Shades of 1984

[murg]

Originally Posted by Difflugia

I think this would get way too many false positives. Many books clearly started out life as "save as HTML" code from Word and then run through some automated file muncher. Lately, I've seen a non-trivial number of those books updated with much smaller and cleaner code.

That's why I said ' ebook text size'.

Text size, not total size. Not including tags.

[odamizu]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Perhaps B&N did not realize the book was cut down, perhaps they thought it was simply edited ...

I can see that happening, and would give BN the benefit of the doubt in such a situation. However, upon receiving reports of this from customers, I think the fair thing would be for BN to go back to the author and insist they restore the full version for customers who already purchased it (even if the purchase price was "free").

Imagine an author writes a long novel, then later decides to split it into a novel and a sequel. He then "updates" the original book with a revised version that contains only "Part I" and offers Part II as a sequel. Isn't this kinda, sorta what happened here?

[eschwartz]

Oh, absolutely. But at no point do I remember reading in this thread that a complaint was made to B&N CS (possibly because they couldn't be found ).

Once the vendor in question has been alerted to one of their authors doing unethical things with their product, it is absolutely their responsibility to protect their customers' rights and either provide recompense or reinstate the book for them.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Apache

If I lose my copy of a paper book neither the publisher, author or bookstore is going to replace it for free.
Apache

Truth.

[DiapDealer]

But they never offered a free paperback relacement service like they have for ebooks (even if it's not guaranteed in perpetuity) That's the difference.

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

But they never offered a free paperback relacement service like they have for ebooks (even if it's not guaranteed in perpetuity) That's the difference.

It's not a free replacement. It's like a bookstore only allowing you to have a limited number of books at home and the rest have to stay at the bookstore on a shelf that's just for you. That's DRM. If the books didn't have DRM then I'd agree that you backing them up is sufficient. You're required to keep your DRMed books in Amazon's or B&N's cloud. It didn't used to be that way with B&N.

Greg

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by gweeks

You're required to keep your DRMed books in Amazon's or B&N's cloud. It didn't used to be that way with B&N.

Greg

Not true with Amazon. You can simply copy your DRM'd books from a Kindle, and then later copy them back on again (to the same Kindle).

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by gweeks

It's not a free replacement. It's like a bookstore only allowing you to have a limited number of books at home and the rest have to stay at the bookstore on a shelf that's just for you. That's DRM. If the books didn't have DRM then I'd agree that you backing them up is sufficient. You're required to keep your DRMed books in Amazon's or B&N's cloud. It didn't used to be that way with B&N.

Greg

I'm not one that thinks backing up our own books is (or should be) sufficient--precisely because of DRM. Nor one that thinks the fact that "smart people always make their own backups" (which I agree with, btw) should have any bearing on whether or not the upstream participants (retailer, author, publisher) behaved unethically.

That I took my own proactive measures to avoid being pooped on has no bearing on whether or not someone tried to do so. That is the point I aim to make.

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Not true with Amazon. You can simply copy your DRM'd books from a Kindle, and then later copy them back on again (to the same Kindle).

The promise of their cloud is that when you buy a new kindle you can keep your books. This fails that test.

Greg

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That I took my own proactive measures to avoid being pooped on has no bearing on whether or not someone tried to do so. That is the point I aim to make.

Exactly. I firmly believe that behavior like this is unethical. For the shops that tell you to back your books up out side of the shop, AND ALLOW this by not having DRM, I would not consider removing a book from the shelf at the shop to be unethical. Doing so at B&N or AMAZON is.

Greg

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by gweeks

The promise of their cloud is that when you buy a new kindle you can keep your books. This fails that test.

Greg

Certainly, and I agree with you. I was simply responding to your statement that "You're required to keep your DRMed books in Amazon's or B&N's cloud". There are certainly many benefits to keeping your books in the Cloud, but you're not actually required to do so.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Difflugia

I recently redownloaded my Barnes & Noble library to check for new editions of books. It seems that the author of a three-book omnibus had second thoughts and retroactively turned it into a two-book omnibus.

I'll say first that since it was free and I still have the original download, I'm not really out anything. It still cheeses me off a little.

The omnibus isn't for sale at Barnes & Noble anymore and I can't link to it there, but It looks like the author did the same thing at Amazon.

Note that the book listing describes a "two-book bundle", but this review lists the third book that's in the edition I downloaded in October, but is no longer there.

I don't have a problem with authors changing book availability from time to time (especially when we're talking about freebies), but taking a third out of a book that's already in my library seems a little unethical to me.

I'd have to know the reason the author did it. There could be legitimate reasons to do it. For example, what if it was 3 books ONLY when free so no one is out anything? Then the author decided to go free with 2 books and put the third for sale? No one would be out anything since the deal was free. New purchasers would have to pay IF they wanted the third book.

Now B&N is the one who should really make a purchased book (free or otherwise) always accessible. Smash does that. If you buy version 2.3 of a book and the author is up to 8.5, you can still access your original copy or the new one. Amazon does it too. You don't lose access and you can CHOOSE to get a "new" version automatically if one is available -- or not. But you won't lose access.

Now, this may not cover the "out of business" scenarios, but we're all kind of on our own there anyway.

I'm not suggesting it was a good idea for the author to do whatever the author did, but there may be reasons (and those reasons may actually be other than profit.)

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by odamizu

I can see that happening, and would give BN the benefit of the doubt in such a situation. However, upon receiving reports of this from customers, I think the fair thing would be for BN to go back to the author and insist they restore the full version for customers who already purchased it (even if the purchase price was "free").

Imagine an author writes a long novel, then later decides to split it into a novel and a sequel. He then "updates" the original book with a revised version that contains only "Part I" and offers Part II as a sequel. Isn't this kinda, sorta what happened here?

Here's a real life author scenario. I'll use me, because it turns out, that is who I know most about. I wrote two short stories and offered them as a "package" in one purchase for 99 cents. Well, one of the stories had a lot of requests for a full novel. I never intended to write a full novel at the time I "sold" the short story. It was meant as a little short into one of my series and nothing more. Probably a year later, the current novel I was working on happened to fit that short story. That short story became the prologue.

When the Full Novel came out, I deleted the "short story" from the two-pack, made the remaining short free on outlets that allowed it and pulled it from the outlet that does not easily allow free stories. There was no nefarious deed intended. I have no idea if some feel it is unethical. As far as I'm concerned the "market" changed for that short story and there was no point in leaving what became the "prologue" up for sale.

Those who purchased it on Amazon can still access it, so far as I know. I have no idea what happens with B&N buyers. Those who purchased it on Kobo can still access their "old" copy. They probably can't buy the new copy since it's the same listing (It's free, but I'm guessing they can't download it as it probably shows as already purchased."

I did the best I could with a given situation when I finished writing a novel that happened to incorporate the short. I'm sure some will find it beyond the pale, but the technology today makes some things possible and I took advantage of that.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I'd have to know the reason the author did it. There could be legitimate reasons to do it. For example, what if it was 3 books ONLY when free so no one is out anything? Then the author decided to go free with 2 books and put the third for sale? No one would be out anything since the deal was free. New purchasers would have to pay IF they wanted the third book.

I'm not suggesting it was a good idea for the author to do whatever the author did, but there may be reasons (and those reasons may actually be other than profit.)

Perhaps from a fellow-author perspective it makes sense to say a book that originally sold at a $0.00 price point is less of a purchase, or morally less deserving to be one, than a book that sold for a higher price point (one which put money in the bank) -- but I consider it a totally warped perspective nonetheless.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Here's a real life author scenario. I'll use me, because it turns out, that is who I know most about. I wrote two short stories and offered them as a "package" in one purchase for 99 cents. Well, one of the stories had a lot of requests for a full novel. I never intended to write a full novel at the time I "sold" the short story. It was meant as a little short into one of my series and nothing more. Probably a year later, the current novel I was working on happened to fit that short story. That short story became the prologue.

When the Full Novel came out, I deleted the "short story" from the two-pack, made the remaining short free on outlets that allowed it and pulled it from the outlet that does not easily allow free stories. There was no nefarious deed intended. I have no idea if some feel it is unethical. As far as I'm concerned the "market" changed for that short story and there was no point in leaving what became the "prologue" up for sale.

Those who purchased it on Amazon can still access it, so far as I know. I have no idea what happens with B&N buyers. Those who purchased it on Kobo can still access their "old" copy. They probably can't buy the new copy since it's the same listing (It's free, but I'm guessing they can't download it as it probably shows as already purchased."

I did the best I could with a given situation when I finished writing a novel that happened to incorporate the short. I'm sure some will find it beyond the pale, but the technology today makes some things possible and I took advantage of that.

IMHO you should have pulled the bundle entirely, and left it up to the retailer to Do The Right Thing (Amazon will). Then republished the remaining short story as a separate ebook instead of an updated version.

As it is, people who bought (with *actual money* ) an ebook will now find their book disappearing out from under them. Even on Amazon, trusting fools who enabled autoupdates will find their book is no longer the one they bought.

You might think "oh, no real harm done" becase after all they'd just be buying the full novel and the newly-free short, but... maybe not.

You haven't gained yourself any great benefits I can see, and you have undoubtedly left people confused and annoyed.

Don't change the product.