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.

Comments

Link for Geographic Restrictions

[eldavojohn]

(Right now, the link that should display these new geographic restrictions returns an error message that says the page is being updated.)

Well, they still have their (what I assume to be their old) Geographic Restrictions page here up and it says:

We are legally bound to restrict sale of titles that have these limitations to the allowed countries. If we did not, we would lose the books and nobody would be able to buy them from us. We don't like it any more than you do, believe us when we tell you that. It causes us not only to lose sales, but also to get complaints from customers, and we like to keep our customers happy.

I don't think they're taking a cue from anybody, they're just following distribution laws so they don't lose their license to distribute ... and possibly face a lawsuit. Once you get big enough, you become a target. I wouldn't blame eReader or B&N ... blame a shitty distribution system.

Re:Link for Geographic Restrictions

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Link for Geographic Restrictions

[eldavojohn]

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!

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" ... have fun with those piracy lawsuits.

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 ... like court cases to handle piracy, accurate translations, royalty management, etc. What system do you propose replace distribution rights contracts?

Re:Link for Geographic Restrictions

[ssintercept]

Oh, and the restriction mentioned would be to residents, not citizens. A US citizen living abroad would be restricted just like anyone else in their country of residence, while foreigners in the United States would not be.

according to Ereader its your billing address of your credit card:

How do you determine what country a customer is in? We look at the billing country of your credit card to determine your location.

source- http://mobile.ereader.com/ereader/mobile/help/GeographicRestrictionsFAQ.htm

as long as your credit card is resolving to the US/Canada or another non-restricted country you are in the clear.

Re:Link for Geographic Restrictions

[bcrowell]

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.

This may be one of the historical reasons for the restrictions, but I don't think it has much to do with the present reasons for them.

To start off with, you have to understand that traditional-style print publishing is an extremely capital-intensive business. It costs a huge amount of money to set a traditional (not print-on-demand) printing setup for a run. Once you have it set up, the incremental cost of producing one more book is virtually zero. Then you have this huge inventory, which you have to hope you can sell. Because of this, magazines and book publishing houses want to make sure that their contract with the author is exclusive. I've sold some short fiction, and typically what happens is that they want first North American serial rights (FNASR) and exclusivity for a certain amount of time. Books are somewhat different, but it's still the same general concept either way. If they're going to spend the money to put you in print, they want to be damn sure that readers will be getting your writing through them. (By the way, most short fiction markets don't mind at all if you put your work up for free online after a certain amount of time has elapsed.)

However, it would be ridiculous for them to try to demand that kind of exclusivity worldwide. In many cases they simply don't have marketing, sales, and distribution in other countries, so demanding exclusivity would do them no good, and would do the author harm.

There are also all kinds of other things that the publisher doesn't want exclusivity for because they're not in a position to exercise the rights effectively. For instance, it's very common these days for people to publish short fiction in a magazine, and then afterward sell audio rights so that people can buy a recording to listed to on their iPod or in their car. In the case of short fiction, there's also the possibility that it will be anthologized, and that's something a book publisher is going to handle, not the magazine publisher. None of this is an evil plot. It's just common business sense.

By the way, in my opinion Fictionwise is very cool. As a writer, I need to be familiar with my genre (SF). If someone tells me, "You've got to read 'Out of All Them Bright Stars' by Nancy Kress," I want to read it. The library doesn't have it, and I don't particularly want to pay $10-20 for an anthology so that I can read that one story. Well, I can simply buy it on fictionwise for a buck. Best deal ever. It's like being able to buy one song on iTunes or Amazon rather than having to buy the whole album full of crappy filler that you didn't want.

Re:Link for Geographic Restrictions

[Jurily]

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?

Re:Link for Geographic Restrictions

[Jafafa Hots]

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.

Re:Link for Geographic Restrictions

[asc99c]

Agreed. I am writing a computer system for use in Spain. Most of the translations just go into a database of strings that the customer translates as and when.

I had to demo a couple of screens that had missing translations. I don't speak Spanish but I tried to do these in a mechanical style - just copying parts of translations that were already done. Most of them were slightly wrong in some way.

Also some small parts use hard-coded strings in javascript. I ran these through Google translate and asked them to point out any problems. There were only about 30 words / phrases in total.

I got complaints that on the date selector, March and May were translated as Marcha and Puede (March as in walking, May as in 'may I...'). And there were many complaints about shortened phrases - removing words such as 'of' is generally fine in English when pushed for space, but not in Spanish.

Internet vs. Comapnies

[amclay]

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.

Re:Internet vs. Comapnies

[Chabil Ha']

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.

So maybe I'm riding on my fanciful unicorn while writing this, but the Internet offers a unique possibility to dissolve borders. This isn't about anarchy or forcing my world view on people, this is about people coming together irrespective of their location and having an intellectual, economical, and political dialogue.

The side effects of the Internet's design include creating a borderless society. Why should I have to look up the laws of another country? In effect, they are a traveler that has arrived in the US and are electronically conducting trade. It's as if they arrived here, pulled out a credit card and paid for a product, and got back on their plane home. Except this plane goes nearly the speed of light and they don't have to enjoy the privilege of a body cavity search at the airport.

Citizens vs. Residents

[doktor-hladnjak]

They're not restricting sales to US Citizens. They're restricting sales to US residents (presumably people who have an account with a credit card billing address in the US).

Re:Socialism. That's why.

[setagllib]

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.

Re:Socialism. That's why.

[Colonel Korn]

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.

The solution is very simple

[arrenlex]

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).

They have won...

[WoollyMittens]

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.

Empty Ideology

[aepervius]

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.