Slashdot Log In
Publishers/Authors Angry at Amazon Selling Used Books
from the wah-wah-wah dept.
tytso writes:
In my opinion there are plenty of subjects for which Bezos deserves to be berated, including overly agressive accounting tactics, and their one-click patent. But selling used books?
The Authors Guild's argument is that authors don't get any compensation if someone purchases a used book; only the seller and Amazon.com make out on the transaction. So when amazon.com makes it easier for consumers to buy and sell used books which could also be purchased new --- at a more expensive price, of course --- it hurts the authors. The Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers would prefer that Amazon.com only allow their users to sell used books if they are out-of-print books.
Well, excuuuuuuuse me! I can understand that authors need to eat, and send their kids off to college, and all those good things. But if a book wasn't good enough for me to want to keep it, why shouldn't I be able to sell it? Using the same logic, the Authors Guild should logically be against public libraries. After all, people who use libraries can (oh horrors!) read a new book without having to pay for it!
This really goes to show the fundamental tension between content providers and consumers. If you take the Authors Guild position to its extreme, you'd think that they would much prefer that bookreaders purchase books from bookstores, and if they didn't like it, that they throw it into a landfill rather than resell it or give it away, or lend it to a friend. After all, all of these activities compete with new book sales. Fortunately for us, the doctrine that the owner of a book is allowed to do all of these things is fairly strongly encoded into law --- which is why all the President of the Authors Guild can do to write a whiny letter to Bezos asking him to please don't do this.
And thus we see the danger of the positions espoused by the Software Publisher's Association, and UCITA. Not only do they wish to take away our rights about what we can and can't do with software --- including rights which common sense would dictate are perfectly permissible in the case of the physical world, such as selling or loaning a book to a friend --- but their actions have emboldened folks such as the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers to try to take away rights which we always have had in the physical world. After all, if the software vendors can restrict what you can do their software, why shouldn't a book publisher be able to restrict what you can do with their books?
Fortunately, most book publishers don't have as much money to throw around as Disney, so they probably won't be able to purchase enough Senators to change copyright law to suit their purposes. But when thought patterns of the SPA have started infecting traditional book authors --- who really should know better --- it's obvious that we're living in dangerous times."
Consider the long-term (Score:3)
But, typical of most people today, these idiots only care about how much they can get right now. Who cares about the market they can build for the future?
Selling used content is a GOOD idea! (Score:4)
Also, let's not forget that these are the SAME people who didn't like Amazon allowing people to post online reviews of books. Seems they thought that if people found out a book sucked, they might not buy it, and that isn't fair to the author now is it.
Re:(you are) All wrong... (Score:3)
What is being done is that the guild and publishers have send Amazon a letter saying that they would greatly appreciate it if Amazon would promote the new books a little more prominently than used books. Just as I'm sure that you've done similar things all the time. Maybe you told the person sitting behind you in the theatre that you would appreciate if they made less noise chewing their food, or told someone you would appreciate if they moved their car that is parked in front of your house. It is a simple request, it does imply that someone is in the wrong or that you wish to violate their rights.
Re:Books as media or content? (Score:5)
Ah-hah!
And we shouldn't let people give their books to other people, either! Cuts into writer's pocketses, oh yes- it does!
But, wait- What about if I bought a CD before, but I lost it 10 years ago. I have to buy it again? WHAT?!
I'm one person. But I had to pay twice. What's with that? It now seems that we have one person with knowledge of the content, but the author has been paid twice..!
Re:I have to side with the authors here (Score:3)
You can rent a movie to see if you like it. If you do, and want to see it again, you can choose to buy it.
And if I decide at a later date that I no longer want it for whatever reason (somehow, it was a lot more enjoyable when I was 10, moving sale, never watch it anyway, whatever), I am free to sell it to someone else.
For that matter, if I choose to rent the movie, I am free to loan it to a friend so long as it is returned on time. One reason DivX died was that it prevented loaning to a friend (or even watching at a friend's house)
It's a simple principle, when something (such as a license) can be sold, it can be re-sold. That is part of the thing we call capitolism. What the SPA and apparently the Author's Guild propose is called corporate socialism. It's just like state socialism except that nobody even pretends that it's for the common good and you don't even get to participate in a sham of an election.
The best solution is for the Author's Guild, MPAA and others to quit whining about the fact that they must provide products and services in exchange for money rather than just collecting tribute for nothing.
It's all about greed. (Score:3)
If the Authors' Guild is having such a tizzy about this, maybe they should also go after Half-Price Books, and every ripoff college textbook chain that sells their used books at a 100% markup over what they bought them back for.
what makes you think they aren't? (Score:4)
what makes you think they aren't?
just like the record and movie industry, authors would like books to be pay-per-view.
this desire, by the way, is the one thing that is likely to insure the future of e-books.
No, just an appeal to enlightened self interest. (Score:5)
First of all, IANAL but I believe that trademark and copyright law are two completely different animals.
Secondly, the author's aren't making a legal argument, so much as a ethical and tactical argument. The problem is that it's really hard to make a living as an author if you aren't in the following list (more or less): Carol Higgins Clark, Danielle Steele, Robert Ludlum, Tom Clancy, Ann Rice, Michael Crighton, John Grisham, J.K. Rowling. These authors probably account for 99% of all book sales.
An outfit like Amazon is a godsend for the 99.99% of the authors who live off the remaining 1% of sales. Likewise Amazon depends upon these people; if everything boiled down to the ten or so top selling authors then all booksales could be taken care of at the airport news counter. The relationship between minor authors and Amazon is symbiotic. If Amazon perturbs relationship to its own short term benefit, then over the long term the vitality of the non-best seller market suffers and (so the argument goes) does Amazon. Thus tactically it is bad, and it is generally considered morally questionable to benefit from an institution and to undermine it at the same time.
Taking the argument further, used bookstores of various stripes don't affect new book sales. Most of their stock would be destroyed if it was at a new bookstore.
Personally, I think its all just a tempest in a teacup. There can't be significant sales of used copies until there are significant sales of the new book. While prominently displayed used copies on the face of it cut into new sales, they may also in the long run increase sales by allowing obscure works to generate word of mouth, the way library and privately lended copies do. Probably most copies of Titus Groan (plug plug) were bought by people who have read or borrowed a used copy.
Re:It's all about greed. (Score:5)
He's right! That's the government's job!
(I know, I know, it was so obvious, but I couldn't help myself...)
Jay (=
It is a little complicated (Score:3)
I would venture that the best way to solve this would be for Amazon not to offer to buy/resell new books for a period of time (say 3-6 months) after the book comes out. It is my understanding, based on friends who work in bookstores, that anything that is selling decently, sells the majority of its copies during that period. After that, it is usually spur of the moment buys.
Just my $0.02 worth,
Eric Gearman
--
Double standard? (Score:5)
I see. It's okay for people to buy and sell used books, as long as they're not market leaders.
In legal cases involving copyright/trademark infringement, it's generally understood that a company can't credibly raise a fuss over one case of infringement if they've knowingly overlooked it repeatedly in the past. I think the same principle should apply here. They've allowed public libraries to loan out books for decades, and small used book stores to sell titles for almost as long.
Raising a fuss now just because a market leader wants to sell both new *and* used books side-by-side is likely to fall on deaf ears.
Books as media or content? (Score:5)
When I read a copy of The Republic or Soon To Be Another Sean Connery Movie, it doesn't go away the second I put the book down. You remember things about it. You make jokes with your friends about it later, or you reference the material. That's why a book is content. Now, when I buy a book from you, do you cease to do those things? Do you forget the book? Of course not! It now seems that we have two people with knowledge of the content, but the author has only been paid once.
It's not easy to make a living off of writing, but if you do you view yourself not as a paper-manufacturer but as a story-writer or an idea-creator. The ideas and the stories are what you sell; the physical medium is immaterial to you. Why should an author only be paid once when two people gain the ideas or learn the stories?
Tough (Score:5)
I'm a published author who has books on Amazon,
("Install, configure and Customize Slackware Linux") but I wouldn't dream of complaining about people buying my book used. If someone buys it and decides to pass it on, oh well. That's their right -- they paid for it and they can do with it what they will.
All of the authors mentioned in the letter are high-profile authors who are already making decent money for their writing. Just like the record companies, this is an example of greed, not protection of working-class individuals.
I never thought that I would be on Amazon's side, but in this case I have to say that I think that they should continue this practice.
Did anyone notice this is NOT a legal challenge? (Score:3)
The letter [authorsguild.org] merely requests that Amazon change its policy and makes moral arguments why Amazon ought to voluntarily change its policy. There is no threat nor invocation of lawyers or copyright law. Merely an appeal to Amazon's good will and community spirit.
This is an exemplary practice and should be encouraged at a time when most businesses call the lawyers and issue threats without making any attempt to speak with the other party human to human.
Hello? Realspace example. (Score:5)
In Portland, Oregon, where I live, we have a chain of local stores called "Powell's Books". This is an independent chain, doesn't operate outside the area, and is one of the largest independent booksellers left in the country. It's a great store, in part because of a shelving policy they have. Like many bookstores, Powell's sells used books.
There's more, though. They shelve the used books right alongside the new books. So if I walk into Powells and want to buy a copy of a book, more often than not I walk out with a used copy.
This is an almost exact realspace parallel with what Amazon is "guilty" of doing. Why does Amazon get this letter, then? Because it's a big target and it's in cyberspace, home of criminals and intellectual property pirates. Bah. My open note to Jeff Bezos: Tell the Author's Guild to go to hell.
-SymphonicMan
Re:Very bad idea (Score:5)
They cannot be allowed to dictate terms to Amazon. I don't like Amazon and I won't buy from Amazon, but the Author's Guild is trying to do something very wrong here. The books are sold and then they are the property of the people who own them. This is the same thing Matel ran into with the people selling modified Barbies. Once you sell someone something it belongs to them. If Amazon wants to make it easier for people to buy and sell used books I say "Yay Amazon". If Amazon caves in to the Author's Guild on this what will they demand next? A kickback for every used book sold? This would set a bad prescident and encourage furthur dictates from the content providers.
TANSTAAFL (Score:3)
Sure, you can cloak it in the banner of "freedom of information" all you want. But what's really behind all this high-mindedness? I have to tell you, I see a lot of greed mixed in with those principles. People want free stuff. That's all there is to it. (And I have to confess, I'm just as guilty of that at times as anyone else.)
Believe it or not, there are times when it is good to pay for something new. I hang out with authors in discussion areas online; I sit in on their discussions about publishers and contract terms; I think I know at least a little bit about their situation. And frankly, if they're not one of the really big names, like Stephen King, odds are they're just barely scraping by. Even some of the more recognizeable names in SF have to live off spouses' incomes or even take part- or full-time jobs in worst cases, just to survive.
The authors are realistic; they know that a certain portion of people will read without buying new. It's the portion of people who normally don't that they count on to earn their living. Are they so wrong to object to a company trying to lure those new-buyers away to buy used instead?
In the worst case, if more and more people start buying used, authors won't have time to write as much (or any), just from having to spend time working to stay alive. And that'll be a shame.
As Heinlein so aptly put it, There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Even if you didn't pay for it, someone else did--and that someone else might not be able to afford the loss. Buying used books is essentially freeloading on an author's creativity.
But fine. It's still perfectly legal to buy and sell used. In fact, the Author's Guild folks probably wouldn't dream of trying to outlaw it. So go right ahead, buy used, save a bundle. But have you ever thought of sending fifty cents or a buck or so per used book you buy to the author of those books? As a form of thankyou for writing, and payment for the enjoyment you received out of it, and insurance that they'll be able to keep writing the stuff you enjoy? Not only will it still be cheaper than buying the book new, but you'll likely be giving them more money than they would have gotten from the sale of it if it were new.
--
Remember Garth Brooks and Used CDs? (Score:4)
Remember a few (4?5?) years back when Garth Brooks was raising a big stink about how used CDs were hurting musicians? It seems like every field of creativity has had these issues WRT reselling of used content at some point now. (I bet somebody pissed and moaned about used records decades ago.)
Just goes to show there really isn't anything new under the sun...
As far as the authors/musicians/whoever go my sympathy is limited. If their content was good enough to keep it wouldn't get resold.
--
Re:Books as media or content? (Score:3)
presumably, the prices that the author and publisher have been willing to sell books for, and the prices that readers have been willing to pay reflect on average exactly the uses to which the books will be put. The $6.95 I pay for a paperback includes the discounted resale potential, gift to a friend, etc.
If it's not easy to make a living from writing, then fewer people will write which will drive up the value to the remaining writers. The system is working just fine.
Publishers want to break the law! (Score:5)
In the case of Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908) [sorry, the web-links I know are fee-for-service: WestDoc or Lexis-Nexis], the Supreme Court held that the exclusive right to sell copyrighted works only applied to the first sale of a copyrighted work. 210 U.S. 339, 349-350.
More recently, on March 9, 1998, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the first sale doctrine applies to copyrighted goods produced in the United States and sold in foreign markets. In the case of Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'anza Research International, Inc., 1998 WL 96265 (U.S. Cal.) [cornell.edu], the court held that the first sale doctrine prevents copyright owners from controlling the importation of copyrighted goods sold outside the United States. The court found that section 602(a) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 602(a), gives copyright owners the right to control the importation of copies into the United States, is an extension of the copyright owner's exclusive right to distribute copies under section 106 and not an additional right of the copyright owner.So the Authors Guild action is an attempt to do an end-run around the Supreme Court. As far as the "earn no payment for the authors and publishers of the book" goes, that is exactly the point -- the SC says that they have already earned their payment and are not due more!
This is an unconscionable power play and should be slapped down as such. Go, Jeff Bezos!
Re:Books as media or content? (Score:5)
Re:Publishers want to break the law! (Score:3)
Writing as labor or manufacturing? (Score:3)
Like other forms of IP (where there is large development cost and little or no material cost), it looks like the best solution is for creators to be paid for doing the work, instead of being paid for a product.
---
Re:Books as media or content? (Score:4)
If I wanted to be told a _new_ scary story, one I hadn't heard before, whom would I rather pay- you, or Stephen King? Stephen King has a much better reputation for being able to tell such a story, and he also continues to make up new stories, he does not ride on his back catalog. That's the only way to be successful as an author- nobody said it was supposed to be a free ride.
It is absurd to expect to be paid as an idea-creator in the sense of manufacturing widgets or physical objects. If you are an author you are selling your capacity to _produce_ such ideas, not the ideas themselves (there's a million of them).
If you doubt that, write a brilliant book and try to get a publication deal while saying, "I don't think I'm going to write any more books. Isn't this one enough?"
Text of Title 17, section 109 "Fair Use Doctrine" (Score:4)
Cornell has the legal text for the Fair Use Doctrine on-line here [cornell.edu].
Of note is this text:
In other words, the Author's Guild does not have a leg to stand on, until the day someone sells a book that they did not own. If they try to enforce this, they could be eating a Sherman Anti-Trust Act lawsuit.