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.
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.
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........
Last I knew in the U.S. (unless there's yet another sneaky law just around the corner) we have something called the "First sale doctrine" it basically boils down to the copyright holder looses the right to say what you can do with a work, (book, CD-ROM, VHS tape, etc.) once they have sold it to you. You can lend it, sell it, give it away, burn it, wallpaper your bathroom, or wipe your bottom with it. The only thing you can't do is make copies and sell them (I think with the NET law you can't make copies and give them away either).
So a library just has to buy a book like anyone else and they have the right to loan it out as often as the like. No additional charge levied or required. Sometimes a publisher will produce a "library edition" which has a better binding for libraries, and probably cost more.
That's one of the reasons that e-book publishers are so upset over libraries. They want to license the title, not sell it.
We've bought into that silliness with software and now they want to push that lucrative, rights withering model to everything else. Licensed music, movies, books. Seems like a real convenient way to get around silly little things like the "First Sale Doctrine" and "Fair Use".
The problem is that unlike software, or even movies, books have been around near forever and people (especially libraries) have gotten used to actually BUYING books.
Unlike the disorganized groups of people fighting EULA's and the MPAA/RIAA, libraries are pretty well organized.
They have the added PR benefit of being real hard to miscatagorize as "evil, thieving, hacker pirates, hell bent on bringing down the American way".
Just my $0.02 (Canadian, before taxes)
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!"
How is the parent to this +5? Rogerborg doesn't know a thing about how books are remaindered or reimbursed for by the publishing companies.
If Amazon was selling remaindered books, the publishers would sue them so fast it would make their heads spin. The publishers are always on the lookout for people selling remaindered books.
It's not like it's hard to spot a remaindered book - they don't have covers (that's what is sent back to the publishers for the refund).
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!"