Geographic restrictions - a different perspective

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Avenabo

I'm new to this forum and have been trying to follow this thread, my brain hurts!! I'm a Brit living in Spain and I've got a Sony E Reader. Like the person from NZ, I used to buy from Smiths and Waterstones in UK. The thing I cant get my head round is that Waterstones apologised when they said they couldnt sell me ebooks any longer, but assured me I could buy the same book in paper format from them. I cant see the difference. My credit card is a UK one, my address and ISP are Spanish. If I can buy the hardcopy book, why cant I buy the ebook. Can anyone give me a simple explanation?

It's a matter of EU law, and the legal definition of the "point of sale".

When you buy a physical book, the point of sale is the bookshop.

When you buy an eBook, the point of sale is your computer.

[Avenabo]

Harry, thanks, now at least I understand where the problem comes from!

[HarryT]

Given the supposed "single market" of the EU, it is extremely annoying.

Let's hope that the on-going European Commission enquiry into the eBook industry managed to sort out the situation.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's a matter of EU law, and the legal definition of the "point of sale".

When you buy a physical book, the point of sale is the bookshop.

When you buy an eBook, the point of sale is your computer.

Yet the VAT rate of the vendor's place of business applies. This is one of the inconsistencies that should get resolved.

However, somehow I can not understand this rights issue. The continental book market for English language books is quite substantial. I wouldn't be surprised if it were bigger than the book market of the Republic of Ireland, with thousands of shops selling English language books. How can publishers from the UK not have secured the rights to distribute their books throughout Europe?
Why are Amazon and Kobo able to sell a huge range of English ebooks on the Continent if there is a rights issue?

[ballfresno]

Well, I got hit by this annoying restriction today: I want to buy In the country of the blind by Michael Flynn which I previously had read in paperback form. I cannot find it anywhere (legal). I don't want a translation and the book is available in book form in the UK. Why not an ebook? (rhetorical question, given this and other threads but I needed to vent... ;-)

eric

[LuvReadin]

Originally Posted by taustin

And yet, industry insiders have gone on the record about it, and say that about 10% of the retail price is for putting ink on paper and getting it to the store. So any time you vote for more than a 10% reduction in the price of an ebook, you're voting for lower quality. So say people who I have heard of before and know to be working in the industry.

That's about right if you assume the book is being shipped straight to the publisher's own bookstore - that's usually not the case, so theere there are costs associated with wholesale and distribution as well. Money Magazine did an interesting comparison a couple of years ago - it doesn't seem to be on their site, but a report is here:
http://journal.bookfinder.com/2009/0...ook-costs.html

Also, the publishers' figures are based on an average; some books (both tree and e) will sell nothing like enough to cover the costs involved, so the better-selling books basically subsidise these. Which is as it should be - the best-selling books aren't necessarily (in fact, in most cases probably aren't!) the best books, but the latter are those that enrich society and will outlive the former. The challenge for publishers will be to match the production process to the book. Some books will deserve the full process to produce a high-quality print edition that will live on for decades; others deserve only to be printed as ebooks (and a percentage of these will sink without trace), and yet others deserve the middle ground of print-on-demand.

As others have pointed out, the issue is obscured even more by the fact that physical books are usually free of VAT, whereas ebooks aren't - that's 20% added on in the UK, so there's one of the biggest reasons. The law is usually well behind the technology anyway, but in this case, the EU seems to be completely unreasonable and is digging its heels in.

[Blue Tyson]

And 'industry insiders' are biased to telling you stuff shaded to their side of the story, too.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by taustin

And yet, industry insiders have gone on the record about it, and say that about 10% of the retail price is for putting ink on paper and getting it to the store. So any time you vote for more than a 10% reduction in the price of an ebook, you're voting for lower quality. So say people who I have heard of before and know to be working in the industry.

The insiders who are trying to justify high ebook prices?
It may surprise you, but people might not believe them.
It is simply implausible that printing, packing, shipping and warehousing, and the cost of printing returned books are less that 10% of sticker price.

[elcreative]

Oooh, it's implausible... now there's an expert opinion backed up by much research and factual information...

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Blue Tyson

And 'industry insiders' are biased to telling you stuff shaded to their side of the story, too.

Charlie Stross has little reason to lie to advance his publisher's agenda. In fact, quite the contrary.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The insiders who are trying to justify high ebook prices?

Justify? No. Explain. Business is business, whether you (or I, or the author) likes it or not.

[anamardoll]

Well, I mean if Author Charles Stross says something, it must be true. He couldn't possibly be mistaken or have been lied to. I mean, I haven't read his books but my Husband has, so I have to assume he's infallible in all things.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Well, I mean if Author Charles Stross says something, it must be true. He couldn't possibly be mistaken or have been lied to. I mean, I haven't read his books but my Husband has, so I have to assume he's infallible in all things.

A claim was made that anyone who says the cost of printing books isn't a large part of the the retail price must be exaggerating (or lying) for the benefit of publishers. I dispute that. Authors, in generaly, have little reason, so do so. Since you do not, in any way, disagree with me on this, I can only assume you acknolwdge I am correct.

Plus, I've known (sort of) Charlie through his online persona for nearly 20 years. I find him far more credible than anyone on this forum (including myself). He's hardly obscure.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by taustin

A claim was made that anyone who says the cost of printing books isn't a large part of the the retail price must be exaggerating (or lying) for the benefit of publishers. I dispute that. Authors, in generaly, have little reason, so do so. Since you do not, in any way, disagree with me on this, I can only assume you acknolwdge I am correct.

Plus, I've known (sort of) Charlie through his online persona for nearly 20 years. I find him far more credible than anyone on this forum (including myself). He's hardly obscure.

Or they could be REPEATING someone who was exaggerating (or lying) on behalf of the publishers.

I have integrity too. That doesn't mean that my saying that print costs are 10% of the price tag because someone told me so makes it true. It makes me very likely honestly mistaken. No shame in that, except that you weirdly seem to think that there is and that it's some kind of aspersion on Stross' character. I don't.

And, um, no I don't agree with you. Just because I didn't give your assertion that X Author Must Be Right Because Why Wouldn't They Be a longer piece of my attention doesn't mean you're exempt from all other Fail.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Or they could be REPEATING someone who was exaggerating (or lying) on behalf of the publishers.

In the nearly 20 years I've been reading Charlie on Usenet and his blog, I've never noted any tendency to accept anything at face value. He is, in fact, a crank. A very outspoken crank who doesn't accept much of anything without something more than "the monkeys that fly out of my butt told me so." Again, I find him far more credible than anybody here. He doesn't speak without knowing what he's talking about.