The $15 Boycott: Will you be participating?

[llreader]

Originally Posted by TallMomof2

... why should I pay $26.95 for A Paradigm of Earth by Candas Jane Dorsey?

Because she is totally, totally awesome?

This is a good point, and a terrible shame. Ebooks would be great for her. I corresponded with her briefly a few years ago, and she saved a lot of paper copies of her books to sell because she knew they would go out of print quickly. An ebook at a reasonable price would be just the thing so that more people can discover her work and she can make a little money even after the pbooks are only for sale second-hand.

BTW, I have no idea what her personal opinions on ebooks and pricing are - the above is just my take on the situation.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

It's truly pitiful to see how people who grew up with the internet paradigm of file sharing have become so amoral about theft. This post from MrBlueSky is a perfect example of the attitude so many younger, internet-oriented people take: if it's not a tangible object, then it must not really be stealing. When there is no inner sense of right and wrong taught by parents who actually give a crap about their kids' moral development, the attitude of MrBlueSky is basically what you get as a result: "if I can't get caught, it must not be wrong." Or the old standby: "Everyone else is doing it, so it must be ok."

If MrBlueSky had spent a couple of years or more writing his own book only to see it linked around on various illegal torrent or Usenet groups, I'll bet he'd have a bit of a different attitude...

The text you quoted does not say that copyright infringement is morally right. I do not get why people do not seem to be able to reason correctly here. Nobody here implies that the fact that copyright infringement is not theft means that copyright infringement is morally OK.

[tom95521]

I will pay $15 when I have the right to pass my DRM license on to another person or donate to a library. Not sure why respected authors with positive feedback can't self publish for $5. Who needs publishers if they don't print and distribute?

Tom

[Lemurion]

I want to second JMaloney and also make something very clear.

The issue the authors have is not so much whether ebooks of bestselling hardcovers should be sold for $10 or $15.

What has got authors like John Scalzi angry at Amazon is the removal of buy buttons from Macmillan's dead tree books. Books which are not involved in this dispute. Most books sell in the first 90 days of release; if an author does not get enough sales in that time the publisher may not buy their next book. Two weeks without a buy button could cost them a quarter of their possible sales on a given title. If they are lucky they may come back under a pseudonym (I can think of at least a couple of authors who have had to do that). If not, they could have to break in all over again.

By removing the buy buttons, Amazon is disproportionately punishing authors. They are saying, we're going to punish you because we have a dispute with someone else over something else: so we're going to attack your livelihood and possibly your career. Most authors would not be anywhere near as angry if Amazon had just removed Macmillan books from Kindle.

It's the paper book issue that has them up in arms.

Whether an author agrees with Macmillan's proposal or not, authors are rallying against Amazon because Amazon has effectively kicked them in the nuts and in most cases it's NOT because of ebooks and ebook pricing.

Amazon treated authors like the enemy. Amazon treated everyone who buys paper books like the enemy. That's why people like John Scalzi are angry with them.

[cmdahler]

Originally Posted by llreader

Those "amoral kids" are almost as bad as the hyperbolic folks who want to make a civil offense into a criminal act. I am not going to speak for Mr. Blue Sky, but if we want to have a rational discussion we need to not blow so much smoke right out of the gate. A number of people on these forums are trying to make some reasonable points about the the repercussions of different types of unauthorized copying, and shrill cries of "Thieves! Thieves!" is not particularly useful.

This is a complex subject for a reason; there are a number of issues to be balanced when deciding how to deal with copying, on both the legal and ethical level. It would be helpful if posters (on *both* sides) were willing to bring a bit more to the table and discuss this in a reasonable way.

People who want to do something are going to rationalize it any way they can so they can tell themselves they're not doing anything wrong, that law doesn't really apply to me because my situation here is somehow different. Once people have rationalized that, they'll stick to that argument, however ridiculous, because to admit otherwise is to admit a violation of morality, which no one likes to do.

A civil offense is a criminal act. You may want to hang a label on it that sounds nicer, but a criminal is someone who violates the law. When you exceed the speed limit, you are technically a criminal at that point.

Violating copyright law is a crime. You may try to rationalize it by saying your situation is different, yadda, yadda: just the meaningless noise of someone trying to justify themselves. No, you haven't killed anyone, yes, it may help sales for the author, yes, the publishing houses charge too much, yes, the law ought to be changed, etc., etc. I've heard it all over in the music file sharing community. Talk to the hand. It's all just rationalization. It's still violating the law, so it's still a criminal act.

[TallMomof2]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I want to second JMaloney and also make something very clear.

The issue the authors have is not so much whether ebooks of bestselling hardcovers should be sold for $10 or $15.

What has got authors like John Scalzi angry at Amazon is the removal of buy buttons from Macmillan's dead tree books. Books which are not involved in this dispute. Most books sell in the first 90 days of release; if an author does not get enough sales in that time the publisher may not buy their next book. Two weeks without a buy button could cost them a quarter of their possible sales on a given title. If they are lucky they may come back under a pseudonym (I can think of at least a couple of authors who have had to do that). If not, they could have to break in all over again.

By removing the buy buttons, Amazon is disproportionately punishing authors. They are saying, we're going to punish you because we have a dispute with someone else over something else: so we're going to attack your livelihood and possibly your career. Most authors would not be anywhere near as angry if Amazon had just removed Macmillan books from Kindle.

It's the paper book issue that has them up in arms.

Whether an author agrees with Macmillan's proposal or not, authors are rallying against Amazon because Amazon has effectively kicked them in the nuts and in most cases it's NOT because of ebooks and ebook pricing.

Amazon treated authors like the enemy. Amazon treated everyone who buys paper books like the enemy. That's why people like John Scalzi are angry with them.

In almost every case you can still buy the dead tree books at Amazon through 3rd party sellers. Brand new books and used, too. You just can't buy the book directly from Amazon.

[guyanonymous]

My boycott now extends to the three publishers who've signed on. And includes their pbooks as well.

[llreader]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

People who want to do something are going to rationalize it any way they can so they can tell themselves they're not doing anything wrong, that law doesn't really apply to me because my situation here is somehow different. Once people have rationalized that, they'll stick to that argument, however ridiculous, because to admit otherwise is to admit a violation of morality, which no one likes to do.

Thank you for pre-judging the motives of anyone who does not agree with you. It is an excellent way to engage in discourse.

You apparently don't understand the difference between civil and criminal law. Copyright infringement not for monetary gain has been classified as criminal in the US only since 1976, and it is not considered such in most other places.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

My boycott now extends to the three publishers who've signed on. And includes their pbooks as well.

And another signs up to punish the victims.

[guyanonymous]

What victims? The authors? They've chosen to participate in the current system and signed their own contracts. As long as their in league with the publishing houses that I disagree with, why would I support them? Do they get a raw deal? Yep - but that was by their own consent. I choose not to consent.

There are other options for them, and it's a shame they didn't pursue them.

By signing their contracts with the devil, they've chosen to stand by the devil (as I see the publishing industry across the entire realm of media).

Harsh? Sure. Do some get stuck in the cracks? Sure. But we live in a reality, not an ideal-ity.

[guyanonymous]

And just like your tag line "If you want non-DRM content vote with your dollars and buy it. No one will offer it if there's no market."...if you want fair book prices, vote with your dollars and don't support industry players who don't offer fair book prices..."

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

And just like your tag line "If you want non-DRM content vote with your dollars and buy it. No one will offer it if there's no market."...if you want fair book prices, vote with your dollars and don't support industry players who don't offer fair book prices..."

I don't, I haven't bought a Macmillan ebook since they were in Webscriptions. That's not the point here. The point here is that of the two parties in the dispute (Amazon and Macmillan), Amazon is the one who is deliberately hurting people who are not directly involved in the dispute, purely for negotiating points.

I say let Macmillan offer $15 ebooks - if they are too expensive no one will buy them and the price will have to drop as ebook market share grows. At least in that case the price will be determined by market forces, not Amazon's tactics.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I say let Macmillan offer $15 ebooks - if they are too expensive no one will buy them and the price will have to drop as ebook market share grows. At least in that case the price will be determined by market forces, not Amazon's tactics.

$15 seems an eminently reasonable price to me for a new release - it's a heck of a lot cheaper than the price of UK hardbacks, and only a little more expensive than paperbacks (standard UK price for a paperback is about $11-13). Of course, the price should drop once the paperback is released, but I'd have no issue with paying $15 for a new release that I wanted to read. If you think of the number of hours a book takes to read, it's an extremely cheap form of entertainment whether it costs $10 or $15.

[guyanonymous]

I agree that Amazon is NOT making all the right choices as well. Even though it's virtual though, the higher prices may be something Amazon doesn't want clogging up their virtual store-front (and stats they use to sell the kindle, and as some say, grow the ebook market). They have that right too.

A few years ago, in Vancouver, a major Pro shop stopped selling <major camera manufactuer> cameras completely. They did this in response to poor and, according the them, negligent behavior from the <major camera manufactuer>'s service department in Western Canada. Did it frustrate some buyers? For sure...but it also got them more respect from the consumers who considered the reasons behind their decision. They also put a stop to having enraged customers who blamed them for <major camera manufactuer> service's actions. It's been 5+ years and they still, at least on their website, have a single mention of <major camera manufactuer>. I respect their conviction, even if it hasn't produced a required change, as they see

Please note: The <major camera manufactuer> is one of the big 2, and is readily available at other camera shops throughout town.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by HarryT

$15 seems an eminently reasonable price to me for a new release - it's a heck of a lot cheaper than the price of UK hardbacks, and only a little more expensive than paperbacks (standard UK price for a paperback is about $11-13). Of course, the price should drop once the paperback is released, but I'd have no issue with paying $15 for a new release that I wanted to read. If you think of the number of hours a book takes to read, it's an extremely cheap form of entertainment whether it costs $10 or $15.

Ummm... Have you seen the sheer number of NEW titles released this last week? Most of which are being released as $6.99-$7.99-$8.99 dead-tree paperbacks? Now tell me again that a $14.99 e-book price point is 'eminently reasonable'. Please, do!

And yes, I sometimes get so much of an itch for an upcoming title that I reach out to Baen and buy their 'barely-edited' E-ARC version for $15! (Far more than many may be willing to believe. )

Derek