Gary Gibson on ebooks

[Crusader]

Full Article (sense of humor required!)

would like to make 'a modest proposal' concerning the ebook market, given that I agree fully that authors should get paid for their work. I should know, I'm one of them, and yet according to some we are about to be inundated by a vast wave of piracy that will see artists and creators of all types rendered destitute.

Now I must confess some of my sins.

I am forced to admit that at least one third of the paper books on my shelves are - according to the definitions employed by those concerned that the wide availability of ebooks will lead to the collapse of the industry through piracy - pirated. To be precise, a substantial number of them were acquired from shops that pay a few pence for used copies and then sell them for profit to people too lazy, corrupt or poor to either want or be prepared to buy them from Waterstones. These dens of illicit literary corruption - from which not one penny is returned to authors - are known in the trade as 'second hand bookshops' or occasionally as 'charity shops'. If you agree that authors should always be paid for their work, I'll help you paint the protest signs and we can start picketing the local Oxfam shops, who are clearly Pirates in Disguise.

[jgaiser]

I swore I was going to stay out of these threads, as they all seem to deteriorate into endless uselessness, but....

It's refreshing to see another published author making some of the points raised here. And amusingly so, too.

[neilmarr]

I must agree, Crusader. There is a dfference between fasirly and informally passng on a read book to family and friends and making a business of it. I've always felt that those commercially cashing in on used books should contribute some author/royalty return. Perhaps 50% of dues on first re-sale, 25% on secdond re-sale, and dropping to a 10% retrn thereafter. As you say, used book stores -- whether claiming to be charity shops or not -- are exercising a form of traditioally legitimised piracy that is not only considered acceptale but is even applauded. Neil

[SlowRain]

I enjoyed that link. Thanks for posting it.

[toddos]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

I must agree, Crusader. There is a dfference between fasirly and informally passng on a read book to family and friends and making a business of it. I've always felt that those commercially cashing in on used books should contribute some author/royalty return. Perhaps 50% of dues on first re-sale, 25% on secdond re-sale, and dropping to a 10% retrn thereafter. As you say, used book stores -- whether claiming to be charity shops or not -- are exercising a form of traditioally legitimised piracy that is not only considered acceptale but is even applauded. Neil

But ... why? There are essentially two types of books at used book stores -- those that were bought new and eventually sold to the used book store, and those that were bought for pennies on the dollar from publishers clearing back stock of stuff that wouldn't sell anyway. In the first case, the author (and publisher, and editor, and agent, and ...) already got their cut on the initial sale. In the second case, those books weren't going to sell anyway, so whatever money the publisher could get for them is money that they wouldn't have otherwise had, even if it's pennies rather than dollars. Should publishers give the author a cut of that wholesale sale? Absolutely, and I'm sure they do. Should used book stores give a cut? No, because they already bought and paid for the books.

This concept is codified in copyright law (in the US at least) as the first-sale doctrine. Other countries don't have a first-sale doctrine, and even in the US it has been significantly weakened over the past century since it was first recognized, but until it's entirely gone it still applies.

The UK may or may not have a right of first sale (I haven't looked), in which case your argument might have some merit. But in the US at least there's no lawful requirement to pay royalties on used sales.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

I must agree, Crusader. There is a dfference between fasirly and informally passng on a read book to family and friends and making a business of it. I've always felt that those commercially cashing in on used books should contribute some author/royalty return. Perhaps 50% of dues on first re-sale, 25% on secdond re-sale, and dropping to a 10% retrn thereafter. As you say, used book stores -- whether claiming to be charity shops or not -- are exercising a form of traditioally legitimised piracy that is not only considered acceptale but is even applauded. Neil

Sorry Neil, I heartily disagree.

Once I purchase a paper book, it belongs to me to do with as I see fit (within reason, of course - copyright still applies). Once I give or sell that book to another person, it's theirs to do as they please with it. If I purchase a car and resell it, should the manufacturer of that car be entitled to a cut of that? I think even you would agree that would be silly.

[elcreative]

Couldn't agree more with jgaiser... The point about secondhand sales of any physical object, be it book or car, whatever, once I've sold it then I no longer have any vestige of the item... the whole thing is transferred. If I were to photocopy the book and keep the photocopy then that would be a different matter... breach of copyright for starters as I would not be transferring all trace of the item.

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Sorry Neil, I heartily disagree.

Once I purchase a paper book, it belongs to me to do with as I see fit (within reason, of course - copyright still applies). Once I give or sell that book to another person, it's theirs to do as they please with it. If I purchase a car and resell it, should the manufacturer of that car be entitled to a cut of that? I think even you would agree that would be silly.