Comment Pro-Author (Score 1) 387
Wow, I was really surprised to see the level of savagery used in dismissing the Author's Guild's concerns. Most of you seem to be concerned with your own hip-pockets, and not the author's. (I said the 'author', not the 'publisher')
I am going to say a few things now - a little incoherently and with more passion than factual evidence - that will probably upset a lot of you, but I want to say it anyway.
The general tone here seems dismissive - because publishers are perceived as charging too much money for books, people seem prepared to trash authors' rights to get paid for their product, and to demean the profession of writing itself by holding up second-rate authorship as the benchmark, and the reason why books cost too much and we shouldn't have our access to second-hand books restricted in any way.
Perhaps this may have something to do with the fact that we're in an IT/Computer community here, where it seems that the fact that most of the information on the internet is free, albeit sometimes second-rate, seems to be coloring people's perceptions about what a book is worth. A lot of people also spend their own personal time and energy for free in projects such as open source, purely for the love of what they're doing, and seem to expect others to do the same for their career as they do for their hobby.
I don't know much about the publishing industry, or the community I'm in right now, but I do support authors. This business of doing your art for art's sake and not worrying about the money is insidious, idealistic garbage, possibly put forward by people who aren't talented enough to dedicate their lives to their art, and therefore don't care if it's possible to make a living by your art or not. Why the hell shouldn't an artist get paid properly for their work, instead of having to do it just for the love of it? People who have non-authorship day jobs shouldn't be undermining others' efforts to make a living as an author. Why do people always view arts as something where people should be idealistic, and not hard-headed businesspeople as well as creative artists? Authors get little enough, and they deserve to be paid for their efforts just like everyone else, just like they have their rent and mortgage and bills to pay like everyone else.
I fail to see the connection between not paying for royalties and stopping the proliferation of garbage literature. While it may be true that authors must keep up with the times and the changes, and if there are changes that threaten their living, the industry must adapt or die, there is no reason why they have to go down without a fight.
It seems to me that the rapid implementation of Internet and related technology, the dissemination and proliferation of information, at perhaps for the user only the cost of someone else's efforts in putting up a website, an ISP connection and a phone call, is forcing many enterprises and industries to find new ways to earn or recoup their money, and new legislations are being fought over all the time. However, does this mean that the only people who are going to be able to make big bucks are the advertisers, web sites and peripheral industries who get their money by basically hanging around good content, or by selling good content?
Are we going to accept that we are going to be inundated with mountains of second-rate material for free because the nature of information dissemination and access these days is such that no one wants to pay for it, and the people who make the money out of good content are the people who host the good content, not necessarily the writers?
I realise that a lot of the above has nothing to do with the question at hand, which is whether or not Amazon should be re-selling second-hand books right next to new ones, but that's because a lot of the above was in reply to comments I've read on this issue. So if you think its off the track, so have most of the comments been.
As for the selling of second hand books - well, second hand books have always been sold, but usually by dedicated second-hand bookstores. Don't ask me why bookstores haven't amalgamated first and second hand in one store before Amazon.
I think Amazon should not solicit and advertise the second hand books right next to new book titles, but move it elsewhere. If people want second hand, they go second-hand. If they want new, they go new, but not put second hand in competition with new, when there is the issue of royalties in there. That way they'll still get the second-hand book traffic, because of course they'll make sure everyone will know the service is there. If Amazon claim that they are so supportive of authors, then they should work more closely in consultation with organisations for authors (not publishers). Then if they are able to persuade authors its in their best interests, there'd be no problem, would there?
I am going to say a few things now - a little incoherently and with more passion than factual evidence - that will probably upset a lot of you, but I want to say it anyway.
The general tone here seems dismissive - because publishers are perceived as charging too much money for books, people seem prepared to trash authors' rights to get paid for their product, and to demean the profession of writing itself by holding up second-rate authorship as the benchmark, and the reason why books cost too much and we shouldn't have our access to second-hand books restricted in any way.
Perhaps this may have something to do with the fact that we're in an IT/Computer community here, where it seems that the fact that most of the information on the internet is free, albeit sometimes second-rate, seems to be coloring people's perceptions about what a book is worth. A lot of people also spend their own personal time and energy for free in projects such as open source, purely for the love of what they're doing, and seem to expect others to do the same for their career as they do for their hobby.
I don't know much about the publishing industry, or the community I'm in right now, but I do support authors. This business of doing your art for art's sake and not worrying about the money is insidious, idealistic garbage, possibly put forward by people who aren't talented enough to dedicate their lives to their art, and therefore don't care if it's possible to make a living by your art or not. Why the hell shouldn't an artist get paid properly for their work, instead of having to do it just for the love of it? People who have non-authorship day jobs shouldn't be undermining others' efforts to make a living as an author. Why do people always view arts as something where people should be idealistic, and not hard-headed businesspeople as well as creative artists? Authors get little enough, and they deserve to be paid for their efforts just like everyone else, just like they have their rent and mortgage and bills to pay like everyone else.
I fail to see the connection between not paying for royalties and stopping the proliferation of garbage literature. While it may be true that authors must keep up with the times and the changes, and if there are changes that threaten their living, the industry must adapt or die, there is no reason why they have to go down without a fight.
It seems to me that the rapid implementation of Internet and related technology, the dissemination and proliferation of information, at perhaps for the user only the cost of someone else's efforts in putting up a website, an ISP connection and a phone call, is forcing many enterprises and industries to find new ways to earn or recoup their money, and new legislations are being fought over all the time. However, does this mean that the only people who are going to be able to make big bucks are the advertisers, web sites and peripheral industries who get their money by basically hanging around good content, or by selling good content?
Are we going to accept that we are going to be inundated with mountains of second-rate material for free because the nature of information dissemination and access these days is such that no one wants to pay for it, and the people who make the money out of good content are the people who host the good content, not necessarily the writers?
I realise that a lot of the above has nothing to do with the question at hand, which is whether or not Amazon should be re-selling second-hand books right next to new ones, but that's because a lot of the above was in reply to comments I've read on this issue. So if you think its off the track, so have most of the comments been.
As for the selling of second hand books - well, second hand books have always been sold, but usually by dedicated second-hand bookstores. Don't ask me why bookstores haven't amalgamated first and second hand in one store before Amazon.
I think Amazon should not solicit and advertise the second hand books right next to new book titles, but move it elsewhere. If people want second hand, they go second-hand. If they want new, they go new, but not put second hand in competition with new, when there is the issue of royalties in there. That way they'll still get the second-hand book traffic, because of course they'll make sure everyone will know the service is there. If Amazon claim that they are so supportive of authors, then they should work more closely in consultation with organisations for authors (not publishers). Then if they are able to persuade authors its in their best interests, there'd be no problem, would there?
