Do some publishers have any idea?

[Little.Egret]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I read from Wikipedia that the USSR joined the Universal Copyright Convention, which became effective on May 27, 1973, and that meant you couldn't translate foreign books without the author's permission. As to compensation to the author, I still have no idea.

As I recall the foreigners were paid, even the same as citizens, but the Rouble was not an exchangeable currency so they would have to visit the USSR in order to spend their earnings.

I believe Robert A Heinlein's visit to the USSR was paid for that way.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Man, even if I don't agree, I've been empathetic to your overall point. But this entire post is absolutely ludicrous. I'd swear you're pulling all our legs here, having a private joke.



I grew up a poor kid in section 8 housing (I believe you guys call it public housing). I borrowed books from the library and I remember having to wait weeks for Judy Blume's Superfudge when it was the hot book. Yet it never occurred to me that Judy Blume was obligated to swing by my house and sell me a copy at a fair price (which for me at that age would have been pennies) because I just couldn't wait to read the book. Reading the latest Harry Potter book isn't a right and really isn't even important in the grand scheme of things.

I didn't get a Members only jacket when they were the fad. Because not everything in life is affordable by everyone.

Hear Hear! I was an elementary school kid in the early 70s, I (and some of my friends) were often way behind the times on books, records, tv shows, movies, fashions, and *everything*. Other kids hid their "deprivation" the best they could to avoid getting teased. We didn't have Google back then to look up the lyrics either

And my foster parents were exceptionally good. They just didn't have money to drop on every thing that came out. We had things we enjoyed, things that were special, and learned to appreciate what we had.

[darryl]

At first when I saw your original post my response was oh no not again. However, it has provoked some interesting discussion. But, like it or not, fairness is in the eyes of the beholder. The main use of cost plus pricing is to ascertain the lowest acceptable price. But we live in essentially capitalist societies where, subject to a few constraints, actual prices are set by competition and supply and demand. Fairness simply doesn't enter into it, except in a very few situations set out in the law. But even where US anti-trust laws are applied, the major remedy is usually to seek to increase competition, sometimes even ordering the break-up of a monopolist.

I found your last post breathtaking. I'm certainly no fan of the large publishers. But they now finally have competition at the retail level. Their share of the ebook market has been declining, and for much of the time since agency they seem to have simply ignored Indies and showed no desire to compete. Not all that surprising as they had no real experience of proper retail pricing. Their first response was to raise prices substantially. But, as I posted earlier, they are now experimenting and certainly have some of the their backlist titles priced so as to compete with Indies. Their strategy at the moment is far from irrational and they are still experimenting. I expect that their ultimate model to maximise their profits may well be to sell the vast majority of their back list at prices competing with Indies. Probably $4.99 to $7.99. They will continue to milk new releases and re-releases for every cent. An extremely rational approach in my view. If you don't like the price you can wait for it to come down, which it eventually will, or perhaps borrow from a library, buy a print copy second hand or borrow a friends copy.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Little.Egret

As I recall the foreigners were paid, even the same as citizens, but the Rouble was not an exchangeable currency so they would have to visit the USSR in order to spend their earnings.

I believe Robert A Heinlein's visit to the USSR was paid for that way.

Interesting. Thank you.

[Timboli]

A publisher is just as much a part of society as anyone else, and thus has responsibilities and a duty of care, that extends beyond just that of authors and shareholders.

They are not a faceless entity that can do whatever they like. They cannot be a rampant capitalist with a dog eat dog approach, with no regard for others. It is false to believe that everything balances out in the end. The market is not some all caring God, making sure things are fair.

None of us are born the same, nor have the same level of intelligence or opportunity. We are not robots, and we all have different needs, desires and so forth.

To view or behave otherwise, is to be immoral and unethical.

I would like to thank one and all for participating in this discussion. It has been very illuminating and exceeded my expectations.

I've been able to have a good say here, and shine a spotlight on a few things.

Without a doubt, everything I espouse is my view, which I am sure is shared by many others ... maybe not here amongst those who have bothered to respond, but there will be good reasons for that, I am sure.

I live and die by the word - It's a corny pun, but I like it.

Perhaps it is now time I bowed out or took a rest ... but by all means, keep chatting like you have.

If you want to research further about the bad behavior of some publishers, then there is plenty out there to read. You could maybe start with Best Selling authors, Piers Anthony and Terry Goodkind. I would also recommend checking out the biographies of many authors, and read about their publisher hardships and the biases etc that exist in that industry.

Cheers & Thanks.

P.S. My apologies to those I have not directly responded to yet, but it is likely I have already covered your idea, notion or suggestion .... and I'd hate to be thought of as long-winded. LOL

P.S.S. As usual, I note people just love to put words in my mouth and claim things I never said or implied. Such shallow understanding. Have fun.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Timboli

A publisher is just as much a part of society as anyone else, and thus has responsibilities and a duty of care, that extends beyond just that of authors and shareholders.

They are not a faceless entity that can do whatever they like. They cannot be a rampant capitalist with a dog eat dog approach, with no regard for others. It is false to believe that everything balances out in the end. The market is not some all caring God, making sure things are fair.

None of us are born the same, nor have the same level of intelligence or opportunity. We are not robots, and we all have different needs, desires and so forth.

To view or behave otherwise, is to be immoral and unethical.

I would like to thank one and all for participating in this discussion. It has been very illuminating and exceeded my expectations.

I've been able to have a good say here, and shine a spotlight on a few things.

Without a doubt, everything I espouse is my view, which I am sure is shared by many others ... maybe not here amongst those who have bothered to respond, but there will be good reasons for that, I am sure.

I live and die by the word - It's a corny pun, but I like it.

Perhaps it is now time I bowed out or took a rest ... but by all means, keep chatting like you have.

If you want to research further about the bad behavior of some publishers, then there is plenty out there to read. You could maybe start with Best Selling authors, Piers Anthony and Terry Goodkind. I would also recommend checking out the biographies of many authors, and read about their publisher hardships and the biases etc that exist in that industry.

Cheers & Thanks.

P.S. My apologies to those I have not directly responded to yet, but it is likely I have already covered your idea, notion or suggestion .... and I'd hate to be thought of as long-winded. LOL

P.S.S. As usual, I note people just love to put words in my mouth and claim things I never said or implied. Such shallow understanding. Have fun.

Finally.

Good grief.

It sounds like you actually and truly believe what you write.

Incredible.

Putting words in your mouth? Haha. Very funny. Let's see:

You start of spouting off an entitlement that ebooks should be (much?) cheaper than pbooks. And later you declare that you don't look at pbook prices anymore. Yep, which one is it?


Oh wait, I take that out of context. Sure, whatever makes you sleep at night.

Stir up the pot with nonsense and then simply leave. It was very entertaining.

Have a great day.

And please, please, please don't bother to respond. Wouldn't want you to break your word.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by maximus83

That is an interesting idea I had not considered. I've never been willing to loan owned/liberated ebook files, it was a judgment call, but somehow it felt like going too far over the line beyond the typical TOS with the seller. This is a pretty good idea just loaning the whole device, I assume the premise being the ebook is tied to the physical device and won't be used elsewhere. But for those who cloud sync as I do, what's to stop them from just simultaneously reading the device on a phone or whatever, while loaning say their Kindle to somebody else? Seems like maybe this could still get iffy, I don't know. Maybe not a problem. I've never tried it.

The Kindle terms and conditions allow simultaneous use on a number of devices. The number of devices that a book can be on simultaneously is controlled by Amazon directly. If you reach the limit, you'll need to delete it from one old device before being able to add it to a new device.

For Amazon, certainly, loaning a device is a perfect way to loan an ebook to a friend to read.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

For Amazon, certainly, loaning a device is a perfect way to loan an ebook to a friend to read.

Just don't forget to turn parental controls on and disable the store. This way a loaned Kindle cannot accidentally (or on purpose) make an unwanted purchase.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

The Kindle terms and conditions allow simultaneous use on a number of devices. The number of devices that a book can be on simultaneously is controlled by Amazon directly. If you reach the limit, you'll need to delete it from one old device before being able to add it to a new device.

For Amazon, certainly, loaning a device is a perfect way to loan an ebook to a friend to read.

I'm struggling to see any ethical difference between a long-term loan of one of my older Kindles with 5,000 books on it to a friend, and piracy. Wouldn't I effectively giving my friend a copy of my ebook library?

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm struggling to see any ethical difference between a long-term loan of one of my older Kindles with 5,000 books on it to a friend, and piracy. Wouldn't I effectively giving my friend a copy of my ebook library?

Isn't the same true if you share in your family? Piracy applies only for breaking copyright. Multiple device usage implies that you effectively have the right to simultaneously use six (the default) copies at once. So lending out one device is not the same as lending out a paper book and still having and using a xerox copy for your own use. You are buying six copies of the ebook which can be on up to six physical devices at once.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Isn't the same true if you share in your family? Piracy applies only for breaking copyright. Multiple device usage implies that you effectively have the right to simultaneously use six (the default) copies at once. So lending out one device is not the same as lending out a paper book and still having and using a xerox copy for your own use.

I've no qualms at all about Kindles in the same household being read by multiple family members, Duckie. It's when you start "lending" devices outside the household that, for me personally, the ethics become questionable.

Amazon also have a "family sharing" facility, allowing content from different accounts to be shared between two adults and up to four children at the same address.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm struggling to see any ethical difference between a long-term loan of one of my older Kindles with 5,000 books on it to a friend, and piracy. Wouldn't I effectively giving my friend a copy of my ebook library?

If those books have been downloaded from your account to the Kindle, and the Kindle is still registered to your account, it's completely in accordance with Amazon's terms and conditions, and is in no way piracy.

You are not giving your friend your ebook library, you are loaning them your ebook library. They have it only until you take the Kindle back, or the Kindle breaks.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's when you start "lending" devices outside the household that, for me personally, the ethics become questionable.

The loan includes use of one of your permitted simultaneous uses of the ebooks. You certainly can't buy 100 cheap kindles and give out your whole library to 100 close friends - the simultaneous use limit will prevent that.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

You are not giving your friend your ebook library, you are loaning them your ebook library. They have it only until you take the Kindle back, or the Kindle breaks.

That strikes me as sophistry, I'm afraid. Clearly Amazon content is licenced for your use, not to provide reading matter for your friends, too. There's no practical difference between my permanently "loaning" my friend one of my old Kindles which I no longer use, which has on it a complete copy of my ebook library, and giving them a copy of that library. The result of both courses of action is that they have my ebook library available to read.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

The loan includes use of one of your permitted simultaneous uses of the ebooks. You certainly can't buy 100 cheap kindles and give out your whole library to 100 close friends - the simultaneous use limit will prevent that.

Actually you can.

Create a super-booklovers-club. New member must pay for a new Kindle, Kindle gets registered and sent to the new member. Every member is required a monthly fee of XX amount. That money goes towards buying new books. The more members there is, the more books can be bought. Next requirement is that you are only allowed to "check out" one book at a time. When you are done reading, it must be returned so others in the club can read it.



P.s.: Should hold up in court until proven otherwise.