Slashdot Mirror
eReader.com Limits E-book Sales To US Citizens
An anonymous reader writes "eReader.com seems to have begun applying distribution restrictions to its library. I first noticed that there was a FAQ page about distribution restrictions this morning. When I tried to order a few books this afternoon I simply couldn't — a large banner on the order confirmation told me the books had distribution restrictions. I checked a number of titles but it seems a large number of books are no longer available to non-US citizens like me. It is interesting to note that this policy change got implemented shortly after Barnes&Noble purchased Fictionwise. I have no idea if the new owners are behind this new policy but it seems crazy to restrict sales of ebooks. I've bought dozens of ebooks from eReader the past 4 years. I still have 15 dollar store credit but cannot buy any of the books I am interested in." (Right now, the link that should display these new geographic restrictions returns an error message that says the page is being updated.) Sounds like Barnes & Noble is taking its cues from Apple.
I don't see why a company should have to sell things to other countries. Despite the internet being free, things contained on the internet do not necessarily have to be geographically free. It reduces the amount of time, energy, and money they might have to spend on lawyers looking up various countries copyright claims, and their market may primarily be based in the United States. Of course, in time this might change, but I'm not one for forcing companies to do things some other way. I'll just buy from another company. Capitalism wins in the end.
It's all fun and games till someone divides by 0. Then it's hilarious.
What makes you think this is a matter of laws and not a stupid restriction placed into their contract by the content rights owners? It would be nice to know the content rights owners hanging on to the old distribution models so the complaints could be sent there.
Half the point of digital distribution is that prices can be set globally, and for the most part, companies can choose their per-unit profit and let the whole world deal with it. If that price ends up higher than a competitor, the competitor has a chance to get higher sales volume. That free market competition is in the spirit of capitalism.
Sam ty sig.
What makes you think this is a matter of laws and not a stupid restriction placed into their contract by the content rights owners?.
Yes but it's important to remember why these contracts were often in place. I mean, it wasn't that we had to get all of Herman Melville's whaling stories to China so they could enjoy them ... it was to ail a very real problem of people taking literature, translating it and selling it in foreign countries with no revenue going to the original artist or publisher. So I believe it was commonplace to accept distribution contracts to--ironically--protect your works from being distributed for free in foreign countries where you would have no chance of prosecuting. But if someone is there with distribution rights, the people posing as you had better watch out!
... have fun with those piracy lawsuits.
... like court cases to handle piracy, accurate translations, royalty management, etc. What system do you propose replace distribution rights contracts?
There are other reasons for these distribution contracts and I'll bet a lot of them are along the lines of "sure we'll take a few thousand from you because no one's going to read this in your area"
I would like to call distribution rights an old or archaic system but frankly that's what's in place and you'd need to point out how it would protect their work from being sold without consent if you dreamed up a new system. I'm sure it varies publisher to publisher but the rights are probably an ongoing contract that would be difficult to change. You have some very real barriers to overcome
My work here is dung.
If I ever write a book, you can damn well bet I won't sanction distribution in Britain.
International law is an absolute clusterfuck, especially where IP is concerned. There's really not much to be done. Of course, it would be nice to get rid of region coding and other such bull, but it's here to stay.
Have you been living under a rock these last few years? "Everybody else" already has been forced into socialism: it's called a "bailout".
It is because most non-US people are foot-loose and fancy-free with distributing copyrighted material. That is, you are all pirates.
So really, you brought it on yourself by assuming that just because you chose socialism in your country, everybody else has to be force into socialism too.
Pirating copyrighted material is capitalism. Regulating distribution of copies (or any sort of regulations whatsoever on a market) is anti-capitalist. Neither is socialist.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
With matters like these, fortunately, the solution is very simple
Here it is:
http://thepiratebay.org/
Here you have a case where you are willing to pay for a legitimate product but you are unable to acquire it due to arbitrary and pointless restrictions.
It's the same sort of problem as DRM. Region locking, device locking ... primarily serve to piss off customers. So go wild.
(When you CAN legitimately purchase the product you desire, of course, piracy thereof becomes a totally different matter).
I'm sorry to say that the intellectual property tycoons have won the war of artificial scarcity. It's nonsense to restrict the sale of bits, but they seem to have been able to buy laws in most civilized countries that enforce their obsolete business model. For the normal people like us, there's only one recourse: STEAL THE BOOK.
Capitalism only wins if there are neither artificial or natural monopolies (and one could argue that with books it is certainly often the case) or artificial barrier to competition like DRM to implement region encoding. There is no reason whatsoever to have something like BITS limited to a region of the globe, except to artificially limit the market.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
You do realize, Mr. Wack, that most translations are done by machine nowadays?
Most: maybe, the good ones: no. And if you can show me something that translates to Hungarian, I'll take your argument at face value. Regardless, if you think that there are algorithms to translate The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy in a way that it retains its qualities, you're a moron. Go learn another language.
When was the last time you read a machine-translated text that didn't have glaring semantical errors?
And IF the work is done by a good translator do you really honestly believe they deserve as much credit as the AUTHOR? What planet are you from anyway?
The author conveys his thoughts. The translator conveys someone elses thoughts. We can argue about which one is harder all day. And no, word-for-word things are not translations. If you say "there's more than one way to skin a cat" in Hungarian, you get an uncomfortable silence and you won't get invited to parties.
I suppose you actually think copyright infringement is a right too, right?
I suppose you think the whole world is under US jurisdiction, right?
I'm wondering if they aren't just trying to set themselves up like the DVD cartels did - with the ability to sell books for $1.00 in places where people can only afford $1.00, while preventing people in places where they can afford to pay $10 from buying "grey market" books.
This space available.
I think you mean US resident, not US Citizen.
> it was to ail a very real problem of people taking literature, translating it and selling it in foreign countries with no revenue going to
> the original artist or publisher.
What I find interesting here is that this is roughly the same problem as was described in a post here about child porn. That it... this all originated back in a time when only professionals with some serious bankroll could do this. You used to need a printing press, which was beyond the means of the average person... just like kiddie pornographers used to need large studios and cameras etc.
Now... well... we have 15 year olds going around taking nudie pix for their boyfriend, and suddenly child porn charges are comming out. Oh wait... thats whats happening with other content too!
I think its kind of funny that we started with laws because people with extraordinary means were taking advantage of people with lesser means.. and now we are applying them to a situation that has been turned on its ear by technology.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"