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?
... 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Well, I've recently bought a copy of Shirley Jackson's The Haunting of Hill House. This is original book of the brilliant film, a film which for me is probably the best horror ever made.
Has he lost his mind, I hear Slashdotters say? No, I haven't. I'm not talking about the recent effects-driven dross, I'm talking about one of the edgiest, psychological non-gore horrors that have been filmed.
Sadly, my new book's cover is splattered with "Now a major motion picture!"-type idiocy all over it, and the 'major' picture they refer to is the recent poor quality remake. I have the actors from this 1999 abomination all across the top, whereas I'd prefer to simply erase all knowledge of the film's existence from my memory.
Now, I definitely would have paid extra for an older copy of the book which had a non-film based cover. Sadly, one wasn't available in a reasonable amount of time and so I've ended up with the new cover.
Just one personal example as to why people are sometimes willing to pay for more for older copies.
Cheers,
Ian
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.
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....
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
No there won't. That's just an absurd conclusion. It's allready established law the resale of a product is ok, not that anyone has a right to tell me what I can or cannot sell.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Car manufacturers don't seem to complain that used cars are being sold on the same forecourt as new ones.
;)
HEY!! DON'T GIVE ANOTHER INDUSTRY ANY KIND OF CRAZY IDEAS TOO!!!
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)...
-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."
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 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.
Used book sales may indeed help overall. I certainly like to think so, as I buy a lot of my books used. However, that's not really what the authors are complaining about here. They mainly object to the fact that new books, which have only been in print for a few months, are being advertised side by side on Amazon with used copies. They recommend linking to Barnes and Noble instead, who apparently have a seperate used books section.
"Didn't Garth Brooks have a fit a few years ago about used CDs? Didn't they try to outlaw the used CD business?"
Ok mod me down for this one but I couldn't help it:
Why didn't they try to outlaw Garth Brooks???
-- Dan, This should so be -1 sorry guys!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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...
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?
We all want to get money from our costumers
Costumers? You mean these people are running around dressed up as Superman or something?
"Information wants to be paid"
...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
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
Thanks, I understand now.
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
First, one could argue that having an author help promote a sale on which the author receives no revenue (the resale of a used book via Amazon) is also a flawed business model. In fact, every time the mp3 debates roll around, someone usually brings up the issue of having the artist more accessible to the people -- if they make a connection, people will be encouraged to buy directly from the artist. So, I see no reason why Amazon should expect authors to help promote buying through their site when authors receive a better return on their virtual facetime through a different book seller.
Second, it's possible that a "new and improved" business model will be less consumer-friendly. For example, there's been discussion on Slashdot over digitally restricted books that only allow themselves to be read for a certain amount of time. Given a choice, I'd rather lose book resale than have to deal with "book licenses". Also, as someone who's generally uninterested in used books or reselling books I own, I'd be willing to buy special "NOT FOR RESALE" copies provided that said books were cheaper -- I'd be foregoing use of a right that I don't exercise anyway in exchange for economic consideration.
Shouldnt it be anarchy is better than no government at all
as opposed to that?
-- john
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.
Selling used books was ok before, it's still ok. Just because Amazon found an efficient way to raise their profits by reselling books, does not give publishers the right to ban resale. If they want to boycott Amazon, that's perfectly within their rights, but legal action is absurd. Let the money do the talking, what's more valuable to Amazon, the customers, or the direct links.
Not to mention that you're talking about future possibilites. Right now there is no legislation proposed to benefit publishers by banning resale of books.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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}
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
I think there's a difference between going on a tangent and posting completely off-topic. Or do you just not like what he's saying?
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!)
From a NYT article on the same protest:
(emphasis mine)
"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.' " (Most individual publishers are reluctant to criticize Amazon publicly for fear of alienating an important customer.)
Patricia needs to realize that books aren't special, and that if the books are a commodity that are to be consumed rapidly and then sold, then their business model should probably take that into account.
Mind you, I practically NEVER sell books, but then I'm really a packrat in human form. 'sides, some of the books took a while to get, like a good translation of "Romance of the Three Kingdoms", and that one's a keeper.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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.
It's not infringement, it's first-sale, plus AMZN's willingness to advertise used books as an alternative.
Incidentally, most authors won't make anywhere near millions for their books...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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
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"
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.
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.
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."
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
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.
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.
Thank you for arguing this salient point, which is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Amazon is not selling digital copies of the books. They are selling used copies of relatively new books, pretty much setting it up so that the used copies are in direct competition with the new copies. The re-use question in this case is an important one, since apparently authors and publishers would like to see us create more landfills than conserve paper. On the other hand, the unfortunate fact is that in the time it takes for a book to become popular the after market for used copies will quickly be flooded on the supply side. Meaning that just as new sales should be picking up, Amazon is facilitating the used sales.
The publishers and authors are understandably upset, but unforunately the way things stand the best they can do is point out how this hurts their business and hope that consumers will understand. Certainly it is counter-productive for authors themselves to link to Amazon, if Amazon's practices are demonstrably linked to less than optimal new book sales.
Of course as a consumer, my goal is to obtain the maximum book for the least buck-- and I probably don't care if the book is used in many cases. Score one for Amazon. Too bad I'm boycotting them.
I do not have a signature
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.
From a corporate-experience standpoint, yes. From a customer service standpoint, no. I'd expect them to ask whether I was looking for new or used, and tell me the price difference.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
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.
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.
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."
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.