THE Group for Authors! discussion
Publishing and Promoting
>
Amazon returns -- we need to take a stand
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
M.A.
(new)
Jul 21, 2011 08:08PM
To which I would add that a healthy resale market might help to keep the price of ebooks from being forced lower and lower and lower, as is currently happening: those who want it NOW pay full price; those who want it cheap have to wait for used copies.
reply
|
flag
Larry writes: "...Amazon's one-loan-per-sale policy is only if the author consents. There is an exception under copyright law for prior permission from the copyright holder."Strictly speaking, Larry, that is not true. Allowing loans is in the small print of the 70% royalty language. If one's publisher wants 70% and does not notice the small print, the author is committed without consent or permission.
This happened to me with Mating Net. I would never have consented, if I had been asked. I wasn't asked.
When I queried New Concepts Publishing about why Lending was enabled on Mating Net, they told me that they hadn't agreed to it. Then, they looked into the fine print, and told me that nothing could be done.
So, "consent" was retroactive, and "negative". I wasn't asked. I didn't give it. I didn't authorize my publisher to give it.
M.A. wrote: ""MA.
1. According to an August 2010 ruling by the outgoing Register of copyrights, it is lawful to strip DRM for ones own use.
2. Visit a pirate forum, and you will find detailed instructions on how to strip DRM.
DRM is not the answer. Honest users hate it. DRM drives honest users to pirate sites. DRM is no deterrent to dishonest users.
As for your replies to my point about eBay, you totally missed the point. If that is what happens when resale is illegal, it will happen exponentially more if resale were legal.
You cannot have a situation where anybody who purchases one e-book may make a living for the rest of their lives duplicating copies and selling them.
3. If you are talking about reselling ONE e-book --that one legally purchased-- ONCE and not keeping a copy, that is already legal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Have you read the DMCA on loc.gov?
M.A. wrote: "To which I would add that a healthy resale market might help to keep the price of ebooks from being forced lower and lower and lower, as is currently happening: those who want it NOW pay full price..."M.A., I think there's a fallacy to your argument, but it's something that springs from the "Old" mindset of all of us. In past history, immediately after a product was produced, it became "old" because of wear and tear, coupled with physical deterioration, i.e. paper became folded, book edges worn, etc. In today's cypber publishing that doesn't happen. The code that makes up the story never "wears out" and thus the product doesn't age. It remains new forever. Just my viewpoint.
Rowena wrote: "Larry writes: "...Amazon's one-loan-per-sale policy is only if the author consents. There is an exception under copyright law for prior permission from the copyright holder."Strictly speaking, La..."
Rowena, I think you have some serious rights issues with your publishers, NOT with Amazon. Not only is the loan provision spelled out in Amazon's policy, it's a VERY CLEAR and mandatory part of the publisher's entering your book for distribution on Amazon. It warns you that loaning will result in a lower commission and, as I recall, even shows the commission calculations.
I suggest you reread the rights you assigned to the actual publisher (you could have published the book yourself and earned the full Amazon commission). Unless those rights are specified, you may have a case, but your argument is with the publisher(s) NOT with Amazon. Just my thoughts.
Rowena:I am not advocating "a situation where anybody who purchases one e-book may make a living for the rest of their lives duplicating copies and selling them." I am talking about selling one's personal copy forward and not keeping it for oneself. You keep jumping from legal to illegal, from legitimate to piracy. They are two different things.
Also, what evidence do you have to support your blanket statement "DRM is not the answer. Honest users hate it. DRM drives honest users to pirate sites. DRM is no deterrent to dishonest users"? This sounds parroted, not researched.
DRM doesn't drive me to pirate copies of anything. I don't hate it. And it might interest you to know that indie sensation John Locke uses DRM on his Kindle books, and not only has he sold a million books on Amazon but there are way fewer sites pirating his books than there are Amanda Hocking's, who does not use DRM. (And I suspect the pirated copies of Hocke's books are via Smashwords who don't apply DRM.)
J.K. Rowling has set up her own website to sell e-copies of Harry Potter and she's using an even stealthier form of DRM: watermarking. It doesn't prevent copying but it encodes the file with the buyer's information, so if pirated copies are later found on the net they can be traced to source. Do you think this will stop honest people from buying Harry Potter, or the thieves?
MA,It's like having a law. Worth nothing unless enforced. When they start levying severe fines and prison sentences then it will change.
Larry wrote: ""Larry, when you say "Not only is the loan provision spelled out in Amazon's policy, it's a VERY CLEAR and mandatory part of the publisher's entering your book for distribution on Amazon" are you talking about what it says now or what it said last November, what it said in 2010, or before Kindle existed?
Look at a discussion from 05/02/11
http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums...
These ladies don't seem able to find any Lending Enabled Kindle books.
I have serious rights issues with Amazon, and have had since 2005. Amazon itself has violated my copyright twice of its own doing, and at least once through a misunderstanding with one of my publishers (not a publisher of my ebooks).
Therefore, unlike most authors, I have been watching what Amazon does, and how it announces changes in its existing contracts with copyright owners for quite some time.
What will be interesting is if it turns out that Kindles that are on the 35% rate (which do not have Lending enabled) turn out to be lendable from Kindle to Kindle nonetheless.
M.A. wrote: "Rowena:I am not advocating "a situation where anybody who purchases one e-book may make a living for the rest of their lives duplicating copies and selling them." I am talking about selling one's..."
In that case, you are advocating for a situation that is already legal.
As I already said.
As for JK Rowling, the thieves already have non-watermarked copies of the Harry Potter books.
Larry wrote: "Rowena,you were so right! I went to one site that had 250 comic books on sale and a disclaimer that they were all in the public domain. Since some dealt with World War II topics. I sent off a l..."
They appear still to be in business, Larry. They are selling ebooks, too.
