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.
What's the difference between what Amazon are doing, and what many car sales firms are doing (other than the cost, of course...). Plenty of car firms sell nearly new cars right next to the brand new ones.
I can see the logic in their argument, as I too would be quite pissed if I didn't see any money from the sales of something that I created. I've wondered for a long time how artists felt about used book sales, because in their mind it might just as well be someone selling illegal copies of their creations.
well, then their mind is stupid. it's not an illegal copy of their creation. it's not even a legal copy of their creation. it's not a copy at all. it's the original book that was bought and paid for. once you own it, you're free to do with it whatever you want. if you buy a used car from someone, should the manufacturer get a portion of the money?
--ben
http://hollywoodbitchslap.com/
And more importantly, not like they tried to pass legislation banning the sale of used books. Let them cry all they want right. Amazon has to make a business decision, which is more important to their business, the prominent used book link, or the free advertising. I'd place my bets that the free advertising is creating more revenue, but that's just a guess.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
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
.... 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)...
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."
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.
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.
From what I can work out, B&N doesn't list sales from anything other than affiliated bookshops.
I've purchased second hand books from both Amazon and B&N, and that's been my experience. Oh, and a note to the authors and publishers: If you really don't want us to buy second hand books:
- Keep your books in-print. That's, believe it or not, the #1 rule. People can't buy new copies if you refuse to sell them.
- Don't try selling paperback fiction for $25. I don't care how good the book is, that's excessive.
- Keep all types of your book (hardback, paperback, etc) in print, rather than just the MMP.
Asking Amazon to make the second hand option less prominant will not help you, and cheap shots like this will only make you less popular. Less greed and more selling = more sales. More greed and forgetting to sell = less.KMSMA (WWBD?)
...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!
Taco,
They DID see money from the sales of that book. They got their cut when was first sold. Why on Earth should they get more money when the person who first bought it sells it to someone else?
Re-read the article, only substitute "car" for "book" and you will see how silly the complaint sounds. When I sell my old Civic should Honda get any money from that?
Finkployd
A more fruitful analogy would be recorded music. You can buy a turntable in any stereo shop which will play anything made in the last 50 years, and if it does 78 RPM, it will go back 100 years. CD's from 20 years ago can still be played like new. Videotapes, too.
Any industry in its infancy has multiple standards which get sorted out in the longrun. A hundred years ago there were all sorts of competing standards for records, but one won out. Twenty years ago there was all sorts of competition for computer platforms, now there's one. And BTW you should be able a twenty year old DOS program on a modern PC.
So it's likely that the e-book industry, if it is to grow, will evolve the same way.