.
They're basically protesting Amazon participating in making it more convenient for people to find used books. Cry me a frigging river ya greedy bastards. They don't have to like it, but tough. I'm going to support Amazon because I appreciate the convenience of purchasing used books.
Used books are good for any number of reasons:
- ecologically, used books = no new resources expended, no landfill required
- lowered price points mean poorer readers (like me, for years) can afford to assemble a decent library without paying $30/hardback
- lowered prices mean I can pick up books of an author unavailable at my under-funded branch library mean that I can look at more authors, finding ones I want to buy new in the future
- used book dealers like the ones that sell on Amazon are really the last bastions of independent thought and customer service, because they can't compete on the razor-thin margins B&N/Borders/etc have brought to the new book market
By their logic, instead of lending or giving my friends good books I think they might like, I should burn my copy and then direct them to the nearest B&N. What a load of crap.
I write, I make some money at it, and my library is easily 50% stuff I bought used at Half Price Books or my other local hole-in-wall places. Screw these morons. Used books rule.
Except for those books that I buy from the used/discounted section that I would never buy at full price, and then go buy a bunch of books by that author because I found out I like him/her.
Recent case in point- I picked up a book called "The Ice Limit" by 2 authors. Same guys wrote "The Relic" and "Riptide". Ice Limit was so freaking good I went and 3 more of their books at full price becuase I liked their stuff so much. (Review- Ice Limit was great, Riptide was merely very good, haven't finished Relic yet)
I'm guessing that most people (who read a lot) buy used books to try out new authors rather than wait around to get a used book by a favored author. I buy every Clancy and Dennis McKiernan (spelling might be off; he did a great job of taking Tolkien's universe and changed it slightly to produce a great serious of books. Check him out.) book as soon as I now that they have been released.
To wind down this windy post, I think that once again an industry is making a big fuss out of a certain method of legal distribution.
But what do I know, I'm merely human.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
But she did not have a percentage for books and could not cite an author or genre helped by the availability of used editions.
Some car makers advertise that their cars are worth more used, and expect people to buy them because of that. Books and CDs and such cost so much less than cars that resale value hasn't been much of an issue, but i'm sure some people would be more willing to buy a book if they knew they could sell it for a reasonable percentage of it's original value once they'd finished reading it. It's stupid to imply that people can't redistribute legal copies of copyrighted works.
On the other hand, the writer's guild hasn't done anything illegal, isn't passing any new laws, etc. They have the right to do whatever they please with their own websites, and until the average consumer starts thinking logically enough to take resale value into account when making small purchases, this is probably in the writers' best interests.
What they really would like to do is to eliminate *all* used book sales. Since books can be legally sold used (there was a court case many years ago about it), they can only use alternative methods like this boycott attempt, or they could try to limit a stores access to new books (Garth Brooks tried to keep one of his albums from being sold (new) at stores that also sold used CDs).
Attempts to reduce the possible outlets of used book sales can result in reduced value of the books we already own.
-asb
Wow, next we will see cries from the worlds authors that they are losing money because people can read texts from free/public domain repositories like Project Guttenberg.
Oh the horror, Poor starving authors. I hope they get together with the poor starving Musicians and software developers and create a poor-starving commune to help ease their burdens.
Ok, enough sarcasim... This is nothing more than a century old whine by book-publishers and book-writers. They started their whining over 100 years ago on this very topic.
Basically, this proves that they are nothing more than spoiled children... just like the MPAA,RIAA,BSA,and everyone else who whines about someone selling an old item they are done using instead of destroying it as the creator really wishes they could force us to do.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I personally only use amazon for reviews and a good listing of lots of books availble to myself and then i go down to the local bookstore(really good in New Hope, PA) and buy it there :)
Basically i think the guild is upset because such a "high profile" bookseller such as amazon sells used books. I would think that if Barnes & Nobles(which they've stated they won't do) started a used book section at their physical stores they would get upset too. basically they think everyone should by a NEW COPY of the book.. Imagine a world when i finish a new book by say.. terry pratchet(damn discworld rocks) and give it to a friend to read.. and i could go to jail for it!!
Hmm maybe the book guild should team up with the RIAA....
Car manufacturers don't seem to complain that used cars are being sold on the same forecourt as new ones. TV manufacturers have no problems with people selling their TV. Why are books so different?
I have instant flashback to some days ago when A.J. from Userfriendly.org is harrassed by the inquisitors, who try to make him pay for his CDs more than once. I mean, if I buy a book, I should be free to do with it what I please afterwards. That amazon helps me excercise this right is just a great service. --Vad
If the used copy of Atlas Shrugged I just bought is caked with blood and urine, does that mean Ayn Rand gets a percentage? No? Blast!
My favorite quote:
"We asked could we at least talk about when something could become available as a used book? Could we maybe wait three months after the book was published?" said Patricia Schroeder, president of the Association of American Publishers. "The biggest problem is that it is legal, I think. I wring my hands, pound my desk and say, `Aargh.'"
Easy solution: outlaw used book sales. As the RIAA/MPAA have shown, convenient new laws can be bought on Capitol Hill. It's time for the Association of American Publishers to pay up....
.... So how long before all the clothing i donate to school yard sales and the salvation army becomes illegal because the manufactures want a cut of the sales or would prefer poorer people to only buy new clothes(and damn the poor sucker who buys my stinky shoes)...
I have Windows Me, and the hosts file is located in the main WINDOWS directory, not in the SYSTEM32 directory. Also if you're using mozilla it's better to use the image manager to block ads, if you want to avoid the annoying refused connection popup window.
We're all in this business together.
Read: We all want to get money from our costumers, lets do it together instead of competing with each other. (and leave the customer a choice.)
To be honest, I've never looked into the details enough, but I believe there to be a lot of evidence supporting the view that it happened; certainly the Jews were persecuted by the Nazi regime in the 30s.
In any event, even if it didn't happen, it should still serve as a warning against extremist views.
-5- You know, I think you'd find them giving their work away if no one was buying them.
:P
-4- What's next? the Authors Guild going after libraries because "Anyone can come and get a book without paying for it!". The Guild could invent paper that spontaneously combusted after you read the last page - try to read it again and you're toast!
-3- An Authors reputation sells a lot of books and makes their name even more well-known (thus selling more books) and I doubt a move like this by the Authors Guild is going to endear a lot of authors to J Q Public.
-2- I'm a hoarder, so if I like a book I keep it. One day, I'll have enough books so I can say "let's have some brandy in the library and the professor will tell us about his latest adventure"
And the number one thought that popped into my mind when I read the post:
-1- I promise I won't buy 2nd-hand books as long as the Authors promise to give me back all the late nights where I couldn't put the books down
-- Dan =)
Come on... you're putting a sensationalist spin on this one that's just not fair to the Author's Guild at all. Of course they got money on the first sale, and of course you have the right to sell the book if you want to. That's not the point.
The point is that they are upset with the prominent placement these used editions are getting on the website, because people will generally prefer the cheaper used edition to the new one. This will prevent the author from getting that second or third new copy sold, and thus 1/2 or 1/3 of the potential money. They are not trying to restrict your rights in any way at all, so stop being so sensationalist about it.
The fact is that both sides have a very good point, if you bothered to read the article. The authors are concerned that they will get less sales of new books (which is a tough thing to get if you're not someone like Anne Rice or Steven King to begin with) which will decrease their profits. Note that this isn't the publishers talking (like the equivalent of the RIAA) but it is the Author's Guild, which represents the authors themselves.
However, in the end I think I like Amazon's position: "It encourages customers to explore authors or genres they might not otherwise try because of the price," said spokeswoman Patty Smith. "That ends up helping authors and publishers." This is a good thing for new authors that won't really hurt the established authors or the publishers themselves. Either way, no one is trying to slap a EULA on your books, so please try and calm down a bit before you post.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
They're just pissed because they won't get their cut on the 87 used copies of Dianetics that are up for sale on amazon right now.
Anyone knows any free-profit org to whom we can send books so they are send to people who need them? Everywhere in the world?
------I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.------
Oh, I get it! I predict the Authors Guild will prepose new legislation requiring people to pay a royalty every time someone reads a book. Just like the movie industry and the music industry, reading a book will be considered a performance. Perhaps they'll write the law so that you'll owe a new royalty payment every time you re-read a sentence.
Thank God there's one group left in the world that can't afford to buy congress, or my little nightmare would come true.
Anyway I bought a used book on Amazon recently (it was out of print). The process was painless. This bull shit may just inspire me to buy used books when I don't have to. Who are they to tell me I shouldn't be offered used as well as new books?!!!
Rocky J. Squirrel
here's an idea. If the Authors want everyone to by new books, then the publishers had best keep publishing to meet whatever demand there is.
Oh, wait, that's not cost effective and the bottom line is so important... so, to get a book I want, I need to buy used.
Sorry. I buy books, new and used, depending what I can find. There's times that the new copy of a book is sold out, and there's used ones around... i get used.
I search, usually using Google.
Well, you tell me who comes out on top.
Desperation is a stinky cologne
In the world of technical books, you want the best and the brightest of the field writing books for the rest of us, but it is so economically unfeasible that anybody who could make a decent hourly rate as a consultant cannot rationalize it financially. I know this from experience: I recently declined a contract from O'Reilly simply because I could not possibly spend that much time to get paid that little.
The only income authors get is from royalties. Digging into their pockets reduces only reduces the quality of the books you buy in the long term.
I frequent second hand books shops frequently, as well as new book stores. In fact most of the second hand bookshops I know are small, independant and sell new books as well.
The existence of second hand books is good for authors whose work may have fallen out of print, without those bookstores their work may well be forgotten. As once you move beyond the big sellers, a bookshop like Waterstones may only have one or two titles out of dozens. It's a way of keeping your work in the public consciousness.
For instance M. John Harrison's Virconium books were out of print for quite a long time (or at least you couldn't walk into a bookstore and find them). There availability in the second hand market kept them visible though, so now they've been republished as part of the Fantasy Masterworks series. Along with many other titles that have bubbled under for years, out of print, on the second hand market.
If it wasn't for the second hand market I wouldn't have even started on some of the authors you like. It allows you to sample works you don't even find in libraries half the time, and then you can go off and buy everything you can find that is still in print.
It must be one of the best forms of marketing for authors out there, and has lead me to part with a lot of cash over the years.
Wouldn't they be better off trying to get a cut of every ream of paper sold?
Worked with black CD's.
...always bet on greed as being a prime factor. Not that I don't blame them if they aren't getting a cut of the sales in any case.
Authors aren't fond of second-hand book stores, since it does deprive them of sales when one could go buy a shiny new copy.
I think you've really said it all: that this is a whole lotta fuss by the Authors Guild about something that I belive actually helps Authors...
You really can't underestimate the value that one small book can do to you (and your wallet):
- "Red Mars" by Kim Stanley Robinson
- "Empyrion" by Stephen Lawhead
- "Magician" by Raymond E Fiest
- "Wizard's First Rule" by Terry Goodkind
- "Battleaxe" by Sara Douglass
Once you get a taste, you want more. By discouraging the sale of 2nd hand books I think that you can lose out on follow up sales. Even the small list of Authors above can easily fill a bookshelf.
I really think they should not be worried about 2nd hand books (even close to the release date) as the books will (along with the reputation of the Author) will be transfered to someone who will buy the next umpteen bagillion books by that Author...
... or is that just me?
-- Dan =)
This is just as dumb as chasing down libraries.
I buy LOTS of books, particularly used, then rather then selling them, I give them to people.
I know that many people who didn't consider reading started doing so a bit more after a good book or too.
I gladly throw around $2 used books, I don't let anyone breath on my bought new hardcover fiction books. I'm also protective of my rarer bought new paperbacks.
If authors make good books people want to keep, they won't go into the used book store, I doubt I'll ever get rid of my copy of Enders game. The same can not be said of many others.
That said, I'm not surprised. That's humanity for you. But one must wonder...instead of going after Amazon, why doesn't the Author's Guild try targetting the companies who are really screwing authors out of money--the publishers?
It's sad to see that so many Slashdotters are so uncomfortable with that fact. Authors aren't objecting to just any old store offering used books. They're objecting to *Amazon* doing it. That's because they recognise that Amazon controls a significant share of the market: Amazon can potentially affect the buying habits of a huge number of consumers and so destroy the chances of authors making a living. And for every JK Rowling who can live without an extra $10m, there are literally thousands, possibly tens of thousands of authors who rely on royalties to pay the rent. What is happening is that Amazon is making the market much more price-competitive. The response will be the same as in any other market: consolidation, with small businesses (ie authors who aren't best-sellers) going under. That's where they're coming from.
Yes, go ahead and laugh. I'm a procrastinating bastard who'll probably never get published, but hey. ;P
;)
:p
It's an interesting problem. On one hand, the author has already received money for the first sale. But then, there's the problem of the second sale. There's no money involved.
Factor in libraries, where you don't get to keep the book. One could easily be well read, yet not pay a dime to any author. However, I think the major point here is that books gotten via the library are not your property, nor in your possession at your convenience. Someone might have already signed out "Our Trolls, Our Selves: An Unauthorized Biography of CmdrTaco", and you'll have to wait a week or two for them to return it. You can't just walk over to your bookshelf and start thumbing through it, trying to find the exact words while you're attempting to make obscure quotes to impress your friends. If your dog eats it, the library lady will possibly pull out a large calibre weapon and hurt you.
Libraries have existed for how long now, and authors still get paid. Used book sales have been going on for how long now, and authors still get paid. And, in the end, you can't have a used book to sell without first having a new book.
I think a certain guild has seen the RIAA/MPAA and jumped on the proverbial bandwagon. If I ever, somehow, manage to publish anything which results in large checks coming to my door, I at least know what organization not to join.
However, I urge you all to be wary of Amazon, and their damnable software patents.
I'd imagine they don't want us to go to our local used book stores either?
That's an unfair characterisation of their position. Agree with it or not, the guild isn't against second hand sales per se, just Amazon's agressive marketing of second-hand sales through an ebay-style system that sits alongside new book sales. This is great for Amazon, because it picks up a commission for every sale without taking any of the risk involved with new sales - it doesn't have to warehouse inventory or administer the sale to the same degree.
What must be galling for authors is that most people using Amazon will be searching for their books in the expectation they will be buying a new copy. With this option, potential new book buyers are lured to buy a used book, so no royalties.
Barnes and Noble offer a slightly similar option, but through used book shops, and further removed from the book buying process, but then B&N has larger warehousing than Amazon and so is probably more concerned with turnover.
Anyhow there are better ways of finding (cheaper) used books - the best being abebooks.com, a co-operative of used book shops around the world. It's great.
As mentioned above, they already HAVE seen money from the sale of something they created. How many times do you expect to get money from the sale of the same damn item? It's not a rental, it's not a service, it's not a performance, it's a durable item I can wonk you on the head with to demonstrate.
If I want a pristine book to collect, I buy it new. If I just want to read the words in it, I buy it used.
Don't forget nizkor.org
What were the skies like when you were young?
Then again, I've had my book available for free online since I wrote the first 30 pages or so. And I intend to keep the free version available after it is printed by No Starch in a couple of months. I guess I'm one of them weirdos who thinks content creators shouldn't extract money from their customers at every possible opportunity. I like musicians who sell their records for reasonable prices (Dischord records, That Dog before they split, etc.) and authors who don't really think everyone should have to pay $45 for their books (Bruce Eckel). I'm all for getting paid, and paying folks who have done the work, but I'm also for letting people decide if a work is worth shelling out the dough for.
I guess this Open Source thing has gotten to me. Or maybe it was the punk rock thing ("give the kids their moneys worth"). Regardless, prices on new books are probably higher than they ought to be, and if I often buy used ones if I can't get it new for a reasonable price--the new price always dictates whether I get it at my local Half Price Books or at BookPool.
That's my take on the issue anyway.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Being an author myself, I can sympathize with the Author's Guild. I spent a great deal of time on my book and just barely made any money off of it to begin with. Had Amazon had this at the time my book came out, I may have never made a dime.
Unlike movies and CDs, authors main source of benefit from a book is usually the book itself, and if new copies don't sell, the author doesn't make any money.
With CDs, this isn't really a significant source of income for most musicians. They tend to make most of their money from touring. Movies tend to make most of their money from theatres and selling to video stores (who then rent).
Authors, unfortunately, usually don't have another source of income from their books.
That said, there have been used book stores for years, and there should be. There are certainly a lot of out of print books that are made available through this channel that is invaluable to book collectors. If you allow this, you simply have to allow any book to be bought used.
Then there's Amazon.com. They're a company that is trying to make money. That's their job. They have an obligation to their shareholders to do the best they can to make money. Failure to do that, especially after they've clearly shown that it's a source of income for them, could actually make them liable to stockholders. They'd have to somehow show to their stockholders that the overall benefit would be to remove this feature (such as the Actors Guild putting together a big enough campaign against Amazon to cost them more to implement it than it makes them).
As an author, I'm torn, but when it comes down to it, Amazon is doing the right thing for them. They have to try to make money.
This is a rather simple question of business models. Used books have always existed in some form or another. Used bookstores used to be frequented by retired people, poorer middle class (students), and the like. More time than money, or little time and NO money. Now, the Internet is bringing the used bookstore into the mainstream - and the landscape changes.
I am sick to death of hearing complaining when this happens. The movie industry complained about video / DVD, and now they make more money from the rentals of these than on the box office tickets.
I buy many books from Amazon. I normally do NOT take the used book because of several reasons:
1. It isn't often MUCH cheaper
2. The shipping cannot be combined with another order
3. The ZShop / partner isn't necessarily as "trustworthy" as Amazon (implied)
The consumer has to decide if the combination of 1-3 is enough for them to buy or not to buy. If the formula is skewed, there will be a market shift to used boookstores, and authors can change the model they use for publishing.
I've bought several books through used book stores listed by Amazon, and I believe that the linking of these is fine and dandy. It is of immense help to me as a consumer to see these links for comparison, and in case the new book is not available.
The writer who made the point about "authors should write books that people want to keep" was right on!
are poorly written cheese ball paperbacks that take 20 pages to set the tone with excessive repetative maneuvering, when a well written 2 pages would be more effective. Everyone has read one in their life and felt like they had to wash their mouths out with soap. Books that make the reader think, enjoy, learn, grow and re-read don't have a problem. In fact, those books tend to encourage repeat purchases. As in gifts, collector's edition and replacement copies.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Would it be so bad if our government, laws, and ethics, revolved around a simple principle ?
An individual can do anything they like such that it doesn't infringe on anyone elses rights.
Where there is no "right" to profit, and if you're doing something in the privacy of your own home, no one else is involved, so theres clearly no infringing of anyone elses rights going on.
I don't want anarchy. You shouldn't be allowed to shoot me, but you should be allowed to buy a gun.
I shouldn't be allowed to steal a TV (or a copy of Windows), but i should certainly be able to build my own TV or my own windows.
If i dont feel like paying for aspirin, why shouldn't i just make it myself ?
When did our system get so unusable. When did it become "Acceptable" to pull this kind of shit ? I expect revolution at some point. I claim that our current system of laws is so complicated that it is not possible to spend even a single second of your life without breaking some law at some level of government. Is it any wonder why there are more people entering law school currently then ther are lawyers, and people have a utter malaise and disrespect for the law in general ?
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
As I understand (and remember from the last time the Authors Guild complained) the problem is not that Amazon are selling the used books but that when someone does a search for a book and go to the page specifically for that book it shows the book you have searched for complete with picture, rrp and amazon price and below that details of any second hand copies.
If amazon had the second hand books seperate (e.g. as a separate category) I think the Authors Guild would have a lot less of the problem. Their point is that people who search for a book on Amazon because they are planning to buy it and are happy to pay full price (and thus pay the royalty to the author) are seeing the second hand copy and buying that instead.
If you walked into a bricks and mortar bookshop and asked for a particular book you would expect to be offered the new, full price copy rather than a second hand one even if the shop had both unless you specifically asked for a second hand copy.
Kithran
Neither does Barnes and Noble, they broker them from data mined and average pricing, off of used book dealers central listings (Abebooks.com Bibliofind.com, etc)
Heres how it goes, amazon lists ANY book out there look at the lead times on out of print sometime. THEN they Order from a Used book dealer in their distribution channel, theey tak and ADDITIONAL 15% and you (the book dealer) Ship using Amazon shipping materials , lbels boxes, bagging etc, they have supplied, they then to the consumer mark up about another 15% over that (the mandatory 15% cut on YOUR list price).
Amazon and Barnes and Noble SELL NO USED BOOKS THEMSELVES, they BROKER them PERIOD.
Want to buy them cheaper ? Got to bebooks.com Bibliofind.com (one even being owned by B&N) and buy direct from the dealer. Youll get a hell of a lot beter deal. PLUS youll get extended information on the book condition not available on Amazon (Especially important for those tasty first editions).
Amazon will sell you a book they dont have and dont even know wqhereone is , if they can locat it throught their network Great, if they cant they cancel your order. They offer an average pricing based on the books listed previously of that edition/title.
How do I know these things ?
My mom in addition to being a F500 exec owns a Rare book shop.
Check it out if youere a paper head Snowball Books
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
Car showrooms are being persuaded by car manufacturers not to sell both used and new cars. The manufacturers say that they do not make any profit from the sale of used cars, and which is not fair.
Realators are being persuaded not to sell old houses, and only new ones. Building companies complain that they don't profit from the resale of properties, which isn't fair.
Ok, so I made that up. Whatever.
Hey, if it's really pissing you guys off, make it a point to only buy used books from these guys (if you want their books at all, that is).
If everybody de-links amazon.com, and when every currently active user closes their connection to amazon.com, does that mean it gets deleted?
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
I co-wrote this book and I don't have a problem with Amazon's used book policy. Heck, I wouldn't have been able to read the out-of-print Day of the Triffids without that used book option. While I have great sympathy for full-time authors who need every red cent they can get, I also feel that it is better to look ahead to the next project rather than worry about used book/priracy sales for an old project (I'm looking at you, RIAA). I think focusing on the past (if you aren't a historian) is generally unproductive.
Any sensible author would agree with you. See the Baen Free Library site for an extended discussion of this topic. Because of this, I don't think we're likely to see MPAA/RIAA-style paranoia in the book field any time soon.
I guess these authors' point is that people who go to Amazon.com are prepared to buy new books, and that tempting these people to buy second hand hurts the authors' royalties. However, this point is to some extent invalidated because of the number or people who use Amazon.com as an informational resource.
Fuck the authors. Props to Amazon. You linux fags aren't getting any free info out of this, so who the fuck cares? Nobody except the gay authors.
Couple of things.
First and foremost this is about the marketability of new IP. Forget all the inadequate comparisons to car dealerships or RIAA or anything in the same vein.
Publishers depend upon revenue from sales of new IP. Authors of such IP depend upon such sales to do things like feed themselves and their families and forge out a future for themselves. Without publishers of new IP, the authors of such have no way to earn a living and vice-versa.
No publisher really cares nor do authors care about the sales of old IP. A year or so out and its old hat anyways.
The beef here is about Amazon selling used but new IP that returns no profit to them but competes against the sales of that which does turn a profit.
As an author, I do not wish to see my efforts undermined by a retailer in such a fashion. This is a really good step that benefits both sides of the new IP chain.
On to reality.
Publishers don't back the Authors Guild. It isn't a national association of publishers; it's a central point of information for authors (hence the name). It operates independently from publishers, so any comparison to RIAA or such is incorrect. While RIAA acts in its own best interests as a collection of business entities, the AG is not self-serving in this respect.
Here's the letter written by AG to Amazon (OLD NEWS):
December 11, 2000
Mr. Jeffrey P. Bezos
Chief Executive Officer
Amazon.com
1200 12th Avenue S., Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98144
Dear Mr. Bezos:
We are writing on behalf of the more than 8000 members of the Authors Guild and the 278 member companies of the Association of American Publishers to express our grave concern that Amazon's new method of marketing used copies of recently published titles will significantly harm sales of new copies of those titles.
At the moment, when customers view information about a title on the Amazon Web site, a blue box links users to a screen where they may buy or sell used copies of that title. To encourage them to click on the blue-box link, Amazon informs them of the number of used copies of the work available for sale and of the lowest price available for those copies. With one mouse click, customers depart the new book's screen and enter the used book Marketplace.
Some of the used books now available through Amazon Marketplace Sellers are very recently published titles. A quick review of the site reveals that used copies of the following works (among what appears to be thousands of others) are available: Prodigal Summer by Barbara Kingsolver (published October 17), Drowning Ruth by Christina Swartz (published September 27), Me Talk Pretty One Day by David Sedaris (published May); The River King by Alice Hoffman (published July 13), The Blind Assassin by Margaret Atwood (published September 5), The Amber Spyglass by Philip Pullman (published October 10), and Winter's Heart by Robert Jordan (published November 7). For every title not yet available in used form, the blue-box link allows a reader to list it for sale "in 60 seconds."
As you know, these Marketplace sales earn no payment for the authors and publishers of the books in question. Only the seller and Amazon are paid. These sales are excluded when calculating sales figures for various bestsellers lists, as well as from the publishers' own sales records of their authors' titles. In addition, Amazon does not appear to have taken any precautions to prevent Marketplace users from selling review copies or other promotional copies not intended for resale.
We understand that Amazon wishes to provide customers with all manner of services including the ability to buy and sell used books. However, as a leader in the bookselling industry, Amazon's sales practices can have a significantly deleterious effect on new book sales. If your aggressive promotion of used book sales becomes popular among Amazon's customers, this service will cut significantly into sales of new titles, directly harming authors and publishers.
We're all in this business together. Without talented authors producing a large number of new titles every year, Amazon's sales will certainly suffer. If book authors and publishers aren't adequately compensated for their work, however, then more and more writers will be compelled to pursue other creative outlets and professions. For the sake of authors, publishers, readers and Amazon, a compromise must be found that will not discourage writers from writing or consumers from buying new books.
We believe the compromise is simple and straightforward: restrict the blue-box link to out-of-print and collectible books and list all used book offerings after all new versions of a title are listed. Our members want nothing more than a fair opportunity to earn royalties for their book sales whatever the sales outlet. We hope that Amazon will respect this very reasonable professional goal.
We are encouraged by your publicly stated commitment not to hurt authors or publishers with your new Marketplace. We welcome the opportunity to discuss other ways to meet that commitment and would be happy to meet with you or your representatives regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Letty Cottin Pogrebin
President, Authors Guild Patricia S. Schroeder
President, Assoc. of American Publishers
Andrew Carnegie was once the richest man in the world, but he dedicated himself - not to extending his steel fortune into monopolies on construction, automobiles, and other durable goods made from steel - but to _public_ access to self-education, information, and knowledge. He literally gave away all of his considerable fortune for this vision.
He single-handedly funded the establishment of the public libraries all across the United States that have played a large part in the subsequent success of this country over the last century. He believed that improving the lot of his fellow citizens was his obligation, and an honor to achieve. Andrew Carnegie was a truly great man and US patriot.
Here is a brief appreciation. Use Google for more about this great man who funded the libraries that educated the citizens who built this country, defeated the Axis dictators of Europe and Asia in WWII, and stared down the totalitarian dictators in the Cold War. (By the way, the megalomaniac Bill Gates isn't fit to view his grave.)
But what does this mean for the Authors Guild and their sniveling about Amazon offering used books? Simply this: serious authors (those who aren't just in it for the money) should (and do) measure their success not by royalties, but by how many people read and appreciate their works. They should not care (and the good ones don't) how many people _buy_ their books, but rather, how many people _read_ their books. The wise authors know that if they write well, lots of people will read what they write, and more people over time will buy their new works. It's only marginal authors and (more likely) their publishers who are whingeing at Amazon about the selling of used books online. Trading, lending and borrowing, even giving away used books are all Good Things.
Now we just need to get the same standards applied for books codified for CDs and DVDs, that is, utterly defeat the RIAA and MPAA attempts at taking over the world.
But why don't the authors and publishers revise their business models?
Technology is here to stay. Work with it or die!
I'm actually going to take Amazon's side on this one. Maybe instead of thinking about their own bank balances for a minutes, the Authors Guild should show a bit more concern for the environment, which is far more important in the long run. They should be satisfied that people are willing to buy their books at all; if they are after money there are far more profitable business opportunities out there.
After the de-linking amazon reports
hits on its web page down 0.0013%.
And the author's guild looks like
greedy meanies for that. Smart.
In truth I think they are advertising
a valid reason to go to amazon vs bn.com.
Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
As several people pointed out, they do not get rid of old books. I am one of those people who keep all my books, paperbacks and all, because I sometimes reread them.
So, I guess this says that some people who really like a book, keep it. Some people who don't, want their money back for it being a waste of time. And some people would rather give/sell their old books rather than throw them away.
Where are numbers, people. Are these used books 1%, 5%, or 25% of sales. And of those sales, how many are from people who wouldn't have bought the hardcover in the first place because it was too jackin' expensive!!
Say, don't softcover books cut into the fees author's receive for hardcover book sales?? Maybe they should boycott paperback book sales while they are at it.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Could you explain what this does? How does it stop the ads? The only things I have in hosts is stuff from norton for scanning emails. Thanks for the info.
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
I guess greed is still good in the new millenium, just like it was in the last one.
This has absolutely nothing to do with free speech or copyright. It has everything to do with capitalism. The authors don't get any royalties for used book sales, and they are pissed because Amazon is giving their customers a lower cost alternative to new books. Way to go Amazon. The free market at its best.
The authors are free to do whatever they want to convince Amazon to stop doing this. They can even cut off their nose to spite their face and stop distributing their books through Amazon.
What I don't like seeing is them making this into something its not. Not everything is a copyright issue or a free speech issue.
I'm sorry I wasted even this much time commenting on such a ridiculous subject.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
this surprises me given the classic nature of the book.
actually, amazon.co.uk have plenty (soft- and hard-cover editions) so i guess it's an american thing.
andy
How is this any different than downloading free MP3's instead of buying the album?
Used books aren't new.
But in this particular case like in many other fields, the net enables optimal market transparency by making information flow more freely (availability of used books at the same place where you can buy a new copy). In the end, the consumer always benefits from making an informed purchase.
When you think about it, what bothers the Authors Guild is exactly that, information: "the prominent placement" of used books, not the used books themselves. This is the kind of thinking that's often used to protect fundamentally flawed or obsolete business models, much like security by obscurity tries to protect flawed software. Of course this must be fought by all means. Amazon did the Right Thing for the consumer, and they should stand firm about that.
Like another poster suggested, in a perfect world this would result in publishers producing books so great people never ever *want* to sell them. They should remember that in the free market system, recurrent income shouldn't be taken for granted, but is merely a result of having the best deal around. So either live with it, or reject the whole system, but don't ask for privileges... (this applies to the RIAA and friends too, of course)
Publishers can, and do, take resales into account when pricing the books, so I see no problem with it. It isn't like selling illegal copies at all.
Furthermore, if the book is worth keeping, people will keep it. Most books, however, only warrant a single read, if that.
It reroutes images.slashdot.org to localhost.
My localhost currently reroutes 84 banner spammers (including slashdot.org).
Not so bright on the part of the Author's Guild. Granted, used book prices @ Amazon aren't always the best prices, but sometimes, especially in rural areas without many local options, they may be the only option. Personally, I buy dozens of used books from local merchants, usually read at least one a week, and then go back for more. I also purchase new books on a regular basis, but rarely buy a book when it is first published. And my continued patronage of my local public libraries..... I can see why the Author's Guild would really discourage used book sales on such a public level.... and why they will really not enjoy reading this post....
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
Deep Throat Nine! See Major Kira splattered with splooge!
I'd stay up at night to watch that.
...
No that's not how it works at Amazon - you (or your mom) should have a look at its website.
Amazon doesn't order books from any second hand dealers, and it doesn't handle the postage and packing - it just facilitates the sale through its Amazon Marketplace thing...
From Amazon's explanation:
The order will be sent directly to your seller, and within two days they will ship your item using standard delivery.
...
Please note that since we are not directly involved in the completion of sales arranged on Amazon Marketplace, buyers will need to contact the seller directly....
Informative? Not very.
When I buy a new book, I know that the book is in the best condition it's ever going to be in. That peace of mind, to me, is worth the few dollars I might save otherwise by buying used and gambling that the book I purchase will be in like-new condition.
So, I buy new whenever I can. Maybe this tack would work well with other book buyers as well?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
The law on that point is that the authors have already received all they can expect on the basis of the first sale of the book; they cannot expect nor deserve more. This was codified by the US Supreme Court saying exactly that, back in 1910.
The theoretics is this: secondary markets (used-X sales, for whatever X you choose) are a characteristic of free markets; attempts to suppress secondary markets are (technically) exercises in fascism.
The pragmatics are this: for all that Paragraph 1 says that the authors already have theirs, the reality is that probably the publishers got it but the authors never saw it. It makes me sad; an editorial on MediaChannel argues that the habits of publishers would make a good object for antitrust action: see http://www.mediachannel.org/views/oped/bookcontrac t.shtml
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
Computers have greatly reduced the time involved in writing, editing, typesetting and printing books since the days of writing a book with a typewriter. Distribution, sales and shipping of books have also been accelerated by technology (printing in more than one location, nearly realtime sales information across entire store chains, etc.).
Technology also means that the opportunities that copyright impedes have greatly increased. Being able to freely copy material online means that many people do not have to chop down trees to store information. Physical storage of books in digital forms is much more compact. Searching and sharing of free online information is orders of magnitudes easier.
There is even a secondary opportunity cost to authors in long copyrights: the development of derivative works is greatly limited by copyright when they are outside of "fair use." For example, I think that, given how much time has elapsed, Richard Hatch should be allowed to make his Battlestar Galactica sequel, and the rewrite of Gone with the Wind from a black perspective (The Wind Done Gone) should be allowed whether or not the book qualifies as a parody. The opportunities lost by impeding this sharing are increased when the efficiency with which these derivative works can be made is increased (i.e., more potential derivative works that otherwise would be produced are lost during each year of the copyright).
The costs of creating a book have dropped. The rate at which that investment can be recovered has accelerated, and opportunities that we lose during each year of copyright have increased. In my view, the balance point at which the public benefit of copyright is maximized has been greatly reduced. I believe that it would maximize public benefit to accelerate copyright expiration to about five years, maybe even less.
Amigori
"The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
Comment removed based on user account deletion
if you are at all interested in getting into the used book trade, i recommend a great book. Its a book about books. They also talk about the different used book sites, the cheapest, etc...
Used and Rare
by Lawrence Goldstone, Nancy Goldstone
You can find the book here
--------------------------------------------
Customers are taking to many free napkins...
Same here, all TV sucks raw ass
-sinserve
If someone doesn't agree with a company's policies, why should they have to provide the company with free advertising? It has nothing to do with your rights; it has to do with their rights. They have the right to promote whomever they choose.
And since when is it the author's job to find you the best deal on their product?
The authors obviously need to supplement their income with large banner ads at the beginning of each page.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Actually, I have a number of books that I bought after checking out a copy at the library. Many are technical books that I was impressed with and bought so I didn't have to go to the library to look up answers, but some (like LOTR) were just because I liked them.
...and I think that's a good thing.
Not everything in life is a win-win situation, and listing used books possibly has some negative consequences for authors, but it is DEFINITELY a useful service to Amazon's CUSTOMERS, which is where Amazon's focus should be.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
The ability to resale is an important element of consumer power over corporate control, and therefore consumers must act as citizens to fight efforts like this by the Authors Guild. The Authors Guild is just acting like an ugly stepchild of the MPAA and RIAA, but the beauty of this situation is that the resale of books has *long* since been settled in U.S. copyright law.
In terms of democracy, individuals have the right to vote with their yard sales. If a book is crap, it deserves to have its retail sales depressed.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
...because that's whose information they can sell.
Some folks have tossed the idea around here that publishers are, in fact, being "hurt" by the common practice of overproduction. But that's lacking one important fact: taxpayers actually pay for the "pulping" of unsold, overproduced books. I reccomend you follow the money before you go sympathizing.
Large book publishers are no different than the RIAA, MPAA, or other such organizations with few friends here on Slashdot. These organizations, acting to "protect the interest of their artists" are simply watching the bottom dollar. As in so many arenas, the idea of a cultural responsibility, in this case for large publishing houses to introduce interesting and challenging new works and authors, is ignored. Bestsellers are overproduced not based on demand from companies like Amazon who later renig on sales, but in the interest of a profitable monoculture. The lowest common denominator is easy to sell. Don't think that books have any sacred protection from the same profiteering mentality that drives the Recording and Motion Picture industries.
I draw the connection to RIAA/MPAA issues here: those two organizations have used taxpayer money to punish consumers by invoking the DMCA. It doesn't take a genius to realize that taxpayers ARE those consumers; they're paying once for content, and again to have their rights revoked. The book publishers, like the RIAA and MPAA expect taxpayers to cover their bottom line; they're happy to overproduce the bestseller garbage you're supposed to buy in hardcover and swallow down, and then charge you again for destroying the excess crap they've flooded the market with.
And now the book publisher's tactic is unerring from the RIAA/MPAA platform: treat customers like theives, apparently by attacking any company that wants to give customers an option.
To de-link Amazon, you'd have to link to em to begin with. I personally never do business with a company that has fired me =p
You need a FREE iPod Nano
The pages are always stuck together...and there's hair on the pages!
Lest anyone think Amazon isn't evil, notice how when you browse for an item, they always have "Great buy! Buy this AND this other related item for $xx! Just click here!" Sounds great, until you look at the other item and realize the price they gave is no different than buying the two items separately. They're not offering a deal when you buy both, as they clearly want you to think.
Thanks, I understand now.
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
I was surprised the NY times article made no mention of the obvious environmental implications. The fewer new books sold, ultimately, the fewer trees pulped. Buy used, for heaven's sake.
Let me know when they ban libraries.
Then I will have to sleep outside again.
That's all well and good, but this is the Author's Guild, as in 'authors', protesting Amazon, not the publishers.
Shouldnt it be anarchy is better than no government at all
as opposed to that?
-- john
If you had looked at the Yahoo link or looked at the Amazon site you'd see why you're missing the point. It's not seperate, it's the subject of this discussion.
Here's an explanation. The Authors Guild is complaining that Amazon places links to Marketplace sellers offering used copies of books right where Amazon customers would be buying new copies of the same book.
From the guild press release:
At the moment, when customers view information about a title on the Amazon Web site, a blue box links users to a screen where they may buy or sell used copies of that title. To encourage them to click on the blue-box link, Amazon informs them of the number of used copies of the work available for sale and of the lowest price available for those copies. With one mouse click, customers depart the new book's screen and enter the used book Marketplace.
From the Yahoo article:
Amazon itself does not sell the book. Instead, customers are allowed to offer used editions through the online retailer. Amazon collects a 99 cent fee for each sale, plus 15 percent of the purchase price. Neither the author nor publisher receives royalties.
So its Marketplace that this is all about, not your mom's operation.
Have you even bought or sold used books on amazon? I have and amazon's used book sales is not even close to what you are describing.
The used books sales in amazon are mostly person to person sales. For example, I buy a book, I finish reading the book, I want to sell the book. I go to amazon.com and post the book I want to sell. Someone else buy the book and I ship the book to the person. All amazon does is facillitate the sale and payment. They don't even see the item. As you can see, this is much akin to ebay's model.
What you are describing does happen to certain degree for other items but is *highly* dependent on the contracts. Some contracts, amazon is responsible when they get the items, sometimes amazon is in possesion of an item briefly before the item is sold. However, this does not apply to used books section.
Anyway, visit the site and see what the used books is for yourself before submitting comments.
Cheaper glue makes books less durable, hindering resale. Cheaper glue isn't inherently obvious at the consumer level, making avoid it difficult. If the books of an author we're interested in are published using cheaper glue, we have no real alternative means of purchasing the same book with better binding, short of grabbing the (relatively expensive) hardcover edition.
In short, publishers get lower cost and higher sales. Authors get more royalties. Initial consumers get a shoddier product, and used consumers most likely get missing pages.
People work pretty hard to drive traffic to Amazon, and Amazon benefits greatly. For example, on my website in March, there were fifteen thousand clicks over to Amazon, 223 items were purchased, and I earned about $200.
Amazon had this nice working agreement with their many associates, and then they started dicking around with their pages. First they changed the way the pages were displayed, making it less likely to get a "direct" sale to earn that 15% commission.
But the real kicker came when they added the used books, because Amazon does not pay referral fees on used item sales. So those associates who put a lot of work into linking to Amazon are getting nothing in return.
It doesn't bother me too much, because I mainly link to give my readers some additional info - the money is just an added bonus (but it does pay for the web fees); however, other people who build a business off of these fees are pissed at Amazon.
In conclusion, I think the author's guild is off base in its reasons for telling members to delink Amazon, but if their members are getting revenue from the Amazon associates program, they might do well by linking to another store.
Boycotts are a funny thing. They often don't work unless you get a huge majority to play along. I can see it now ... a bunch of publishers boycott amazon ... yeah, I said publishers, mostly because authors aren't the guys doing the book distribution.
... so ... an enterprising author buys 100 of his own books, sells them as "used" or "almost new" ... and authographed .... and if possible, via his own affiliates site. The person who gets the short end ... the publisher.
... each for about $18 ... well below their sticker-shock prices of $30 to $40. For me, it was alot easier than slugging it out on E-Bay ...
So let's say Sybex pulls out, but then O'Reilly begins to gobble up their market share. How long do you think it'll be before Sybex authors start screaming at their publisher to sell on Amazon ?
Second, many publishers offer books to authors at 40% or 50% off
There's also one other side to this story. Like drugs, practices like selling used books won't go away as long as there is demand. For example, I recently purchases a book on setting up a BeoWulf cluster, another on XML-PRC and yet another on SOAP
... which is where these books would be sold if Amazon wasn't offering them straight-up.
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
Your publishers could go to a fully-digital, copy-preventing system of eBooks. That way your readers will each have to pay for their own copy, file-trading on the Internet will be "impossible," and your rights to collect money from every individual page-turner will be preserved.
Go talk to the RIAA, they'll be your best friends for as long as it takes to get this implemented.
I'm sorry, I understand their complaints, but people have been buying and selling used books for as long as books have existed. They may as well protest public libraries and eBay. Just because Amazon sells new and used books in the same webspace doesn't make them any more "dangerous" to the authors' bottom lines than those other media.
Don't Like Amazon
But they are in the right here
Bah, dead tree sucks goats.
We all hate the RIAA and MPAA, right? We always make the argument that they are trying to prohibit the first-sale doctrine, right? Why is it suddenly a bad thing when Amazon makes it more efficient to exercise your first-sale rights with books?
As with digital media, the real problem is that initial production and distribution in the current model presents too high a barrier to entry. The producers (record companies, publishers, etc.) end up making the lion's share of the money. We constantly make the argument that if musicians were able to cut out the record companies they would be able to make money even selling at a much lower price -- a price that more people would be willing to pay rather than filesharing.
It's time to apply that theory to book publishing. If authors were able to go to low volume, on-demand micropublishers instead of the large publishing houses, they could sell their books for a tenth the price and still make money. The market for used books would be much less, because at $3 for a new book, who wants to waste the money on shipping a used one?
Nope, no sig
To: staff@authorsguild.com
Subject: Pressing Amazon.com to alter its marketing of used books
Dear Authors Guild,
I have read your letter to Jeffrey Bezos, CEO of Amazon.com, and am appalled at your position. Are you next going to attack public libraries for making books freely available for loan, or individuals for loaning a book to a friend? After all, these loans "earn no payment for the authors and publishers of the books in question", meaning that, according to you, "book authors and publishers aren't adequately compensated for their work", "directly harming authors and publishers".
Clearly, this is ludicrious, but it is the logical next step for your position, which apparently desires a pay-per-use model. Since you have chosen to advise your members to de-link Amazon.com and instead use Barnesandnoble.com and "especially" BookSense.com, I will advise my friends, family, and associates to avoid purchasing new books by your members, and instead patronize used book stores, the Amazon.com Marketplace, and especially public libraries for books by your members.
*sigh*
When did our system get so unusable. When did it become "Acceptable" to pull this kind of shit ? I expect revolution at some point. I claim that our current system of laws is so complicated that it is not possible to spend even a single second of your life without breaking some law at some level of government.
There's no "system" even discussed here. There's no "laws" being mentioned or even demanded by the Author's Guild to prevent Amazon.com from doing what they do. There's just a guild of writers who argues (incorrectly, IMO) that Amazon's approach hurts writers and publishers and therefore should be protested by linking to other online booksellers.
Settle down. There's no call for a revolution here.
Quoting CD: "I'd imagine they don't want us to go to our local used book stores either? This is the second time they've tried to call Amazon to task for this."
The problem isn't used books. Authors know that used books are useful in spreading their works around, and even though they would like each reader copy to be a fresh purchase, they know their are intangible benefits to used bookstores and libaries.
However, what amazon does is place a used book right next to a new one. Now, I know for most of us the difference is pretty obvious, but for most average users, they simply see a lower a price, and don't think anything more about it. This would be like your local Borders or Barnes and Noble putting a half-priced used book right next to a brand new copy. Given the choice, wouldn't you pick the half-priced book, if it had a fairly new condition? Indeed, used bookstores can often have many mint-condition books.
The point is, there is a reason these are separated, because consumers expect only unused books when the go into a Barnes & Noble, and likewise expect previously owned books when they go to a Half-Price Books.
I don't personally object to amazon having a used bookstore, I just think they need to make it more clear (for instance, having a separate used book listing, where you could search only among the list of used books.) I, for one, have never even checked out the used book section of amazon, because if I can't physically inspect a non-new book, I don't want to buy it.
And, in case anyone mentions it, those discounted books at the front of your store are entirely different matter. They are remainders, book copies that don't sell upon initial publication. These are usually returned to the publisher, but if the store feels the copy could sell as a remainder, the publisher will let the store sell it that way. This way, the publisher doesn't have to pay for a return, and the store still gets some profit out of it. Authors hate it, mostly, (because shoppers in a new bookstore are probably likely to buy their book at full price) but users are, at least, still getting an unused copy.
If you're going to sell it as atoms and not bits, don't complain when people treat it like atoms not bits.
The guild is way off base here. Authors actually can make more money by using Amazon's associates program.
I recently co-authored the mod_perl Developer's Cookbook and we link to Amazon for our sales. I've also sold some of my collection through the Amazon marketplace, so I've seen both sides.
Amazon's commission structure is simply the best. We average about 10% of the purchase price on referals, plus 5% of anything else the customer buys in that session. So far these commissions are almost outpacing actual royalties from total sales.
There have been some used books available for sale, but those have not bothered me one bit. Buying used might save some money, but it is a less convenient option and most people still opt to buy new. (For example you cannot get a better shipping cost for multiple items.)
The Author's Guild should focus it's efforts on getting authors a bigger royalty in the first place, and stamping out the nasty liability clauses in most contracts these days. See this article by Philip Greenspun for why these contracts suck.
It's funny how so many people support the right of first sale, but only for CDs, video games, DVDs, and other stuff that can be ripped. When it comes to books, the original items for which the right of first sale was determined, all the sudden used book resellers are the bad guys.
Frankly, I'm glad that we can buy used books and used CDs and used video games and used DVDs. Amazon is providing a useful service,one that I've made use of. My ability to try out cheap used books by an author usually makes me more likely to try out similar new works by that author, which is I think the argument that Amazon is also making. The used book business drives the book business as a whole.
It seems to me that the Author's Guild is cutting off their nose to spite their face here.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
math department) who got tired of having to revise his lesson plans every two years when a new edition of the book came out, so he started encouraging his students to buy used copies of the old edition.
Near the end of the semester, he was invited to speak with one of the deans to discuss why this was not acceptable behavior. Apparently the University or Uni
You can't buy books from them online.
Despite your assertions, books do not normally bring riches to the author immediately upon publication. Indeed, I believe something like 1/3 of published authors don't even make minimum wage for their book (if your presume they work 40 hours a week in the number of weeks it took to finish the book). A lifelong copyright means that an author won't be slighted if his book becomes popular 10 or 20 years later.
Don't think this can happen? It did to Tolkien. While LotR wasn't exactly a bomb, it was fairly below the radar in terms of astronomical sales until a resurgence in the United States in the mid-to-late Sixties. Ace books published a version due to a problem with the US copyright, which forced a revision and the "Authorized Edition" that most of us are familiar with. So this was a case of an author who was being left out of the commerce of something he created, which is exactly what a 5 year copyright law would have done.
The point isn't that Stephen King needs to keep making money from the sale of copies of "Carrie" (which is now nearly 30 years old). The point is that it isn't right that someone *else* make money off the sale of Carrie(used books nonwithstanding), unless SK has given them the right (through a publishing contract)
Unfortunately, the article from Yahoo! that was linked to
does not provide any further links that give details of
exactly what the Author's Guild is asking for. However,
if you follow the link chrisd provided to the Guild's
December 2000 release on the same topic, you'll see that
what they are asking for is NOT that Amazon stop acting
as a broker for selling used books. Instead they ask
that:
For the sake of authors, publishers, readers and Amazon,
a compromise must be found that will not discourage
writers from writing or consumers from buying new books.
We believe the compromise is simple and straightforward:
restrict the blue-box link to out-of-print and collectible
books and list all used book offerings after all new
versions of a title are listed.
In other words, if the book is still in print, only list
the available used copies farther down the page, rather
than featuring them right at the top by the price info
for the new book. While you can argue how much effect
that might actually have on how many new rather than used
books, it still seems like a reasonable enough request,
and is certainly not what some of the other posters have
seemed to try and turn it into, which is a demand that
Amazon not sell used books at all.
Maybe relying on a Yahoo! news story (assuming everyone
who posted about this even bothered to read that) for all
of the facts isn't the best way to go?
Dr. Smoe
I hate greed. These people don't deserve money. Don't buy new books. Buy them used and visit (and support) your local library. When these money grubbing bastards try to strong arm someone who is helping the less fortunate to hell with em. Let this year be the year their execs don't get their multimillion dollar bonus!
It's KIND of like the RIAA, but not completely. First off, few authors make that much money off their books to begin with. Secondly, it's not like they are 'banning' this (the sale/resale of used books or the sharing of books), they are just suggesting that the authors link to a different website so that the author can still make money. It's not like the publishers are saying to the public 'you can't sell used books or share books'... It's not like they are giving the books some 'weird license' about how you use the book either. As far as they care, you can use it to prop up your couch.
Plus, in my opinion the Authors Guild represents the 'creative talent' of writing more, the authors, not the publishers, while (in my opinion) the RIAA seems to represent the business side of the music industry (the corporations such as BMG, virgin, sony, etc...) and not as much 'the artists'. Think of the Authors Guild as more of a 'union'. Compare The Authors Guild and The RIAA.
Still, I can't help but be reminded of This comic.
[Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here.]
{Traicovn}
i'm the author of a number of books about Linux, and let me tell you the hard truth: the commercial publishing game is a nasty business, with monetary rewards slanted in favor of publishers, distributors, and resellers - NOT authors or readers...
want to know why computer books cost so much? it's because of the cost of printing, discount cost of selling to the oligopoly of book distributors (yep, there are only one or two big ones for the US), the cost of actually putting books into stores (yes, publishers have to PAY to get books prominently displayed on shelves and to get clerks to turn covers face out on the shelves), and the cost of producing the books - the trend is towards giving big $$$ advances to big authors, leaving little but a shoestring budget for new authors...
the hordes of clueless, retarded posters whining here about "consumer rights" should at least try go through the process of trying to earn a living by writing - magazines pay squat (Linux Journal pays $200 for multi-page technical articles - try to pay the rent on that kind of pay)...
publishers do pay an advance for technical authors - the equivalent of $700 a week after taxes while the book is being developed... pressure is generally put on authors to develop and write books in less than 120 days (an exception is O'Reilly, mentioned below)!
at one large publisher, authors typically receive 4 to 7 percent royalties (new authors perhaps even less).. these royalties are based on 50 percent of the book's selling price - foreign sales are one-half of the domestic royalty rate (Candadian authors with books sales in the U.S. really get screwed), and other types of sales, such as to book clubs, receive even less or no royalties...
this means that the $49.95(US) + tax book you purchase in Borders, B. Dalton's, or Waldens (and many 'big-name' book stores are all owned by the same company), actually costs the store about $25... 5 percent of $25 is $1.25, which goes to the author, *after* additional deductions, and *before* taxes...
whenever you buy a book in a bookstore, one-half of the book's price goes directly to the store, NOT the publisher and NOT the author...
Linux books are considered successful if they sell 15,000 copies, but the screwing of authors by publishers really starts through a mechanism of "cross-linking" of titles, a common industry practice in which the costs of non-selling books are charged against monies earned by titles that sell! this means that you can write a book that sells 20,000 copies, only to find on your royalty statements that an older, out-of-date title which is not selling has costs of returns deducted against earnings!
O'Reilly is the most upfront of book publishers and pays the best royalty rates; its author contract is [was?] posted on-line...
but Amazon is another story - this scumbag outfit also screws authors in many other ways:
- by providing a link to buy a used copy right next to a the link for a new copy, even though the book has only been on the market for a few weeks
- by incorrectly listing author information on a book's page
- by transferring reader reviews from PAST editions to the reviews for a new (and hopefully) improved edition of a book
- by exercising no editorial review over reader comments, or policing for non-objective statements
- by allowing comments to be posted for books that haven't even been published yet!
- by allowing comments, even comments by authors about the authors' books, to be used to 'sandbag' other competiting authors...
- by being unresponsive to complaints about these actions and policies
so, yes, i don't recommend amazon, and it pisses me off...
IANAL, but my spouse is :-)
The law on that point is that the authors have already received all they can expect on the basis of the first sale of the book; they cannot expect nor deserve more. This was codified by the US Supreme Court saying exactly that, back in 1910.
IANAL either, but what if book publishers start licensing books to consumers, the same way music, software and movies are licensed. Won't this get around any established first-sale laws? I wonder if a book could have a legal clause on the back that says something to the effect of "by purchasing this book you agree to be the sole user of this material..." I know this might be hard to enforce with paper books, but E-Books might replace them sometime. Of course assuming the material was encrypted, in order to break the agreement spelled out in the license (a civil breach-of-contracr action I think) you would have to perform the criminal act of circumventing a copy protection device (laid out by the DMCA). The end result saves the company from having to sue each and every little home user, and instead lets our tax dollars be used to prosecute ourselves for wanting to do what the Supreme Court said we could back in 1910!
In the meantime, I expect publishers to dip into their rainy-day fund and try to buy a few laws to make used book sellers pay royalties to the publisher and (maybe) the author.
(Oh, and by the way, I'm pissed about the attitude of the Author's Guild and I am a writer!)
_______
2B1ASK1
They certainly aren't the only game in town when it comes to used books. Naturally there is eBay and it's fixed price partner Half.com.
I've used the option to purchase a "used" copy of several fairly expensive textbooks, barely out-of-date technical books, etc. In every case I saved 20-50% off the cover price and the books have shown up in near-mint condition.
Does Amazon make as much off the sale of used items through affiliated book sellers as it would selling the latest Stephen King pulp? Probably not. Do I care? Not really.
yep - i think you should spend a bit more time in a library - perhaps you'd then be able to spell...
"librarys" indeed - you're an idiot...
Has anyone tried clicking on those links? Damn, HTML is so challenging...
Remaindering is an abomination in and of itself. It's a subversion of the whole supply-and-demand basis of the market -- if you don't pay at least $PRICE for a book, you don't get it at all.
The books are already printed. The expense has already been incurred. Remaindering is just a[n artificial] way to keep prices high. So yeah, it's not suprising that the publishers are on the lookout for folks selling remaindered books.
I buy a fair number of books. I buy a lot of them in hard-cover, even. I have a list of authors[1] that I purchase their new-to-me works as soon as I find 'em, be it hardcover, paperback, used, or whatnot. I don't have a problem with authors and publishers making money. I do, however, have a problem with being considered a mark by the publishing industry.
[1] Headed up by Terry Pratchett, Vernor Vinge, Lewis Thomas, Robert Fulghum, Jim Butcher....Pick One: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~stremler/sigs/sigs.html (Note - disable Javascript first!)
Last time I was in Powells in Portland, Oregon (rocking great bookstore), they had USED COPIES OF BOOKS on the shelves. What was worse, these books WERE INTERSPURSED WITH THE NEW BOOKS, meaning I had to choose between the new and used copies of several books. In fact, Powells' website provides the option to purchase used books (which, unlike Amazon, they actually stock themselves). Since these used book sales cut into the profits of starving authors (and, incidently, their publishers), perhaps they should set their sites on the rest of the used book-selling world.
Oh, wait, I didn't have the option of picking between new and used copies of some books, because some of the used books were out of print, which means that even if I managed to personally hunt down the author or the publisher and offered a reasonable of money to purchase the book, they'd laugh in my face and mumble something about economies of scale. And if I should decide that a mass market paperback isn't the edition I want the book in, tough luck, because that's what has been handed down to me.
And while they're at it, why shouldn't they go after the entire used book industry? I've seen whole stores that are devoted to nothing but selling used books! These stores, and their fat-cat owners, are stealing DIRECTLY from the authors and should be eliminated! Who needs to bother with the doctrine of first sale when you have sufficient lobbying power on your side?
Greed is not an admirable quality. When will people learn?
Yes, this group represents all writers who join, in the same way Congress represents the US citizenry. The phrase "tyrrany of the majority" comes to mind. It's a committee, with all that that entails.
The Guild requested members not link to Amazon. Individual members can decide whether or not to comply.
Personally, I will comply. Here's why.
As a new author with my third book coming out, I have a simple goal: make a living doing something I enjoy. Some people enjoy systems administration, or get the warm fuzzies from nursing or working in a pet shop. I want you to read my stuff. If you enjoy it, I want you to buy more of it. As an author, it's my job to make damned sure you enjoy it. Used bookstores assist in this goal, for reasons detailed elsewhere in this discussion.
I would prefer you bought my books new. I would also prefer that my publisher paid me a royalty of $500 per copy sold. And, while I'm at it, I'd like a pony.
These days, the economics of writing are harsh. We're being squeezed by publishers in the same way users are being squeezed by publishers. (I'm very lucky to have a publisher who is not only reasonable, but downright generous. It's also a small company, which explains a lot.) The DMCA is a weapon to be used against users, but the publishing contract is a weapon to be used against writers. When you have a one-on-one relationship, and one party is freakin' huge compared to the other, the big guy don't needs laws to enforce his will.
If your name isn't headline material, you're shafted. The advance on a novel in 1960 was about three thousand dollars. The advance on a novel in 2000 was about three thousand dollars. You do the math.
As an outhor, not linking to Amazon is a good idea. There are other vendors that will sell books that will put more money in my pocket. In this context, asking Amazon to not display used books so prominently is reasonable.
It's also reasonable for Amazon to say no.
The real problem here is the majority of publishing companies. More books are published, by volume, than ever before. Fewer individual authors are published than ever before. Most of the books on the Web are crap -- the technical content is OK, but when was the last time you read a good, new, Web-only novel? The "publishing explosion" of Web stuff is simply an explosion of compost with a few diamonds strewn through it.
I long for the day when print-on-demand becomes possible for mainstream distribution, and new authors can have their works available. But by that time, the publishing companies will have tightened the "standard contract" so far that an author will no longer own their own work. It's already happening, much as it happened to the music business.
Hey someone with better karma, please type a quick list of other used books sites. These people need to be thoght a lesson.
Don't mod this up or anything, people. We wouldn't want to stop wasting our time arguing a moot point.
Yes, you are right, thank you very much for your help.
Ser educado faz bem!!,/b>
------I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either.------
I wonder how many of these authors drive used cars, bought used textbooks in college, buy knick-knacks at garage sales, or give or accept hand-me-down clothing for their kids. In none of these cases is the original manufacturer/creator necessarily making anything off of the resale. If these authors really think that each used purchase represents a lost new purchase for them, then they're sorely mistaken. I hope that none of the anti-MS, anti-patent, anti-copyright, anti-RIAA Slashdotters take the authors' side in this particular argument.
Personally, I love Amazon's prominent posting of used titles. I've sold a number of my books that way, and I value the convenience of being able to digest a lot of information about a title (sample pages, even customer reviews), and then have the option of picking up a cheaper used copy. It's clear that Amazon pushes used books because, like cars, their profit margin on them is higher than it is on new texts.
:wq
The Holocaust did happen.
Both Allied and Russian troops have DIRECTLY OBSERVED large numbers of Jews in camps who were being inhumanely treated.
There have been German soldiers who have confessed to what they did, and others who committed suicide.
ANYONE who does not believe that the holocaust did not happen is disconnected from reality. There is no way a consistent lie about different camps scattered across Europe could develop.
This is the difference between people who believe in the holocaust and those who don't: Holocaust believers, like myself, believe in one theory as to what happened, which is consistent. Holocaust deniers are factional, with different groups believing in different things. Surely it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the latter "multiple realities" is an inelegant interpretation of history.
People who believe that a whole country, such as Germany, can be deluded about their own history within the space of a few decades, are deluding themselves. It is much more likely that there are only a few misguided individuals who can't get past the fact that their nation did something wrong. Germany committed many crimes in World War II, of which the holocaust was just a component. Nazi sympathisers need to take their heads out of the sand, and acknowledge that they are wrong.
Many of the arguments that are posted here against the Authors Guild position are well reasoned but poorly informed. A few points.
8 31 55/ref%3Dtab%5Fgw%5Fb%5F1/104-3830745-7531131
The Authors Guild does not oppose the sale of used books. Authors buy more books than anyone, and in the course of buying more books than anyone, they all buy used books. The Guild does oppose Amazon's increasingly aggressive promotion of its sellers marketplace. Many of the books that pass through this system are only nominally "used." Frequently, ostensibly used copies of books are put up for sale on the very first day they're released. Go to the amazon books page right now.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/2
On the first page there's a link to a new novel, Sea Glass by Anita Shreve. Click on the book icon, and you'll see that there are two copies of that new book for sale as "used" copies. Odds are, these used copies were distributed for promotional purposes and someone turned around and sold them without reading them. The Guild has only asked that Amazon place a moratorium on the sale of new used books so those titles can gain some traction in the marketplace.
Instead of reasonably working with authors on this matter, Amazon stepped-up the used program recently. If you buy a book from Amazon, shortly after you receive it, Amazon will send you an e-mail suggesting that you re-sell the book you just purchased through Amazon's seller's marketplace.
Many people here have said that this benefits consumers. Perhaps it does in the short run. In the long run, it will hurt them. The sale of used books does diminish the market for new books. The upshot is that the publishers will be forced to raise the retail price of new books in order to make a profit. This is why college textbooks cost so much. A text book that should cost $30 instead costs $80 or $90 new because a typical textbook is re-sold two or three times.
Publishing is a business, but it's unfair to call publishers greedy. Even the big houses just barely get by. The typical profit margin of a New York Publisher is under five percent. Most lose money regularly. The slim profit margins make publishers very cautious about what books they choose to publish. And if their profit margins get narrower, they will become even more cautious. This will, obviously, mean that they will take fewer chances on new authors and readers will have less choice in the books that they can buy, new or used.
At root, this is a legitimate business dispute. It's not a free speech issue. Amazon is making money off the sale of these books and the people who produce the books are not. Amazon is making a lot of money. Hence the heavy promotion. This could be construed as serving customers, but it's more accurate to say that it's serving Amazon. Customers would love it if Amazon gave the books away, but Amazon doesn't do that.
Which brings me to the matter of libraries. Some here think that the next step for authors is to picket libraries. This is patently ridiculous. Libraries are a reliable market for books in the United States. Many books that don't have a mass market are published solely for the library sales. Even though they let many people read a single copy of a book, libraries don't profit financially from the valuable public service they offer. Authors understand this, and they can discern the difference between Amazon and publicly funded lending libraries.
I wasn't responding to the article
Then, by the rules of Slashdot Freebase Moderation, your comment will be marked (Score:-1, Offtopic)
In the short term, this practice might reduce the sales of new books. But by creating liquidity in the used book market, it increases the resale value of a book in the long run. This in turn could lead to bookstores to be able to raise prices at and keep the same level of demand. For example, If I knew I could turn around a sell a book for 10 bucks tommorrow, I'd be more likely to pay 15 for it today then if I couldn't resell it.
This has the added benifit of "segmenting" the market, much like the paperback/hardcover price segmentation that occurs now. Content buyers pay less because they just want "use" of the the book, while Book buyers pay more because they also want the physical object.
But as they say, in the long run... we're all dead.
The URLs in the text (http://slashdot.org/Barnesandnoble.com and http://slashdot.org/BookSense.com) unfortunately fail to exist, since Slashdot has not yet bought those fine companies and incorporated their sites.
Maybe the poster meant Barnesandnoble.com and BookSense
I buy about 200 used books for every new one (fiction, anyway) and I have actually had a few pangs of guilt about cutting the author out of whatever few pennies he would have gotten had I bought the new copy. Anyway, one day I was looking at (SF author) James Hogan's web site, and noticed that he lived in the same city as me, so I sent him an email, apologized for only buying his books used, and offered to buy him a beer to compensate for it. To my surprise, he took me up on it and I ended up buying him 6 pints of Guiness ($30 or so), which as far as I'm concerned eliminated my debt to every other SF author, living or dead, as well.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
The system of laws you describe is very naive.
The problem is, that once someone's rights have been infringed, it may be too late for them to have their rights restored.
To take the easiest example, look at your gun control "wants" - people "should be allowed to buy a gun", but nobody should be "allowed to shoot you". Once you have been shot (and killed), it is imposible for your right to life to be restored. Although we can punish the killer for infringing your right, it does not matter to you.
Now, because we value the right to life more than the right to own a gun (well, I sure hope so), we have preventative laws: laws that infringed some peoples' rights with the hope that they protect the rights (or more important rights) of others.
Of course, my argument is not limited to just gun control.
A libretarian system requires people to defend their own rights. Unfortunatly, a person's (or business') ability to defend his rights is limited by its size/wealth/power. Far from being fair and free, a libretarian system becomes one where the wealthy/powerful have all the freedoms, and the average person has no way to defend or exercise their "rights"
I honestly don't care who an author links to. I will never buy from B&N. I paid $3.99 for 2-3day UPS.. and 9 days later I get it from USPS.. They're response "oh well!". Screw them, I've always had excellent service through Amazon. By purchasing through Amazon you're showing that an Internet only company can make it and with good service! Down with BN up with Amazon!
I tend to buy used books a lot, because I the "new book" shops only sell the latest books, or the mainstream resellers. Try getting hold of Frank Herbert books that don't have the word Dune in the title ...
...
Example - The Dosadi Experiment
(one of Frank Herbert's greatest books)
Amazon will have it. Oh, wait, they only have a used copy - costing 48 cents
4 companies control over 70% of all the textbooks in the entire world
more and more new books with crappier and crappier content is all that can come from the entirely profit centered industry....
mmm magic cookie bars.....
Luckily for the consumer, libraries and the concept of buying used books have been around for centuries. Imagine that if back in the day when Gutenburg invited the printing press coorporations were what they are today and EULA's and such existed. We are already nearing an age where our right to read is attempting to be limited by greedy people. Lucky for us, books have been around a lot longer than cd's or dvd's or none of us would be able to afford to educate ourselfs or gain enjoyment from one of the simpler pleasures in life.
Note, though, that there are separate new and used sections. If a physical bookstore filed used books in with the new books, I have a feeling there might be some complaint. At Amazon, you can buy used from the new product's page, which is analogous.
If you've got a rate of inflation of 7.5%, your prices *will* double in ten years. With 3%, you're still only looking at twenty four years. There's a reason people say "twenty years ago, this would have cost half what it does now"!
...
Also remember that materials are not the entire bottom line of the publishing industry. Authors, pinters, managers, marketeers, advertisers, etc. need to be paid more every year
What is unjustified is when you get an enforced manufacturer's recommended price, combined with cheaper methods of manufacturing, and the benefits not passed on to the consumer.
It's like that aphorism There's no such thing as bad publicity. A new author would get nowhere without libraries and used bookstores. It's all help and no hinderance.
How many of the writers of said books would be members of the Authors Guild, though?
This kinda pisses me off. Everywhere I go, they want to extort more money out of me...
-Movie/TV Industry: Wants me to pay for every time I watch their 'oh so valuable' content.
-Computer Industry: Wants me to pay for every month that I use software. (Notably MS and their 'subscriber software')
- Internet Provider: Wants me to pay by the megabyte
- Phone Industry: Wants me to pay for every minute I'm talking to somebody, rounding up of course
- Record Industry: Wants me to pay the price of a CD for every song I want.
- And now Authors want me to buy the new book because they get nothing from the used book. Never mind that I might RECOMMEND that book to other people, no no.
If all these industries 'optimize their profits' (I like the word extortion, but I'm a vindictive ass), how could I possibly pay for all of it?
I'll need to quadruple my paycheck. >:I
"Derp de derp."
However, I do have a problem with the attitude that everyone should buy a new copy of the book even when there are used copies available. I'd think that authors of all people would be better educated on the negative effects this type of consumerism has on our environment. More new books means more trees cut down to print them. Nowhere to sell your used books means more books in the landfill.
On a not-entirely-related issue, if the Author's Guild is concerned about losing royalties, maybe they should take it up with the publishers. It is the publishers that screw artists out of their profits, not the booksellers. For more about how the internet has the potential to liberate artists of all kinds from the yoke of the big publishing houses, check out Scott McCloud's various writings on the subject.
I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.
-RenderHead
I think if the author was an Amazon Associate, she'd make some money whether the customer bought a used book or a new book - or for that matter if the customer decided to buy a laptop computer. Addmittedly, authors earn more if the customer follows a link AND buys a new book - they get both their Amazon commission and their royalties. But I think the majority of authors would be glad to just have more readers. Of course, publishers only make their cut on new books.
This is not entirely the same but...
Didn't $$$MetallicA$$$ try this a few years ago? Didn't that give the RIAA some very bad ideas? Didn't RIAA try something similar with Wharehouse over used CD's?
Am I now not going to be able to go to Half Price Books and get my fix?
Yes I realize it is redundant...
The party's over
A lot of people tend to collect "First Edition" prints of books that they enjoy, much like collecting baseball cards.
there's another 2p for ya,
Amazon is helping the consumer avoid the evils of the Author's Guild. But don't worry, authors, they will probably scew it up next week by claiming at patent or something
Bullshit. They got royalties the first time the book was sold. If they want to really hurt Amazon, all they have to do is write/publish books that are so good that people won't want to get rid of them.
Guess it's easier to bitch at Amazon....
Do you have ESP?
A lifelong copyright means that an author won't be slighted if his book becomes popular 10 or 20 years later.
Under United States law, corporations are persons that live forever. If you set all copyright terms at "life of the author" and not "X years", then a trust corporation can hold a perpetual copyright.
So this was a case of an author who was being left out of the commerce of something he created, which is exactly what a 5 year copyright law would have done.
I'm not asking for 5 years. I'm asking for 20 or so years. Thomas Jefferson favored 19 years. The copyright act of 1790 provided for 14 years renewable to a maximum of 28. The current terms (95 years, or life plus 70) sound more like prison terms for the characters than "limited Times" "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
Will I retire or break 10K?
Those few farts clinging to the guilded age of industrial publishing are fast being replaced by the cottagers. It is the dawn of merchantile intellectualism.
illegitimii non ingravare
What I am curious about is the frequent selling of 'collectors editions' of my books. I know we've never had any sort of collectors edition, the only thing that I could see being terribly collectable would be a signed copy. Since I've always included the name of the person who owned it as part of the signature, it's more personal than just a sig. Do folks really want a book that's signed that starts with 'To someoneelse: ...' on it? I sure wouldn't.
Yeah, I did preview, and still I fouled up the subject. Need more sleep, I guess.
You know what, authors/publishers? Stop charging so freakin' much! Then people won't exercise their right to buy a resold book. Until then I will ignore this request entirely (not as if it matters in any way as I am not a major website that links to book listings).
sulli
RTFJ.
The difference is that not reusing used cars would be a huge waste. There is a large cost associated with producing the car. With "intellectual property", the cost of producing it is high, but the cost of making copies is reletively negligible. Printing books costs some money, so forcing people to buy all new books instead of sharing/reusing them would be wasteful. But with digital media, there is essentially zero reproduction cost, so that criteria doesn't apply. It makes perfect sense to charge people for their use of the digital media instead of going by the "first sale" doctrine. If it were legal to have online libraries that lent people the full text of books, authors would only ever sell like 5 copies of their book even if 5 million people read it. Although it does make sense to distribute books online, because that avoids wasting money actually printing copies of it. It is much more efficient. If you could pay like $0.50 to download a digital copy of a book (which is about how much the authors get in royalties per physical copy), that would be excellent. It would make used books, libraries, and physical publishing obselete, so book sales would skyrocket, and authors could potentially get several times more money in royalties. It's better for the authors AND the consumers. It cuts the fat of the useless and obsolete leech called the publishing industry.
Repeal the DMCA!
However, people should be aware that the "used" sections of Amazon are just like ebay, in the sense that customers are buying from an unknown third party and so are at risk of fraud. Also, the default shipping option is "media mail", which takes up to 1 month within the 48 states and literally years internationally. For exploring books by unknown (to me) authors, I prefer real world used book stores: instant gratification, no risk and (especially once shipping is taken into account) usually a lot cheaper.
Hopefully most of you out there realize that this is just the same as the music industry bitching about MP3's... they see people with their product that they can't syphon cash from their wallets.
This is PROOF POSITIVE that we should abandon e-text books in favor of real books, so that the publishers can not bilk us for every penny.
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
the real CmdrTaco is user 1. this guy is an impostor.
See above, but they've tried. As if Copywrites lasting "Life of author + 75 Years" wasnt' long enough.
It's true that authors only get paid when a new version of a book is sold. But consider it this way. When I buy a new book, and then sell it, I've read the book for a smaller amount of money than if I had bought it and kept it. With that extra money, I can go _buy more books_. More new books sold, more money for authors.
Additionally, books do degrade in quality as they're used. Especially the cheap-o paperback ones. So a book that I purchase new and resell only has a lifespan of only a few more users (depending on how nice people are to them, and whether or not any of them stop and keep it because they like it so much.)
Correction: It should have been 1908 for the Supreme Court First Sale Doctrine decision. More precisely, it's Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908). See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=210&invol=339
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
But if you want to buy a used book online, I recommend avoiding Amazon.com and buying from Powells Books instead. Powells' workers recently unionized, and if you buy a book though their union's website they get a cut. Powells is also an independent bookstore, more friendly to small publishers unlike the big chains. Amazon, on the other hand did everything they could to smash union organizing by their employees -- to the point of laying off most of the employees in Seattle.
How did this get a 5? It's completely wrong.
I sell used books on Amazon all the time, even though my mom is not a F500 exec (she's still way cooler than your mom). My books are officially listed in the Amazon Marketplace as a "Marketplace Item". However, when a person searches for that book, my price shows up as the Used price right under the New price.
If they order it from me, Amazon then collects the money, and sends me an email. They deduct 99 cents + 15% of the sale price, add a small stipend for shipping, and send me the balance.
This has nothing to do with consumer rights, first purchase, or any of that. What the authors are complaining about is that it is difficult to sell a new $25 book when Amazon puts "Want to pay less? Buy it Used for $7.95!" right below the price.
I personally think that I don't care about this particular issue. They can all fight it out themselves. *however* Has anyone else noticed that the amazon site format, at least as of a week ago, does not make it clear that one is buying from someone other than amazon.
I watched my partner make that mistake, and since we were planning on paying with an amazon gift certificate (not to mention that the S&H charged by the used bookstore was *significantly* greater than that charged by amazon) this was a problem. Fortunately a nice email to the two parties (amazon and the third party used bookseller) straightened it out.
Can you say "Bait and switch", though.
Hell, I make a trip to the used book store every couple weeks, there's no way I could afford to read as much as I do without it! Sure I could go to the library, but the library doesn't usually have what I want, and I have to give it back.
With the store, If I don't like the book, I can always sell it back to them when I'm done with it.
wow, thanks for the link. that was fascinating, especially the "Cotton Tie Case." I'm almost dumbfounded by the concept of licensing non-copywrited works. what a weird world we live in!
_______
2B1ASK1
I don't know about the typical consumer, but since most of the books I buy are for reference purposes, and the other things I've bought from Amazon are videotapes, I prefer new to used by a long shot.
While that precedent (if it does indeed exist as you say it does, IANAL) may have been right and prudent when it was set, it may not be so right now. The fact of the matter is that technology like the internet can potentially, and may even now, allow for such efficient secondary markets (e.g., allowing NEW book buyers to get 70% of what they paid for it within 2 weeks of reading) that it puts a MAJOR hole in sales of books. While some of you may scoff at this and say that these authors are just crying, consider that prior to those efficient secondary markets the market for many classes of books were just barely viable. With the new secondary markets, if the the reduction in sales approaches 50% or so, then some of these books may simply no longer get published or distributed in any shape way or form because there is no profit to be made by publisher or author. Consider also that increasing the price of the books may not be a satisfactory answer either as many people may not be able to afford the price of new books (and the secondary markets are not able to sustain it). If this is the case, then maybe society needs to consider either accepting the loss of a bunch of would-be books or allowing the publishers/authors greater control of their efforts. Like many things, a balance needs to be struck, but that balance is NOT a static thing. Numerous external influences like technology should cause us to re-evaluate the appropriateness of our laws. I haven't studied this particular situation extensively, but I'm presently inclined towards the later.
Tuesday, March 19, 2002
This is also effected by the fact that not everyone will sell their copy and most people will not immediately sell their copy upon purchase.
The upshot is that while this may decrease sales, it won't every drive sales to zero, or anything close.
The cake is a pie
I did not say that authors would make more money with a shorter copyright. I said the public would be better off.
The part of your response that addresses my thesis that the public would be better off with a five year copyright is the scenario of a work being "discovered" much later. You need to argue that this scenario occurs with statistically significant frequency, not just an anecedotal case that apparently came about by a legal error anyhow, and that the incentive of a longer monopoly actually effects authors' production. The second part is particularly important. For example, if most of the works that are "discovered" later are the early works of authors that are now popular, then you are only talking about rewarding authors if and when they are already making a lot of money from their success.
By the way, a five year copyright expiration might even make an author more likely to be "discovered" in time to hit the big time with his or her next book while he or she is still has enough years to enjoy the money. This would be against the publisher's interest, since there is no guarantee that the author will use the same publisher. So you won't see a lot of release from five year copyright releases without a change in copyright law, since scales of efficiency will result in a small number of high volume publishers and a large number of authors, giving publishers greater negotiating power with unknown authors.
I don't think that this is such bad behavior on the
... they're just using voluntary community
part of the author's guild. They're putting pressure
on Amazon in order to protect their own economic
interests. That's selfish, but that's capitalism.
The important thing is that the author's guild is
not abusing monopoly power, they're not abusing the
law
organizing.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
Also, the default shipping option is "media mail", which takes up to 1 month within the 48 states
It's amazing to me that it can be that inefficient; you would think that at a certain point, the warehousing costs would exceed the shipping costs for faster service.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Mathematical concepts age very well, and therefore a mathematics book written 50 years ago can be more useful than ever! So why is it, then, that the good math books go out of print? It seems that people are afraid of buying a math book that has been in print for over 20 years... and if not that, the book must be an extremely recent reprint with tons of added eye-candy and useful content removed.
Sorry if I am ranting, but it seems that most of the references I follow in my Theoretical Computer Science books are to out-of-print books. If these books are referenced allot, you'd think there was a demand for them, which makes me wonder why THEY AREN'T IN PRINT!!! Arggg...
Actually, the theory that movies/software/music are licensed, not sold, hasn't been tested.
US Copyright law (and likely, that of most places) has a specific copy allowance, as long as it is required for proper intender usage of the product. (ie, software is sold with the implicit assumption that it will run, so any copying required to make it run (onto the HD, into RAM, cache, etc) is allowed. Duplicating it in a non-required was is (usually) prohibited.)
The idea that software needed to be licensed came about because it needed to be copied, so the sellers decided to claim that the copying was illegal without a license... They're just pulling that out of their asses though.
Really, EULAs aren't binding at all. That's why companies are pushing for the UCITA which would change that. If EULAs were binding they wouldn't be wasting millions bribing politicians to get a new law.
All the Guild is asking, is for Amazon to:
1. Not place links for books that have recently been published.
2. Not make the link so obvious for others.
They are NOT EVEN CLOSE to the RIAA or such!
If nothing else, Slashdot readers can ALWAYS be counted to blow something totally out of proprotion.
BWP
I think that something needs to be restated that is so obvious, far too many people have forgotten it. There is no right to profit. People have come up with this false idea that just because they want something, they deserve to get it. People, especially in America, have gotten greedy, and think that "pursuit of happiness" means "guarantee of happiness". Let's set a few things straight, okay?
Facts of nature/life:
There, I hope that clears some things up. This not only goes for greedy book publishers, but the RIAA and MPAA as well.
I think you've hit it in the target. There're probably tons of people who love books and read by authors rather than just the books themselves (like me :) ) I borrowed tons of book from the library when I was a kid, which led to purchases from the bookstore when the author came out with new material, or if I wanted to have a copy of my own. Even now, I habitually browse bookstores or if not possible, the bookstore websites for books I can buy.
So what if prominently placed USED signs make people purchase used books more than the new ones. If it increases book purchases overall (and those books were NEW before it became USED), I think everyone really wins in the end.
People needs to stop thinking so much about the short-term effect and the profit margin of NOW. Getting more people to read at all is a GOOD thing, and allows the authors to have an audience to write for.
This is a little OT, but I think the real crime is in the school textbooks + monopolizing campus bookstores. Really, paying 20% for a once used textbook to sell back for 95% of the new price is robbery exploiting kids who have little money anyway. Why don't people complain about that?
If I was an author and I have the choice of linking to a store that pushed used books in place of my new ones or linking to a site that promotes new books, which one am I going to pick. DUH.
Why should an author send business to a site that is going to lure the customer away from paying the author?
How much is this going to affect Amazon.com's sales? Not much (if at all), because most customers don't start at the author's site in the first place. You will note that the Author's Guild is not threatening to pull product from Amazon.com... I'm sure Jeff B. got a good laugh out of that letter.
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
The abilily to sell the car you bought new adds value to the car.