Dealing with Barnes and Noble

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Doesn't matter the pirate has obtained something he is not legally allowed to have.

Which is what, precisely? Why is he or she not allowed to have it? What interest is being protected, or harm prevented, by the law in question?

How is having a copy of a text you have not compensated the author for different from having a copy of a text you have not compensated the author for? How is either of these different from having a copy of a text you have not compensated the author for or having a copy of a text you have not compensated the author for?

Bonus Question: Who benefits from conflating the ideas of 'sharing' and 'piracy' and focusing all public attention on the first while ignoring the second?

Answers not to exceed 2,500 words per question. All work should be printed and presented in accordance with MLA style guidelines, with the student's ID number included on the cover sheet.

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

(and, in this particular example, JK Rowling has made a deliberate and conscious choice not to be compensated for electronic editions of her work.

Are you saying she refused to accept the money that was sent to her in compensation? I'm pretty sure she actually made a deliberate and conscious choice not to have an electronic edition published. Had she simply made a deliberate and conscious choice not to be compensated, she would have put out an authorized electronic edition for free.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

I'm pretty sure she actually made a deliberate and conscious choice not to have an electronic edition published.

In the current climate, for an author of her popularity, it amounts to the same thing (NB: I'm not arguing that this is fair, right, legal, or just. Only that it is.)

[CyGuy]

Thank you for the heads up about B&N, very much appreciated. I will stay away from their store. I also must admit that I would not even consider purchasing an eBook that I could not return, is that even legal? Thank God you can always have the charge removed from your credit card.

Until these vendors step up and provide the service we deserve, torrents are the way to obtain content. Wish it wasn't so, but it is in large part their own fault...

[doc hollywood]

does nook mean nooky ?

[asjogren]

My experience in Mexico with B&N. We are snowbirds. Our permanent home is in the USA.

When I tried to buy a book, the first one was free to test the process, I went through process - even gave my credit card for the free book. The B&N book reader app on my PC even saw the book, but I could not download or read it immediately. The message was "there was a problem call customer service 1-800-THE- BOOK". I called. First level support answered reasonably rapidly. However, they sent me to technical support - which was deluged.

I gave up. I bought the free book again - same problem. I then used a VPN to the USA and the problem disappeared. It seems that if you buy the book AND download it from a foreign country using a US based VPN - then the B&N PC APP can download it even without the VPN.

[asjogren]

From an older post of mine about PRICE vs. RIGHTS:

I am OK with no right to sell and limited rights to share - IF the price reflected those limitations. Personally, I think an eBook with these restrictions should be priced like a used paperback of the same title. $9.99, in my opinion, does NOT reflect these restrictions - nor the limitations of pictures, maps, graphics etc. on some of the eReaders and eBook formats.

If the publishing industry wants to get "full" price for eBooks, then they need to find a way to facilitate lending and re-selling - just like paper books.

The other thing they need to do is solve this Geographic "issue". It is their problem, not mine. Why should Barnes and Noble restrict me from buying an eBook while I am in Mexico? There are no book stores within a 4 hour drive that have any significant selection of books in English. Nor will there be - there is not a sufficient market to develop. For eBooks, I just need to VPN to the USA to bypass. For paper books I simply need to get them to the border and the next person coming through delivers.

What do these DRM and Geographic issues accomplish? Making customers unhappy is not beneficial.

Think about it. Price versus rights. Make it cheap enough compared to paper books and I don't care.

[trouble]

I would have to agree. I got a nook for Christmas and some gifts cards. Did not get my nook until the 15th of January going to Hawaii for two weeks on the 17th so i downloaded 3 books. for 8.00 to 9.99. One of the books i downloaded i had already read. Called about returning it the lady say she would send info to refund department. I got an email saying to bad you downloaded it. no refund. Went on Amazon site you can return for refund within 7 days. Would return my nook and order a kindel however they only allow you to return Nook for 14 days and i will still be on vacation. Will try to figure out how to buy from amazon from now on.

[asjogren]

Amazon has the buying process well thought out and implemented. I believe Barnes and Noble needs to make some changes based on customer feedback. I believe B&N will.

We got a Kindle as a Christmas gift. I would not have bought one because it does not work well with Overdrive.com public library books. Yes, I have been able to get MobiPocket "changed" so that I can read them on the Kindle.

Unless Amazon extends the Kindle for public library books - our first Kindle will be the last. I would consider a used Nook from dissatisfied B&N customers at a reasonable discount for a second dedicated eBook reader.

[Penforhire]

Wow. Quite nasty customer service incident. Thanks for the heads-up. I wonder if B&N has any clue how many sales they managed to kill just by treating you that way (not the error, just what came after)?

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

Except for the part where you can't prove any economic loss to the author....

While I agree it is not a one-to-one loss -- i.e. I don't believe that every bit of digital content is one the infringer would have paid for instead -- the same is true for shoplifters. Not every shoplifter planned to pay for the item, nor is there a 100% guarantee that the stolen item would have been sold (i.e. it could have languished on the shelves indefinitely instead). The two situations are not identical, but they are much closer than most people care to admit.

However, it is apparent that pirating a work clearly does not result in the reader compensating the author and publisher for their work.

Originally Posted by Pardoz

The demonization of file-sharers? That's just a smokescreen to try to distract people from the real pirates.

Yeah, no.

A publisher, retailer or author is not the "real pirate" because they want to be paid for their work, or even for collecting a profit for their work. While there may be some legitimate complaints about aspects like DRM or excessive copyright terms, demonizing companies for their temerity to try and make a profit is, well, rather juvenile IMO.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

Which is what, precisely? Why is he or she not allowed to have it? What interest is being protected, or harm prevented, by the law in question?

Among others, the interested parties are the writers, publishers and retailers, each of whom deserve to be compensated if they so choose.

Even if you as the creator want to release your work for free, copyright is there to protect you. E.g. the publisher and artist choose to give away a specific ebook for free, for a limited time, to promote the author and encourage others to buy other books by him/her. DRM in turn makes it possible for the lucky / enterprising / quick-thinking readers get the book for free, and allow the writer to charge for it later on.

Or the artist can use a Creative Commons license to forgo payment but require attribution. So even in a completely non-commercial context, copyright protects the interests of the content creator.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Ahh, you see, I'm using the word 'piracy' for what it's become known for. I should have used the word 'sharing sites'. And you can get really good versions of H.G. Wells from Feedbooks.com, they look great And, it's completely legitimate to share H.G. Wells through bittorrent and other 'piracy' sites. Oh....wait...you wanted to call me out and call me a criminal because you're too old fashioned to understand the difference between doing something 'for profit' and 'sharing'. Oh, good luck on that, don't let the internet hit you on the way out.

No, actually I was taking you at your word, i.e. that you *were* dealing with people that you knew to be pirates which, by all definitions I've read, are criminals. Bad policy, that (IMO), but sharing sites are different-some, as you noted, are completely legitimate. So my apologies-although I think your choice of words contributed to my misunderstanding, I did, nonetheless, misunderstand what you meant.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

A publisher, retailer or author is not the "real pirate" because they want to be paid for their work, or even for collecting a profit for their work.

I really hope that you misread or didn't understand the post you're replying to, and you aren't seriously trying to argue that

Originally Posted by Pardoz

...selling copies of (in-copyright) books, whether electronic or paper...without compensating the author...(or) sell(ing) ebooks without notifying the author or paying royalties

is perfectly reasonable, even laudable, because the people doing so expect to be paid and turn a profit from their work

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

However, it is apparent that pirating a work clearly does not result in the reader compensating the author and publisher for their work.

No, it's plain that pirating a work absolutely compensates the publisher - they, after all, are the ones selling the pirated work.