Quote:
Originally Posted by calvin-c
Shaggy, I think the issue with selling a book without a cover (rebound or not) lies in the assumption that the book was most likely not purchased in the first place. Which, given the current culture (in the US, at least), has good odds of being true. The question is, how defensible is prosecution (if somebody prosecuted on this) based on an assumption rather than proof.
|
Where this comes from is in retailers disposing of unsold books. In theory, they are supposed to rip the covers off the book and mail the covers back to the Publisher as proof that the books were destroyed and not sold. The policy is to prevent them from then selling the books anyway, and falsely reporting them as destroyed.
This has nothing to do with an end customer selling a used book, whether or not it has a cover.
Quote:
|
In some jurisdictions (and the US seems to be gradually turning into one of these) it would be up to the seller to prove that he'd bought the book.
|
Theoretically we still live in an "innocent until proven guilty" society, but you're right, that doesn't quite mean what it used to.
In this example though, there is no case. There's no law that I know of which has anything do with with selling a book without a cover. It's a policy in place as part of the contracts between a publisher and a retailer, but has nothing to do with individual customers or selling used books.