Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Authors Guild To Members: De-link Amazon.com

Posted by chrisd on from the fascist-authors-guild dept.

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.

37 of 447 comments (clear)

  1. What next... by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can I expect to see pickets of authors next time I go to a library?

    1. Re:What next... by kpetruse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:What next... by david.given · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Can I expect to see pickets of authors next time I go to a library?

      I don't know about the US, but in the UK, Canada and Australia, authors get paid according to how frequently their books are withdrawn in libraries. The amount is pathetically small, but it's there.

    3. Re:What next... by someone247356 · · Score: 4, Informative


      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)
    4. Re:What next... by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 5, Interesting
      (I think with the NET law you can't make copies and give them away either)

      In general, it's the making a copy part that's prohibited, not the what you do with it. You can buy a work and give it away on the NET, so long as you don't make a copy in the process. When you figure out how to do that, let us know.

      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.

      This is an excellent point which is often overlooked, but it goes much deeper. Think about state of the art computing ten years ago (1992). The 386's were just begining to gain popularity, and Windows 95 was just a proposal on Microsoft's 5 year plan. If you were "computer literate" back then, you likely bought (or otherwise acquired) some software to run on it. How much of that software do you still have? How much of it will still run on any sort of computer you still have access to?

      Go back another decade to 1982, the era of the Commodore Vic20 and the Timex/Sinclair ZX80/ZX81. Apple's Macintosh wouldn't hit the market for another two years yet; their Apple ][ was dominant. How much of that software do you still have? How much of it will still run on any sort of computer you still have access to today? Emulation is fair game.

      And that's just looking twenty years into the past.

      Now think about electronic media going forward. You know that eBook you bought last week? Do you think your eBook reader will still be running 10 years from now? 20 years? Do you think your license will still be valid? What about that DVD? How long do you suppose you have before the 'new and improved' DVD players won't play the 2002-format DVD's, even if you've kept them in mint condition? And you can bet DMCA-like laws will make emulation a non-option.

      Now go to your bookshelf and see if you can find a book with a copyright date in the 1992 or 1982 era. Got some? Can you still read them? Is the information still relevant? Heck, I've got magazines from back then, some of which I haven't got around to reading yet. I've got paperback (disposable) books from the 60's. I have hardcover books a century older than those. In many cases, the publisher is long out of business, but fortunately my license (and ability) to read those books is not dependent on the publisher being around.

      I can't fault the authors or publishers for choosing the more money option over the less money option, and I guess they think there's more money for them if a new copy is sold over an old copy being resold. But what we see here again is the age old truism that businesses like dumb consumers. Where education will lead the consumers to purchase less product, a business has only one incentive to educate or inform: competition. This is why the Author's Guild is reacting against Amazon; in this case, Amazon is providing a service which is beneficial to consumers at the (percieved) expense of the members of the Author's Guild. It also shows how important competition and the free exchange of information has become in this new wired world, and how damaging a monopolistic construction, or the obstruction of free information flow can be.

      --

      The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

    5. Re:What next... by VAXman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  2. Curious about the actual complaint... by The.Nihilist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... 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!

  3. Bye bye first sale by Quila · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Through DMCA and other legislation, and now pressure from authors, the doctrine of first sale is dying a slow and horrible death.

  4. "although neither publisher or writer gets paid.." by bryan1945 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  5. Re:The Funny Part by mccalli · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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?

    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

  6. Re:I can see their argument, but... by HT5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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/
  7. Re:No Way! - you mean Americans have free speech! by jgerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  8. Userfriendly revisited by HrVad · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  9. NYT article by tetrad · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The New York Times has an article about this 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....

    1. Re:NYT article by Kanon · · Score: 4, Funny

      I suggest we all band together and gather up enough money to buy our own law.

      I move that our new law should be that employers *must* give Unix administrators free doughnuts when requested.

      Why? I like dougnuts. If you don't then buy your own damn law commie.

  10. Clothing by phunhippy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .... 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)...

  11. Are You Serious? by krmt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."

  12. Tough decision by Pedrito · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Tough decision by jacobito · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Had Amazon had this at the time my book came out, I may have never made a dime.
      I find this hard to swallow. Do you think Amazon would have immediately made hundreds of used copies of your book available?
  13. *sigh*... A childish dream. by bmajik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  14. Amazon DOES NOT SELL USED BOOKS !!!! by CDWert · · Score: 5, Informative

    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........
    1. Re:Amazon DOES NOT SELL USED BOOKS !!!! by karmawarrior · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Amazon just broker, taking a small cut. They don't provide Amazon shipping materials to the seller. It's not dissimilar to eBay, except everything's "Buy it now for..." and the payment system is provided for you. Most of the sellers in my experience are "ordinary people", selling their collections, though there are a few companies that use the system too.

      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?)
  15. I think it's OK by jjohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  16. Here by Konster · · Score: 3, Informative

    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

  17. Authors should respect Andrew Carnegie by s390 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  18. Authors and money: law, theory, and pragmatics by coats · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    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!"
  19. Time to reduce copyright by Adam+J.+Richter · · Score: 3, Interesting
    At least in the United States, copyright's purpose is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. If book publishers want to renegotiate the copyright bargain, then we should take a look at moving the balance in other direction, that of reducing the scope and duration of traditional copyright.

    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.

  20. Local Shops by Amigori · · Score: 3, Interesting
    While I do use many of the tools and services that Amazon provides, most of the time though, I end up ordering from my local bookstore, Horizon Books. Why? Because they can get just as many books as Amazon, their website just isn't as fully featured. Sure, they cost a little more per book, but I feel better knowing that my dollars are returning to the local economy rather than ending up out west.

    Amigori

    --
    "The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
  21. Sounds like Amazon is focussed on its CUSTOMERS... by dpbsmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...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!

  22. Re:Wrong - not how it works by CDWert · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ZZZTTTT, that is SEPERATE,

    I need to look at nothing but the back room filled with Amazon shipping materials.

    My mom does approx 5k a month through amazon, its not bad,

    Market place is SEPERATE and DIFFERENT, there complete descriptions, of the same books are listed for a direct purchase, the cut is different.

    You have absolutley no clue what you are talking about.

    The above informationholds true if you purchase it through Marketplace, it does NOT if you order the same book through their main interface while searching, althought the book will return both results.

    --
    Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
  23. Re:I can see their argument, but... by finkployd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  24. Re:I fail to see the logic in this by RocketJeff · · Score: 4, Informative

    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).

  25. This is why we need micropublishing by drew_kime · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  26. A letter to the Authors Guild by StenD · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  27. Re:It hurts us by Stonehand · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  28. As an author... by agshekeloh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  29. Re:Authors and money: law, theory, and pragmatics by coats · · Score: 4, Informative
    ...what if book publishers start licensing books to consumers, the same way music, software and movies are licensed.
    That is what the publisher tried to do in the original case: the SC said "it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it swims like a duck. It is a sale, not a license."

    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!"