ebook Pricing Survey Results

[HistoryWes]

Critters Writers Workshop has released the results of a faily extensive survey on preferred ebook pricing. You can read the results here: http://www.critters.org/ebookpricing.ht

[davidhburton]

Interesting survey. Thanks! My only issue with it is that book pricing varies from country to country. I'm assuming this is US-based?

[TallMomof2]

My only quibble is with this:

[Footnote: It's useful to note that whether a book is locked with DRM or not is also a dimension of concern for people, but I didn't explore that one. A common number I've heard is that people feel a DRM-locked ebook is worth half the price of a DRM-free ebook. (Since you can't move it among devices easily, can't give the copy to a friend when done, can't give it as a gift, may lose the ability to read it if the vendor disables the service, goes out of business, or capriciously cuts it off (as Amazon did to Kindle copies of 1984, of all the delicious ironies), and so on.) So it's hard to say how DRM-free-ness plays into these prices. A survey for another day.]

Amazon did not have the right to sell that particular version of 1984 (it wasn't in public domain thanks to the Sonny Bono Disney Protection Act) so they removed it *and* refunded the purchase price. For content creators I would think that this would be a good thing. Having your IP protected and all that comes with the possibility of having content that violates copyright removed. Amazon, because of Whispernet, is able to remove all offending copies off of Kindles and remove access from Kindle apps.

The survey results were interesting and reinforce my opinion that DRMed ebooks are worth far less than DRM free ones. Too bad that reality is usually the opposite.

[HistoryWes]

Originally Posted by TallMomof2

My only quibble is with this:



Amazon did not have the right to sell that particular version of 1984 (it wasn't in public domain thanks to the Sonny Bono Disney Protection Act) so they removed it *and* refunded the purchase price. For content creators I would think that this would be a good thing. Having your IP protected and all that comes with the possibility of having content that violates copyright removed. Amazon, because of Whispernet, is able to remove all offending copies off of Kindles and remove access from Kindle apps.

The survey results were interesting and reinforce my opinion that DRMed ebooks are worth far less than DRM free ones. Too bad that reality is usually the opposite.

I agree that this was not a good example, but I think the uneasiness is that Amazon has the power to do this at a whim, even though all cases so far may have been fair and appropriate.

BTW: I have nothing to do with this survey or Critters (except I get their monthly email news). Just thought it might be interesting.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by TallMomof2

Amazon did not have the right to sell that particular version of 1984 (it wasn't in public domain thanks to the Sonny Bono Disney Protection Act) so they removed it *and* refunded the purchase price.

What if by some means something similar had happened with a printed book? Maybe there was a dispute with a publisher, and Amazon refused to pay for a shipment of paper books, some of which had already been sold? Would Amazon have the right to search your house and take your books off your bookshelves?

If Amazon sells a book they don't have legal rights to, then they should pay the rights owners for that right, or whatever damages a court assigned if things went that far. Barging into people's Kindles and taking back the ebooks those people had bought is no more appropriate than barging into their houses and taking back the paper books, even if they leave refund checks in the empty spots on the bookshelves.

This isn't a hypothetical situation, by the way. The first US edition of Lord of the Rings was in fact totally unauthorized by Tolkien. Yes, it was a pirated pbook. When the lawyers hit the fan, the publisher (Ace?) stopped selling it -- but they did not send goons out to buyers' houses to take the books off their shelves.

For content creators I would think that this would be a good thing. Having your IP protected and all that comes with the possibility of having content that violates copyright removed. Amazon, because of Whispernet, is able to remove all offending copies off of Kindles and remove access from Kindle apps.

And this is a GOOD THING? What happens the next time the lawmakers chug a few gallons of Disney Kool-Aid and decide that copyright should never expire, and this applies retroactively? You would think it GOOD that Amazon could go into your Kindle and remove those "offending" Shakespeare plays, the complete works of Charles Dickens, and so on?

When you buy something in good faith -- and one would hope that buying from Amazon.com would be somewhat more reliable than buying from the back of a van in a parking lot -- you should, especially if it is non-material goods like an ebook, be protected in what you bought. It's not like a stolen TV. George Orwell's ghost didn't lose a single piece of paper, only the royalties on those sales. Amazon could make good on those royalties, thereby remedying the harm, without touching the books they'd already sold. Remember, unlike TVs, ebooks are in infinite supply; if Amazon sells one to you, that doesn't mean they don't have one left to sell to me. So the rights owner lost royalties (money) and needed to be compensated (money) -- and the actual ebooks were, or should have been, no part of it.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

And this is a GOOD THING? What happens the next time the lawmakers chug a few gallons of Disney Kool-Aid and decide that copyright should never expire, and this applies retroactively? You would think it GOOD that Amazon could go into your Kindle and remove those "offending" Shakespeare plays, the complete works of Charles Dickens, and so on?

Note that the post you quoted said it would be a good thing for content creators. And their heirs I guess in your scenario.

Not that it was a good thing for consumers.

For content creators, it is a good thing to have indefinite control over their creations and to ensure than they and their heirs profit from it as long as possible and that any illegal sales etc. are minimized.

[Worldwalker]

And their heirs' heirs, and so on. Under current law, copyright will be passed down to people who were born after the author's grandchildren died. Whatever happened to "a limited time"?

Actually, it's rather interesting to look at the wording:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

That opens the question as to whether their great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren count as "them" for the purposes of copyright. The argument is made that outrageous copyright terms encourage creation because the author is motivated by providing for his or her children ... but is the desire to provide for hypothetical descendants a hundred or more years in the future really much of a motivation for most people? In fact, does it motivate any but a very few people, most of whom are probably busy establishing dynasties (of the political or business variety), not writing genre novels?

The idea of copyright was to grant authors a limited monopoly on their works, so that they could make a living by being authors and creating new works. It was not to grant the Walt Disney Corporation an eternal monopoly on Mickey Mouse.

[TallMomof2]

I'm not arguing copyright laws or if IP is even a valid concept. My personal view is that life + 25 years is more than sufficient. But I live in a country where corporations are considered to have almost all the rights of individuals and with deep pockets make the law.

Amazon (or any company) is not going to enter people's homes to remove books that violate copyright. At most they might request that the book be returned (on their dime) and refund the purchase price.

I can bet you that if Sony or any other company could remove books from their device, the same would happen.

I'm simply tired of seeing any company slammed for upholding the law. Sure, Amazon could have handled the 1984 (and Ayn Rand) situation better. Simply removing the ability to download the book and emailing customers about the situation and requesting that they delete the book would've made customers happier. Since Amazon has the ability to remove their books they used it in this case. As long as it the deletions stay limited to copyright violations I don't see it as a problem. That's simply my opinion.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by TallMomof2

Amazon did not have the right to sell that particular version of 1984 (it wasn't in public domain thanks to the Sonny Bono Disney Protection Act) so they removed it *and* refunded the purchase price. For content creators I would think that this would be a good thing. Having your IP protected and all that comes with the possibility of having content that violates copyright removed. Amazon, because of Whispernet, is able to remove all offending copies off of Kindles and remove access from Kindle apps.

The elephant in the room here is the fact that they have the capability to edit content on a device that you own! Huge giant NO NO.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by TallMomof2

Amazon (or any company) is not going to enter people's homes to remove books that violate copyright. At most they might request that the book be returned (on their dime) and refund the purchase price.

Exactly. But they claim the right to enter people's ebook readers and remove books that violate copyright. How is that any different?

If they sold a paper book they weren't authorized to sell, they'd settle up with the rights owners. Doing it that way has worked fine for ages. There's no reason they couldn't have done exactly that with the ebook. No reason ... except that they had the power, so they used it.

I can bet you that if Sony or any other company could remove books from their device, the same would happen.

One word: Rootkit. I know exactly what Sony would do if they could; they've done it.

Which is why I bought an ebook reader that does not let anyone remove books from it, and why I do not buy DRM'd ebooks.

It took a lot of soul-searching before I was willing to buy anything from Sony -- I'd been boycotting them since the rootkit episode -- but it came down to Sony or Amazon, and it looks like I went the right way.

I'm simply tired of seeing any company slammed for upholding the law.

Nobody is slamming any company for upholding the law (though, I should point out, they are supposed to be obeying the law, not enforcing it; if citizens' property is to be seized, that is done by the courts, not by a private company). Since I'm a little unclear on the subject, could please you point me to the section of the law (US Federal Code, presumably, since Amazon is a US company) that requires a corporation to enter a customer's private property (and my computer and my ebook reader are as much my property as my bedroom is) and confiscate items that the customer bought in good faith from that company, but which the company was not authorized to sell? And does that law not also apply to physical goods, so that Amazon would be likewise required to send out people to sneak into customers' houses and reclaim paper books, presumably leaving refund checks behind?

The book buyers did nothing wrong. Amazon did something wrong -- it sold a book without authorization from the rights holders. That could easily be remedied by exactly the same means that has been used for as long as there have been copyright laws: the infringer paying damages to the owner. There was absolutely no reason to confiscate books from legitimate buyers. Amazon owed Orwell's ghost money; the good-faith buyers of those books didn't owe anyone anything. They should never have been involved in the dispute at all.

As long as it the deletions stay limited to copyright violations I don't see it as a problem. That's simply my opinion.

"As long as...." But it's never "as long as" and it's never "limited". It was, ironically, George Orwell who wrote "The purpose of power is power." When power exists, it will be used. That's how human beings are.

And who determines whether something is a copyright violation? Will they use the same high-precision tools as the rest of the entertainment industry, which has (among other things) tried to extort thousands of dollars from people on the concept that a file, no matter how small and non-movie-related, which has a name similar to a movie is that movie, and good luck proving a negative? Or, for that matter, Sony and the rootkit? They had the power to do what is normally considered to be among the blackest of black-hat hacking -- something that would be a Federal felony if you or I did it -- so they did. The purpose of power is power.

There is already a mechanism in place for dealing with this situation. It's the same one that would be used if Amazon had sold a paper book they didn't have the right to sell. It involves C&D orders. It involves civil court. It involves money, possibly a large chunk thereof, paid by Amazon to whoever Amazon was cheating. It does not involve customers or their books at all.

Again, look at the pirate edition of Lord of the Rings as an example. When Ace brought it out, Allen & Unwin sued them (and possibly more important, the fan community threw a collective public fit). Ace stopped selling the books, and JRRT got some money out of it. But nobody confiscated the books that had already been sold. Nobody sent goons out to take books out of people's libraries. Nobody would have dreamed of doing that. And nobody even asked them to mail the books back. The system worked.

And there is no reason why the system could not and should not continue to work exactly that way today.

[hapmas77]

What is the "book disliked" option? That somebody purchase a book that he/ she dislike?

[cheerio6414]

I think so

[mcgriff]

Remember (some of us will) back in the 80s when CDs were rolling out? The music industry promised the public up and down that the price would fall once the medium took hold. Yeah, that happened.

Pricing is nothing more than what people are willing to pay, not what they should pay. I truly could see ebook pricing equaling paper pricing. People would buy/use e-readers as a convenience. I think eventually hardware pricing will fall and offer more features such as enhanced web browsing and additional bells and whistles (think PDA type functions). Once that happens the price of ebooks will be nearly the same as paper books as people will be more willing to buy a piece of hardware that is able to perform more than a handful of functions.

[J. Strnad]

It terrifies me that I can buy something, and then someone can hit a few buttons and take that thing away. I'm not arguing the morality of what Amazon did with 1984. I'm just saying that it's pretty damn weird that someone else has that kind of control over what's on your ereader.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

I'm not arguing the morality of what Amazon did with 1984.

I, on the other hand, am. It's probably legal, but that doesn't mean much in terms of morality. Add to this the fact that the back-pedaled pretty quickly after the public outcry that followed.

I'm just saying that it's pretty damn weird that someone else has that kind of control over what's on your ereader.

Only if you let them I am glad that this happened pretty early on so people got to see what consequences using a tightly vendor-controlled device can have. Even if we consider DRM a necessary evil (and that's as far as I'm willing to go) you still have a choice of reading devices. And, yes, some devices are more equal than others.