Kindle Geographic Restrictions On US Website - Against US Buyers

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by CommanderROR

Why don't we go back to teh geo-restrictions thingy and maybe talk about what could be done to solve the problem? Where should the pressure be applied? Authors, Publishers, Governments or maybe the Vatikan?

The problem is entirely down to contracts between authors and publishers — nothing else. So we need be encourage authors and publishers to make better contracts when it comes to ebooks.

What would be a better contract? I think we all agree that geographical restrictions make little sense when applied to an ebook. So a better contract would be one that, even if it has geographic restrictions on paper books, have world-wide ebook rights to the publisher.

But, publishers are going to be increasing unlikely to want to buy just the paper rights to a book, and you can have two publishers each with exclusive world-wide rights. So ebook rights in new contracts would have to be non-exclusive world-wide rights.

And then publishers could compete for ebook sales fairly. And it wouldn't just be price differentiating the ebooks. There's quality of formatting, and translations too. Yes, translations - even between UK/US. A surprising number of UK books get translated for the US market - even the Harry Potter books. (It wasn't just the title that got changed!)

Could this work? Well, as usual when it comes to ebooks, Baen provides the example. All their ebook contracts are for world-wide, NON-exclusive rights.

[Krystian Galaj]

3) There's no such thing as a right to be able to obtain anything you want. So no one trampled on any of your rights.

Originally Posted by meraxes

No there isn't. But there is such thing as the right to be treated like everyone else, without prejudice or discrimination.

It is illegal to say "We don't serve the blacks in our pub" or "We don't accept the jews as tenants". It is apparently still legal to say "We don't serve the British in our store", or "This book cannot be sold to Europeans or Asians or Africans or anyone who's not American". But it is just as wrong and immoral as far as I'm concerned, as well as eminently pointless in an age when anyone can obtain a pirated copy of the book free of charge.

I believe that anyone and any company has the right to refrain from doing business with anyone that person or company doesn't want to do business with. The laws you are talking about are prime example of idiocy (and a good way of extracting money by threat of discrimination lawsuits from hard working people), as they're taking this right away - and this is wrong and immoral. Discrimination and ostracism is what people do, and hiding this under a carpet won't change that fact. So no, there is no such thing as the second right you mention either, and no one trampled on any of your rights. If you don't want to deal with publishers, you're free to do so, just as they should be free not to deal with you, if they don't want to. That doesn't in any way make depriving them of their business by sharing the books, for the rights to sell which they paid, moral, or good.

[meraxes]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

I believe that anyone and any company has the right to refrain from doing business with anyone that person or company doesn't want to do business with.

Not in a civilized country. Certainly not in the United States. In Poland? You tell me.

"Federal laws prohibit discrimination based on a person's national origin, race, color, religion, disability, sex, and familial status. Laws prohibiting national origin discrimination make it illegal to discriminate because of a person's birthplace, ancestry, culture or language. This means people cannot be denied equal opportunity because they or their family are from another country..."

http://www.justice.gov/crt/legalinfo/natorigin.php

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

I believe that anyone and any company has the right to refrain from doing business with anyone that person or company doesn't want to do business with. The laws you are talking about are prime example of idiocy (and a good way of extracting money by threat of discrimination lawsuits from hard working people), as they're taking this right away - and this is wrong and immoral. Discrimination and ostracism is what people do, and hiding this under a carpet won't change that fact. So no, there is no such thing as the second right you mention either, and no one trampled on any of your rights. If you don't want to deal with publishers, you're free to do so, just as they should be free not to deal with you, if they don't want to. That doesn't in any way make depriving them of their business by sharing the books, for the rights to sell which they paid, moral, or good.

[DawnFalcon]

Okay, two people have just gotten added to my ignore list for being bigots. Anyone else want to stand up and be counted with them?

[kennyc]

Hee-hee. I don't think it's a company's prerogative to refuse service to a particular individual in the manner it was stated, but certainly it's a companies prerogative to not do business in a particular segment of the market.

[meraxes]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Hee-hee. I don't think it's a company's prerogative to refuse service to a particular individual in the manner it was stated, but certainly it's a companies prerogative to not do business in a particular segment of the market.

Are you calling me a segment of the market?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by meraxes

Are you calling me a segment of the market?

Certainly you are part of a market segment, one that is in the case we are talking about is restricted by law and contract and business decisions.

But really that is irrelevant to the issue of theft.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Certainly you are part of a market segment, one that is in the case we are talking about is restricted by law and contract and business decisions.

But really that is irrelevant to the issue of theft.

Yea, it is actually back on the original subject of the thread

Dale

[meraxes]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Certainly you are part of a market segment, one that is in the case we are talking about is restricted by law and contract and business decisions.

Well if you still don't get it from the DoJ quote I've posted above, I'll spell it out one more time:

It is just as illegal to divide the market into "segments" based on national origin as it is based on race, color, religion, disability, sex or familial status. It is just as illegal to refuse to sell to foreigners as it is to blacks, jews, women or the wheel-chair bound. Get it? Illegal!

In your holier-than-thou posturing you're happy to join the publishing industry in defaming people as thieves, i.e. criminals, for what is at the very worst a civil offence. But you're perfectly happy to condone illegal discrimination of customers by that same industry based on their national origin because it's a "business decision".

We've now established that in your book it's ok for a store to refuse service to all foreigners if it helps to make money. Is it also ok to refuse service to all blacks, jews, muslims, women, the disabled and the divorsed if it translates into higher profits? Do you think the Civil Rights Act should be repealed, because it's been made redundant by contract law and marketing strategies?

I'm pretty sure whites are on average richer than blacks in America, so why not separate all whites into a separate "market segment", and have a separate Amazon branch for them where everything costs twice as much? Naturally they would not be allowed to buy anything from the "black" or "latino" Amazon, because that would be bad for the bottom line - but that's ok with you, isn't it? I mean, there would be an appropriate contract and everything. With separate rights to sell to the whites and to everyone else. Right?

[Olympus]

Originally Posted by kennyc

try just a little bit harder and you might get it yet.

It really doesn't matter if it's a physical object I own or an item of intellectual property. If you take it without permission, that is stealing.

You are free to call this steeling however I feel it's not black nor white in this situation as you are bombarded with these "products" for free too.
I listen to the radio and hear the song for free I would like to own but can't because of geograhical restrictions.
I can watch a series on my television for free - yet I download it because thats more convenient than buying a PVR and try to record the show with the ever changing the airing-schedule
I can watch a movie for free on my television - or I download it to watch that movie "time-shifted"

So I don't think of myself as a thieve when downloading "illegal" versions of stuff that is already thrown at me for free. Unless there is an obligation that I am unaware of any obligations to buy from the advertisements accompanying this "free" stuff?

Back to the topic books here:
I can borrow an pBook from the library/friend for "free" (no do not to start the library discussion) - yet when I want the format of these "free books" shifted into an eBook format I am suddenly a thief?

In the Netherlands library-card holders can get an pBook for free. Am I a thief for downloading the eBook version from the Darknet (and did NOT pay € 14,-)??

Back to topic of the geographical restrictions:
When I want to reward the author for their effort to entertain me with the story - I want to reward the publisher for the effort of shifting the pBook into an eBook and only for this eBook I am refused service - then screw them - i'll copy a version from the darknet and feel no remorse because I tried to buy yet can't due to unnecessary restrictions: in both situations they get nothing from me - ergo I feel free to act as I do.

Perhaps they should start selling regionalized eBook readers - and enforce this on the manufacturers

[Olympus]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

The problem is entirely down to contracts between authors and publishers — nothing else. So we need be encourage authors and publishers to make better contracts when it comes to ebooks.

What would be a better contract? I think we all agree that geographical restrictions make little sense when applied to an ebook. So a better contract would be one that, even if it has geographic restrictions on paper books, have world-wide ebook rights to the publisher.

But, publishers are going to be increasing unlikely to want to buy just the paper rights to a book, and you can have two publishers each with exclusive world-wide rights. So ebook rights in new contracts would have to be non-exclusive world-wide rights.

And then publishers could compete for ebook sales fairly. And it wouldn't just be price differentiating the ebooks. There's quality of formatting, and translations too. Yes, translations - even between UK/US. A surprising number of UK books get translated for the US market - even the Harry Potter books. (It wasn't just the title that got changed!)

Could this work? Well, as usual when it comes to ebooks, Baen provides the example. All their ebook contracts are for world-wide, NON-exclusive rights.

- let publishers compete on quality and price - not on the contracts they are able to manufacture to split the world

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Olympus

- let publishers compete on quality and price - not on the contracts they are able to manufacture to split the world

Unfortunately those existing contracts - ill-fitting as they are to the world of e-books - do currently exist, and publishers can't just ignore them, much as they would undoubtedly love to do so. Do you really think that any bookseller doesn't want to be able to sell you a book?

[DawnFalcon]

Then introduce compulsory licensing, in say... 2 years, if there's no other licence then anyone will be able to sell for a set price, with a certain percentage going to the author via a collection society.

I think you'd find that the "barriers" to publishers getting contracts in various countries would vanish with remarkable speed.

[Olympus]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Unfortunately those existing contracts - ill-fitting as they are to the world of e-books - do currently exist, and publishers can't just ignore them, much as they would undoubtedly love to do so. Do you really think that any bookseller doesn't want to be able to sell you a book?

These supposed contracts are "new"/recent as in the past years I had no problems with any regions for buying books - suddenly I am - so I conclude regions are a "mistake" from the recent manufactured contracts and are starting to expand and should be stopped before they screw their own markets.