Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
News

Authors Guild To Members: De-link Amazon.com 458

theodp writes: "Angered by Amazon.com's practice of offering [prominently placed] used editions of relatively new titles, the Authors Guild is urging authors to replace Amazon.com links on their web sites with links to Barnesandnoble.com and BookSense.com. Amazon spokesperson Patty Smith insisted the policy really "ends up helping authors and publishers" although neither the author nor the publisher receives royalties from Amazon's used book sales, and Smith could not cite an author or genre helped by the availability of used editions. " CD: I'd imagine they don't want us to go to our local used book stores either? This is the second time they've tried to call Amazon to task for this.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Authors Guild To Members: De-link Amazon.com

Comments Filter:
  • by bryan1945 ( 301828 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @06:35AM (#3315211) Journal
    Except for those books that I buy from the used/discounted section that I would never buy at full price, and then go buy a bunch of books by that author because I found out I like him/her.

    Recent case in point- I picked up a book called "The Ice Limit" by 2 authors. Same guys wrote "The Relic" and "Riptide". Ice Limit was so freaking good I went and 3 more of their books at full price becuase I liked their stuff so much. (Review- Ice Limit was great, Riptide was merely very good, haven't finished Relic yet)

    I'm guessing that most people (who read a lot) buy used books to try out new authors rather than wait around to get a used book by a favored author. I buy every Clancy and Dennis McKiernan (spelling might be off; he did a great job of taking Tolkien's universe and changed it slightly to produce a great serious of books. Check him out.) book as soon as I now that they have been released.

    To wind down this windy post, I think that once again an industry is making a big fuss out of a certain method of legal distribution.

    But what do I know, I'm merely human.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @06:59AM (#3315286)
    While I know the Slashdot community is going off about EULAs and all of that, I hope everyone will remember that authors make very little money and that big players like Amazon doing this can really make it even worse for them.


    In the world of technical books, you want the best and the brightest of the field writing books for the rest of us, but it is so economically unfeasible that anybody who could make a decent hourly rate as a consultant cannot rationalize it financially. I know this from experience: I recently declined a contract from O'Reilly simply because I could not possibly spend that much time to get paid that little.


    The only income authors get is from royalties. Digging into their pockets reduces only reduces the quality of the books you buy in the long term.

  • by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @07:28AM (#3315355) Homepage
    • The authors are complaining they are not receiving money for the sale of used books? Are they forgeting they have already received that money when those were sold the first time.

    Sigh. But they didn't receive the money. What they are complaining about is Amazon provoking large scale remaindering.

    Example. Amazon agrees with a publisher to take, say, 10,000 books at $5 a book. However, they only sell 5,000 of them. The publisher gets $50,000 and Amazon are out $25,000, right?

    Wrong. Amazon are out $0, because they only actually pay for the number of books that they sell. The rest are "remaindered". This effectively means that the publisher writes them off and either takes them back and pulps them, or - the least hassle for them - sells them for pennies direct to Amazon.

    The issue here is what Amazon is doing at this point. They have actually purchased the books, so the books are technically used. It appears that they are then selling them as such (and remember, they bought them for pennies, and I do mean pennies), or selling them on to retail partners, who then immediately advertise them back through Amazon.

    Authors get no royalties for remaindered books, and it really hurts publishers, who put in the investment to print the books in the first place. Amazon can't lose off of this; the only cost to them is to warehouse the books, and Amazon are very efficient at warehousing. The publishers could take them back and pulp them to stop Amazon selling them on, but this costs them money and publishers really aren't set up to do this; they are set up to order books from printers that go direct to resellers. I think the real issue is that they're angry that Amazon is deliberately over-ordering in the first place.

  • Business Model (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @07:37AM (#3315384)
    This is a rather simple question of business models. Used books have always existed in some form or another. Used bookstores used to be frequented by retired people, poorer middle class (students), and the like. More time than money, or little time and NO money. Now, the Internet is bringing the used bookstore into the mainstream - and the landscape changes.

    I am sick to death of hearing complaining when this happens. The movie industry complained about video / DVD, and now they make more money from the rentals of these than on the box office tickets.

    I buy many books from Amazon. I normally do NOT take the used book because of several reasons:

    1. It isn't often MUCH cheaper
    2. The shipping cannot be combined with another order
    3. The ZShop / partner isn't necessarily as "trustworthy" as Amazon (implied)

    The consumer has to decide if the combination of 1-3 is enough for them to buy or not to buy. If the formula is skewed, there will be a market shift to used boookstores, and authors can change the model they use for publishing.

    I've bought several books through used book stores listed by Amazon, and I believe that the linking of these is fine and dandy. It is of immense help to me as a consumer to see these links for comparison, and in case the new book is not available.

    The writer who made the point about "authors should write books that people want to keep" was right on!
  • by CDWert ( 450988 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @07:47AM (#3315409) Homepage
    Neither does Barnes and Noble, they broker them from data mined and average pricing, off of used book dealers central listings (Abebooks.com Bibliofind.com, etc)

    Heres how it goes, amazon lists ANY book out there look at the lead times on out of print sometime. THEN they Order from a Used book dealer in their distribution channel, theey tak and ADDITIONAL 15% and you (the book dealer) Ship using Amazon shipping materials , lbels boxes, bagging etc, they have supplied, they then to the consumer mark up about another 15% over that (the mandatory 15% cut on YOUR list price).

    Amazon and Barnes and Noble SELL NO USED BOOKS THEMSELVES, they BROKER them PERIOD.

    Want to buy them cheaper ? Got to bebooks.com Bibliofind.com (one even being owned by B&N) and buy direct from the dealer. Youll get a hell of a lot beter deal. PLUS youll get extended information on the book condition not available on Amazon (Especially important for those tasty first editions).

    Amazon will sell you a book they dont have and dont even know wqhereone is , if they can locat it throught their network Great, if they cant they cancel your order. They offer an average pricing based on the books listed previously of that edition/title.

    How do I know these things ?
    My mom in addition to being a F500 exec owns a Rare book shop.

    Check it out if youere a paper head Snowball Books [snowballbooks.com]

  • Here (Score:3, Informative)

    by Konster ( 252488 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @08:00AM (#3315446)
    Couple of things.

    First and foremost this is about the marketability of new IP. Forget all the inadequate comparisons to car dealerships or RIAA or anything in the same vein.

    Publishers depend upon revenue from sales of new IP. Authors of such IP depend upon such sales to do things like feed themselves and their families and forge out a future for themselves. Without publishers of new IP, the authors of such have no way to earn a living and vice-versa.

    No publisher really cares nor do authors care about the sales of old IP. A year or so out and its old hat anyways.

    The beef here is about Amazon selling used but new IP that returns no profit to them but competes against the sales of that which does turn a profit.

    As an author, I do not wish to see my efforts undermined by a retailer in such a fashion. This is a really good step that benefits both sides of the new IP chain.

    On to reality.

    Publishers don't back the Authors Guild. It isn't a national association of publishers; it's a central point of information for authors (hence the name). It operates independently from publishers, so any comparison to RIAA or such is incorrect. While RIAA acts in its own best interests as a collection of business entities, the AG is not self-serving in this respect.

    Here's the letter written by AG to Amazon (OLD NEWS):

    December 11, 2000

    Mr. Jeffrey P. Bezos
    Chief Executive Officer
    Amazon.com
    1200 12th Avenue S., Suite 1200
    Seattle, WA 98144

    Dear Mr. Bezos:

    We are writing on behalf of the more than 8000 members of the Authors Guild and the 278 member companies of the Association of American Publishers to express our grave concern that Amazon's new method of marketing used copies of recently published titles will significantly harm sales of new copies of those titles.

    At the moment, when customers view information about a title on the Amazon Web site, a blue box links users to a screen where they may buy or sell used copies of that title. To encourage them to click on the blue-box link, Amazon informs them of the number of used copies of the work available for sale and of the lowest price available for those copies. With one mouse click, customers depart the new book's screen and enter the used book Marketplace.

    Some of the used books now available through Amazon Marketplace Sellers are very recently published titles. A quick review of the site reveals that used copies of the following works (among what appears to be thousands of others) are available: Prodigal Summer by Barbara Kingsolver (published October 17), Drowning Ruth by Christina Swartz (published September 27), Me Talk Pretty One Day by David Sedaris (published May); The River King by Alice Hoffman (published July 13), The Blind Assassin by Margaret Atwood (published September 5), The Amber Spyglass by Philip Pullman (published October 10), and Winter's Heart by Robert Jordan (published November 7). For every title not yet available in used form, the blue-box link allows a reader to list it for sale "in 60 seconds."

    As you know, these Marketplace sales earn no payment for the authors and publishers of the books in question. Only the seller and Amazon are paid. These sales are excluded when calculating sales figures for various bestsellers lists, as well as from the publishers' own sales records of their authors' titles. In addition, Amazon does not appear to have taken any precautions to prevent Marketplace users from selling review copies or other promotional copies not intended for resale.

    We understand that Amazon wishes to provide customers with all manner of services including the ability to buy and sell used books. However, as a leader in the bookselling industry, Amazon's sales practices can have a significantly deleterious effect on new book sales. If your aggressive promotion of used book sales becomes popular among Amazon's customers, this service will cut significantly into sales of new titles, directly harming authors and publishers.

    We're all in this business together. Without talented authors producing a large number of new titles every year, Amazon's sales will certainly suffer. If book authors and publishers aren't adequately compensated for their work, however, then more and more writers will be compelled to pursue other creative outlets and professions. For the sake of authors, publishers, readers and Amazon, a compromise must be found that will not discourage writers from writing or consumers from buying new books.

    We believe the compromise is simple and straightforward: restrict the blue-box link to out-of-print and collectible books and list all used book offerings after all new versions of a title are listed. Our members want nothing more than a fair opportunity to earn royalties for their book sales whatever the sales outlet. We hope that Amazon will respect this very reasonable professional goal.

    We are encouraged by your publicly stated commitment not to hurt authors or publishers with your new Marketplace. We welcome the opportunity to discuss other ways to meet that commitment and would be happy to meet with you or your representatives regarding this matter.

    Sincerely,

    Letty Cottin Pogrebin
    President, Authors Guild Patricia S. Schroeder
    President, Assoc. of American Publishers

  • by s390 ( 33540 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @08:03AM (#3315453) Homepage
    Andrew Carnegie was once the richest man in the world, but he dedicated himself - not to extending his steel fortune into monopolies on construction, automobiles, and other durable goods made from steel - but to _public_ access to self-education, information, and knowledge. He literally gave away all of his considerable fortune for this vision.

    He single-handedly funded the establishment of the public libraries all across the United States that have played a large part in the subsequent success of this country over the last century. He believed that improving the lot of his fellow citizens was his obligation, and an honor to achieve. Andrew Carnegie was a truly great man and US patriot.

    Here [clpgh.org] is a brief appreciation. Use Google for more about this great man who funded the libraries that educated the citizens who built this country, defeated the Axis dictators of Europe and Asia in WWII, and stared down the totalitarian dictators in the Cold War. (By the way, the megalomaniac Bill Gates isn't fit to view his grave.)

    But what does this mean for the Authors Guild and their sniveling about Amazon offering used books? Simply this: serious authors (those who aren't just in it for the money) should (and do) measure their success not by royalties, but by how many people read and appreciate their works. They should not care (and the good ones don't) how many people _buy_ their books, but rather, how many people _read_ their books. The wise authors know that if they write well, lots of people will read what they write, and more people over time will buy their new works. It's only marginal authors and (more likely) their publishers who are whingeing at Amazon about the selling of used books online. Trading, lending and borrowing, even giving away used books are all Good Things.

    Now we just need to get the same standards applied for books codified for CDs and DVDs, that is, utterly defeat the RIAA and MPAA attempts at taking over the world.

  • Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @08:20AM (#3315506)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Re:What next... (Score:4, Informative)

    by someone247356 ( 255644 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @08:21AM (#3315511)

    Last I knew in the U.S. (unless there's yet another sneaky law just around the corner) we have something called the "First sale doctrine" it basically boils down to the copyright holder looses the right to say what you can do with a work, (book, CD-ROM, VHS tape, etc.) once they have sold it to you. You can lend it, sell it, give it away, burn it, wallpaper your bathroom, or wipe your bottom with it. The only thing you can't do is make copies and sell them (I think with the NET law you can't make copies and give them away either).

    So a library just has to buy a book like anyone else and they have the right to loan it out as often as the like. No additional charge levied or required. Sometimes a publisher will produce a "library edition" which has a better binding for libraries, and probably cost more.

    That's one of the reasons that e-book publishers are so upset over libraries. They want to license the title, not sell it.

    We've bought into that silliness with software and now they want to push that lucrative, rights withering model to everything else. Licensed music, movies, books. Seems like a real convenient way to get around silly little things like the "First Sale Doctrine" and "Fair Use".

    The problem is that unlike software, or even movies, books have been around near forever and people (especially libraries) have gotten used to actually BUYING books.

    Unlike the disorganized groups of people fighting EULA's and the MPAA/RIAA, libraries are pretty well organized.

    They have the added PR benefit of being real hard to miscatagorize as "evil, thieving, hacker pirates, hell bent on bringing down the American way".

  • by coats ( 1068 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @08:34AM (#3315563) Homepage
    IANAL, but my spouse is :-)

    The law on that point is that the authors have already received all they can expect on the basis of the first sale of the book; they cannot expect nor deserve more. This was codified by the US Supreme Court saying exactly that, back in 1910.

    The theoretics is this: secondary markets (used-X sales, for whatever X you choose) are a characteristic of free markets; attempts to suppress secondary markets are (technically) exercises in fascism.

    The pragmatics are this: for all that Paragraph 1 says that the authors already have theirs, the reality is that probably the publishers got it but the authors never saw it. It makes me sad; an editorial on MediaChannel argues that the habits of publishers would make a good object for antitrust action: see http://www.mediachannel.org/views/oped/bookcontrac t.shtml [mediachannel.org]

  • by RocketJeff ( 46275 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @09:38AM (#3315817) Homepage
    How is the parent to this +5? Rogerborg doesn't know a thing about how books are remaindered or reimbursed for by the publishing companies.

    If Amazon was selling remaindered books, the publishers would sue them so fast it would make their heads spin. The publishers are always on the lookout for people selling remaindered books.

    It's not like it's hard to spot a remaindered book - they don't have covers (that's what is sent back to the publishers for the refund).
  • One Author's Opinion (Score:2, Informative)

    by lindner ( 257395 ) <lindner@inuus.com> on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @10:22AM (#3316104) Homepage
    The guild is way off base here. Authors actually can make more money by using Amazon's associates program.

    I recently co-authored the mod_perl Developer's Cookbook [modperlcookbook.org] and we link to Amazon for our sales. I've also sold some of my collection through the Amazon marketplace, so I've seen both sides.

    Amazon's commission structure is simply the best. We average about 10% of the purchase price on referals, plus 5% of anything else the customer buys in that session. So far these commissions are almost outpacing actual royalties from total sales.

    There have been some used books available for sale, but those have not bothered me one bit. Buying used might save some money, but it is a less convenient option and most people still opt to buy new. (For example you cannot get a better shipping cost for multiple items.)

    The Author's Guild should focus it's efforts on getting authors a bigger royalty in the first place, and stamping out the nasty liability clauses in most contracts these days. See this article [greenspun.com] by Philip Greenspun for why these contracts suck.
  • Re:It hurts us (Score:3, Informative)

    by Stonehand ( 71085 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @11:16AM (#3316610) Homepage
    From a NYT article [nytimes.com] on the same protest:

    (emphasis mine)


    "We asked could we at least talk about when something could become available as a used book? Could we maybe wait three months after the book was published?" said Patricia Schroeder, president of the Association of American Publishers. "The biggest problem is that it is legal, I think. I wring my hands, pound my desk and say, `Aargh.' " (Most individual publishers are reluctant to criticize Amazon publicly for fear of alienating an important customer.)


    Patricia needs to realize that books aren't special, and that if the books are a commodity that are to be consumed rapidly and then sold, then their business model should probably take that into account.

    Mind you, I practically NEVER sell books, but then I'm really a packrat in human form. 'sides, some of the books took a while to get, like a good translation of "Romance of the Three Kingdoms", and that one's a keeper.
  • by coats ( 1068 ) on Wednesday April 10, 2002 @01:56PM (#3317984) Homepage
    ...what if book publishers start licensing books to consumers, the same way music, software and movies are licensed.
    That is what the publisher tried to do in the original case: the SC said "it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it swims like a duck. It is a sale, not a license."

    Correction: It should have been 1908 for the Supreme Court First Sale Doctrine decision. More precisely, it's Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908). See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=210&invol=339 [findlaw.com]

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...