Used Books, a $2B industry, gives Publishers the Willies!

Gee, no kidding.

That doesn't really solve the issue of people preferring to buy used rather than new.

Monsanto is working on a prototype.

I think one out of 12 books I buy are new, the rest are used.

http://www.gemmbooks.com/

Fucking dipshit lives on another planet than I do I guess

If I have a textbook for a course that isn't available for a reasonable price used, I don't buy it. The only exception thus far has been the casebook for my management class, one of those fucking $90 spiral-bound xerox bullshit coursebook jobbies with the fucking professor's name and the course number on the posterboard cover.

Stands to reason that if you already have the textbook you wouldn't buy it used, numbnuts.

Books aren't created used, of course. Any used book should theoretically have been a royalty-producing new book at some time. (Perhaps not reviewers' copies?)

The library has long been bemoaned in the book industry until they realized that for some titles, libraries are their only customers. Academic books a-go-go!

Oh, wait.

Amazon is a much better proposition for sellers. People on ebay pay zip for books, people on Amazon just click "used" by default unless they're buying a bunch of stuff. FYI, I put up 7 or 8 books monday night. Tuesday, I woke up to a fresh sale of 1 book, Wednesday I woke up to another sale and today I woke up to the third sale. I already made $24 off 3 shitty books that I couldn't sell on ebay.

Casuistry OTM with books not being created used.

Along with rising sales figures for used books, there's greater competition among re-sellers. Thrift stores have raised their prices extremely high in many areas, in the past few years, directly because of re-selling online. It makes it hard to make any profit from re-selling unless you're really up on the market. Those independent merchants keep the used prices up high and the market doesn't sag because of them. On the other hand it does from regular people just tossing their own second-hand purchases out there casually. A lot of common books that used to be profitable aren't any more. So it's all down to knowlege of the market if you want to do it for a business, and the independent merchants are not the threat. The threat is publishers overprinting and overpricing in the first place.

rainbow bum, do you read the Amazon 3P Sellers' message boards? What a snake pit!

Now authors are getting the willies...

Novelists Inc. Discourages Readers From Discovering Authors; Wants To Cripple Used Book Sellers
Written on December 30th, 2008 by Matt. Filed under Scribtotum. Tagged with Books, publishing, used books.

Yes, that’s a deliberately inflammatory headline up there, designed to rile the folks over at Ninc and get their (and your) attention. It’s also not inaccurate.

Here’s the deal: Novelists Inc. is a networking / advocacy organization dedicated to the needs of “multi-published novelists.” They claim to be non-profit but I can’t confirm this because their site doesn’t include any information about their non-profit status (or a terms of use or privacy policy.)
Recently, an article in their Writer’s Resources section has been getting a little buzz. There’s no date on the article, but the buzz started around December 25, 2008. The article, “Used Book Sales,” is a position paper and proposition to amend U.S. copyright law to require used book retailers to pay a “secondary sale” fee to publishers any time the used book retailer sells a used book within two years of initial publication.

Now, I have no idea if Ninc has any lobbying power or if the article is simply wishful thinking on their part. It doesn’t really matter, because the idea is poorly considered and ultimately harmful to the book industry, publishing, authors and readers. I’m strongly against this proposal. If you’re an author, I hope you’ll have the foresight to recognize you should be against it, too.

What Ninc Wants

Ninc sites the United States Constitution’s Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 as the focus of their position. Here’s the clause in its entirety:

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

The key phrase here is “exclusive Right to their respective Writings.” It’s my understanding that this allows an author to control how their works are used through agreements and licenses. For example, when an author signs a book contract, they’re permitting the publisher to use their work in a limited fashion for a limited time and in return, the author is compensated.

The software industry got around this "problem" by redefining the sale of software into the licensing of software, even where the end user didn't reap a single benefit from the software maker after the licensing agreement was made.

Just think how delighted book buyers would be with purchasing a book-custodianship license instead of owning their copy outright. The very thought makes me want to sharpen my knives and go stalking the people who are floating this idea. As a book reader and collector, I would go on strike. Permanently.

Fucking stupid shit makes me mad.

There was just a story about used bookselling online in the New York Times, too.

this is how capitalism ends. nobody owns anything.

conversely, artists are going to have to be like anyone else and not keep getting paid for work they did last year. waitresses don't get royalties on those eggs and bacon they brought you yesterday.

(nb i actually got a tiny royalty check this year and it was nice, but cmon.)

If we don't sell and trade these 100 billion books we have sitting around, what are supposed to do? Burn them for fuel? Make cabins out of them?

And why is this about the "publisher" not the author. I read some ridiculous Kindle review on DailyKos where the comment section was taken over by some flak from this concept, preaching people should feel guilty for buying used books.

When this shit turns up all over the internet at the same time, whatever.

What happens at garage sales? Maybe the gun show exemption will work here too.

I feel guilty for buying used books. I feel like I'm depriving the authors of something they have a real right to: my money in exchange for what they've provided. On the other hand, this only bothers me to the extent that my purchases of used and "bargain" books overwhelm my purchases of new books. And lately, all I buy are used books and cut-outs. Money's tight, and that's just the way it is. So, yeah; I do feel guilty. I can't deny that I'm doing wrong by my own standards, even though I'm not violating the law.

Went to McKay Used Books & Everything Else while in Knoxville over the weekend. Got a huge bag of stuff, paid $25 for it. I think the most expensive item was Philosophy & the Simpsons: The D'oh of Homer which was $7. Mostly is was like $1 or $1.25 for Brian Aldiss or Alfred Bester novels(some of the hardbacks were cheaper than the softcovers!)

Used books are a stronger form of crack for me than used record shops ever were.

Also, with product like all those Philip K Dick TPBs getting released with horrid covers and running $12-$14 for a 180-page story that originally sold for 35 cents, I have no problem at all consuming used items.

NEXT THEY WILL MOVE ON THE LIBRARIES!

I don't think I've ever bought a PKD book new (actually that's not true, I have three or four Carrol/Graf PB versions that I got new for $4 or so like ten years ago.)

"(some of the hardbacks were cheaper than the softcovers!)"

This is often true with sci-fi stuff, because the hardcovers are often book club editions and tend to lack the really cool covers from the original paperback editions.

I have trouble imagining a very broad segment of novelists feeling much affected by this issue. There are obvious reasons why publishers would be in favor of it, yes. But when I try to imagine novelists who'd have a big stake in this, it's kind of difficult. Fewer and fewer expect their primary income to come through books; fewer and fewer would be "losing" enough money on this to be too aggrieved about it (you'd think); and the few for whom it's really monetarily significant tend to be doing alright from the beginning (it's hard to imagine many people in that position who aren't just happy to be able to make a living writing novels, period). What type of novelist has a ton at stake in this? It seems like the kind of position that would somehow crop up collectively, but no individual would bother taking. (Not that that invalidates it, but it does seem to say something.)

Wait -- I can imagine this being an issue for some of your more successful genre writers, I suppose. But it still seems like it would be a narrow stripe.

This seems like a drop in the bucket whichever way you cut.

it.

Fewer and fewer expect their primary income to come through books; fewer and fewer would be "losing" enough money on this to be too aggrieved about it (you'd think)

This may be true, I don't know, but what about changing circumstances? If the readable-paper industry as a whole is making less money, and if used books & remainders are taking an ever growing share of the pie, and if there's just less money to go around period, and if a broad market for new novels is being squeezed down to a small shelf of "guaranteed" bestsellers as a result... Do those factors then make this a bigger issue for novelists in general? We understand that successful musicians can easily make most of their income from touring, licensing and non-musical merch sales, but is there really a viable equivalent for writers? University jobs, magazine pieces and the lecture circuit, I guess.

I mean, I have no problem with used book sales, none at all. But I can see as how they might take a big bite out of new book sales, especially in a failing economy.

I think you have an over-inflated idea of how much money most author's make on new book sales.

And again why not go after libraries? Or people who lend books to friends? THAT's WORSE THAN FREAKIN' NAPSTER!

I say if publishers really want to be that exclusive, they will find themselves in very exclusive company with few, if any, customers to bother their exclusivity.

They could publish hand-illuminated, hand-calligraphed, jewel-encrusted single copies of books to the extremely wealthy. It seemed to work out for them pre-Gutenberg, didn't it? Oh, wait. Were there any actual publishing businesses pre-Gutenberg?

I don't have an over-inflated idea how much money authors make on new book sales, and I'm not suggesting that anybody needs to go after anybody. I'm suggesting that used book sales probably do have a real impact on new book sales, especially given internet pricing/distribution and a tanking economy) and that this in turn probably affects how much money some authors make. Like I said, I personally feel that I'm depriving working contemporary authors of something when I buy only ever buy their books as remainders or second-hand copies. My issue, of course, but not just a figment of my imagination.

^^ put an ( in there somewhere

Contenderizer, yeah, that's why I'm saying it makes perfect sense for the publishing industry to care about this, or try to find ways to position themselves in terms of it. But in terms of individual novelists (since the group referred to up there is for novelists), it was hard for me to picture the type of writer who would feel they had a ton at stake with this. I dunno: maybe it's different for certain types of career genre writers, or maybe for some people it's more of an issue of keeping publishers flush and being able to demonstrate their sales value when the next book comes around. But it's hard, for me, to picture of a specimen of the average novelist who'd feel this was a big issue.

Not that I know a broad cross-section of novelists, or anything: maybe I'm just unimaginative!

Again I think the think party most hurt by this is publishers. The "something" that you are depriving author's of is in most cases pretty small (seriously seriously ridiculously small if my conversations with writers are to believed) and if it isn't small they are probably making enough money already (off of new sales, advances, bonuses, appearances, whatnot) that you should be worrying about something else. But feel free to stress out about it.

it was hard for me to picture the type of writer who would feel they had a ton at stake with this.

-- nabisco

The novelist equivalent of Metallica and/or Garth Brooks; i.e., pawns & assholes. Not so hard to picture, but awful hard to sympathize with.

But when I try to imagine novelists who'd have a big stake in this, it's kind of difficult. Fewer and fewer expect their primary income to come through books; fewer and fewer would be "losing" enough money on this to be too aggrieved about it (you'd think); and the few for whom it's really monetarily significant tend to be doing alright from the beginning (it's hard to imagine many people in that position who aren't just happy to be able to make a living writing novels, period). What type of novelist has a ton at stake in this? It seems like the kind of position that would somehow crop up collectively, but no individual would bother taking. (Not that that invalidates it, but it does seem to say something.)

But wouldn't anything that massively cuts into publishing revenue be exactly the kind of thing that means fewer authors can make a living from their novels?

If anything, I'd guess that a novelist would be hesitant to take a stand on this for fear of looking like a jerk and alienating the very kind of people he needs to buy his book. It'd be a bit of a bind, I'd think.

In any case, I think this needs to be discussed as a practical matter, not an ethical one. There's nothing illegal or unethical about buying used books. But if the used book trade continues to grow and actually cuts into the new book trade, this will in fact lead to fewer books being published and/or less money spent promoting them and/or less money for authors. And I think turning this into an "author" vs. "publishing industry" dichotomy is silly and childish. Authors are part of the publishing industry -- they depend fully on it for income and for distribution of their works. This evil-conglomerate-taking-advantage-of-innocent-artist myth is getting tiresome.

Now maybe there's nothing that can be done, and maybe doing anything that would impact the used book trade would come at too great a cost to be worth it. Sometimes I even think the industry is publishing too many books. But you can't demand everything as cheaply as possible and not expect it to have an impact on anyone.

Again I think the think party most hurt by this is publishers.

― Alex in SF

Don't want to get all argue-y, but doesn't what hurts publishers necessarily also hurt authors? Not just in terms of per-copy rates (which may be negligible as you say, Alex), but also in terms of publishers' willingness/ability to take risks, to publish & support on faith or for art's sake, to field broad stables rather than a lean core of "proven winners"?

edit: what hurting said

"but also in terms of publishers' willingness/ability to take risks, to publish & support on faith or for art's sake, to field broad stables rather than a lean core of "proven winners"?"

Eh this battle is long lost. You can make an argument that used books allow independent bookstores to flourish in an environment that might otherwise favor corporate giants like Barnes & Noble, Borders, etc (who get deep discounts on new books) and I know in SF there are a number of authors who deal directly with those bookshops, ignoring the traditional distributor/publishing rackets entirely.

Eh this battle is long lost. You can make an argument that used books allow independent bookstores to flourish in an environment that might otherwise favor corporate giants like Barnes & Noble, Borders, etc.

― Alex in SF

I can and do make exactly that argument, and I don't see how it contradicts what I've been saying in this thread. Would add that though the battle might be lost, that doesn't mean it can't get loster, worser. Again, I'm not suggesting that used book sales should be banned or curtailed or even regretted -- just thinkin baot the consequences.

Hurting, you're right -- I think I said it in passing, above, but career writers have every reason to want to see publishers flush with money.

I think the secret question I'm wondering about here doesn't even really have anything to do with secondhand books. It's that ... I don't think many novelists make their living primarily from writing novels. Some of those who do manage that seem well enough established that it's hard to picture them putting loads of energy into the issue of secondhand book sales. Somewhere in there, though, must be a band of writers who do get a reasonable share of income from books, and for whom secondhand sales make a significant dent in what they could be bringing in. I'm trying to picture in my head who or what type that might be! The best I can think of is successful career producers of things like mysteries -- not the bestselling ones, but those who make a steady living off it. I can imagine it really mattering in that situation.

But really I suppose if you're a Franzen of a Chabon or something, you could still sit up a few nights thinking about a good chunk of money you'd have if it weren't for secondhand sales and book-lending -- this might be a dumb question I have here!

xxpost But I'd argue you are thinking about those consequences in a very limited way. Let's say that I buy new books, but when I'm done with them I just box em up and let them collect dust. This doesn't hurt the author, true, but it doesn't really help them either. Let's say I sell those books to a used bookstore and then I use that money/credit to buy more new books. Isn't that churn actually plus for the author/publishers? Especially since the presumption that most used book purchasers would buy more new books if used copies weren't available is a fallacy (esp. in the face of a failing economy.) There are plenty of ways to obtain reading material (libraries, borrowing, free books on the web) which involve not buying books at all.

Also used book purchasers might just READ LESS ack!

Well Alex to be fair what they're suggesting is just skimming some secondary money off the used sales, not getting rid of the practice

Thing is, nabisco, when I buy used books and remainders, I don't always (or often) buy what I might have bought from a well-stocked selection of new books. I buy the most interesting whatever available. So it's not a one-for-one thing. My purchase of a used copy of some half-intriguing curiousity comes out of Roberto Bolano's pockets much more than it does the actual author's. If we assume that there's a fixed buyer fund available for books, every $ spend on used books comes out of the new books bottom line.

really having trouble with "curiosity" this week

I'm trying to get my arms around nabisco's hypothetical genre author. I imagine a Lawrence Block type who looks at the impact of used book sales on his balance sheet and realizes he is going to have to create a few new series characters if he is going to continue living in the style he is accustomed to.

and Mr. Bolano, he daid, so never mind

"weren't available" was a bad turn of phrase. Let's say were "more expensive".

Contenderizer, per what I just posted to Alex, that doesn't really make a difference. I mean, hypothetical-Chabon doesn't care if you're only buying his book because it's $5.99 used, he just wants his hypothetical "secondary" cut of that. You don't want the book enough to buy it new, so he doesn't get as much of a cut as he'd have gotten at full price -- same system.

"If we assume that there's a fixed buyer fund available for books, every $ spend on used books comes out of the new books bottom line."

I think this assumption sort of flies in the face of my own purchasing habits frankly.

As far as who the hypothetical author might be, nabisco answered his own question pretty well. Applies just as much to semi-bestselling mainstream authors who write slowly and who don't deliver huge blockbusters (or who don't do so often): Lethem & Murakami & so on. Folks whose books you can find in any used bookstore, who make solid living from them, and who seem to attract the attention of habitual book-buyers. Agree with Alex, though, that used book sales perhaps help such others as much as or more than they hurt them, keeping the name out there, keeping readers involved.

I think this assumption sort of flies in the face of my own purchasing habits frankly.

― Alex in SF

Maybe our arguments are rooted in our respective buying habits/financial situations?

I hardly ever buy books, even used -- why would I when I can borrow whatever I want and get it delivered to me at work thanks to an awesome interlibrary loan system. So these types of arguments are always funny to me.

I buy most of my books used because I'm broke, but I have felt bad about it on occasion. I see this as more of a problem with inflated prices of signed books on the second hand market though. I used to go to signings a lot; I rarely if ever sold anything I got signed (okay, I sold my signed anne rice books) but it's always disheartening to be behind some obvious dealer who dumps 8 mylar-covered first editions on the table and doesn't want them personalized.

random thoughts. Buying remainders helps Publishers out by helping them cut losses on their bad decisions. Helps authors by extension (no, but the argument that what is good for publishers is good for novelists) ?

This is all theoretical because the right to sell something you've bought comes from (I think) a high court decision that a new copyright rule shouldn't be able to overturn. How would such a rule be enforced? Registration of second hand dealers, inspections of books and shelves? mandatory computer bar-code registers?

Smart mid-level mystery writers are already supplementing their income from specialty publisher editions collectibles sold to hardcore fans. and restricting signing multiple not purchased on site copies and Advance Reading Copies.

I guess I do buy new hardcovers from my favorite authors as a sign of respect and to have clean first editions, but most of my purchases are used.

When I was working at a large chain book store, we threw out hundreds of paperbacks a week because they were a few weeks old and we needed the shelf space. Threw into the trash for credit from the publisher. Publishers and authors have bigger problems than used sales to deal with.

"Especially since the presumption that most used book purchasers would buy more new books if used copies weren't available is a fallacy (esp. in the face of a failing economy.) There are plenty of ways to obtain reading material (libraries, borrowing, free books on the web) which involve not buying books at all."

Of course they would buy more new books. There have been dozens of times when I've walked into a store, nearly bought a new book and then thought "Oh, but i can probably just find a used copy through Amazon sellers." Same thing for almost buying new copies on Amazon. It's possible that I buy MORE books than I would since I can get them cheaper, but I'm sure I'd buy more new books if I couldn't get them used. The library thing doesn't hold -- it's much more of a pain than getting used books shipped to door. And the existence of sites like Amazon that aggregate dozens and dozens of used options for each book are a real game-changer -- the difference between that and ye olde booke shoppe is sort of like the difference between blank cassettes and torrent sites.

Good point about Amazon, it seems to me that the publishers should be able to try and work out individual incentive contracts with Amazon to mutually profit from used sales of recent works without involving the federal government.

I think our experiences/habits are far too different to agree here (also don't see how libraries are a pain, but going into bookstores aren't?!?!?)

I agree that web aggregates are a bit of a game-changer in terms of being able to find stuff easier used, but given the high cost of shipping (nearly $4!) I find myself still doing most of my bookshopping at used shops which end up being considerably cheaper. The one thing though I've noticed is the amount you can save on over-priced college texts is just ridiculous (even with the high shipping costs.)

the existence of sites like Amazon that aggregate dozens and dozens of used options for each book are a real game-changer -- the difference between that and ye olde booke shoppe is sort of like the difference between blank cassettes and torrent sites.

This OTM. The "old model" (thriving market in used books from which neither publishers nor authors directly benefit) ruffles few feathers... So long as things don't change too much. But when there's this sudden, almost monstrous alteration to the basic fabric of the universe, people, understandably, start to get nervous. And while such nervousness isn't always warranted, it isn't necessarily foolish, either. The impact of Amazon and the like on brick-and-mortar new booksellers has been massive. No reason to think it and like entities couldn't very rapidly upend the game, re: used vs. new books.

That seems to me to be a different argument though (the argument that the web is going to kill everything!)

Fourthed about Amazon -- when the purchase of a used book is exactly as much trouble as the purchase of a new one, and they're both always right there ... things change.

I really don't know that talk about different habits when buying new vs. used make a huge difference here. Sometimes I go to (new) bookstores and purchase the things I most want. Sometimes I go to (used) bookstores and purchase things I want if they're cheap. I actually can understand why, if the authors in that first category are getting X% of new-book price, the authors in that second category would want, say, X% of used-book price -- it's not what I'd have paid full price for, but they've still produced books I'm interested in enough to put down money for.

That seems to me to be a different argument though (the argument that the web is going to kill everything!)

But that's not a separate argument -- the article is specifically about the new nexus of the longstanding used book industry and the internet.

There's a popular counter-fallacy to this that new technology never harms any artistic industry/economy. In music, for example, everyone likes to bring up sheet music and home-taping -- see, the music industry survived just fine! But DJs, CD changers and iTunes did reduce demand for live musicians in clubs, music software and drum machines did reduce the demand for studio musicians, and cheap recording technology has reduced the bread-and-butter work of engineers. It IS probably harder to make a living as a musician now than it was a few decades ago (of course there may also be vastly increased competition for all I know). All of this may be inevitable, but you can't pretend everything's same as it ever was.

There's a popular counter-fallacy to this that new technology never harms any artistic industry/economy.

― Hurting 2

Often expressed as indignation against the idea that someone might legislate social change in the face of NT.

That reminds me, I was just reading how a lot of musicians were put out of work by the talking pictures.

At the same time there IS something sort of sleazy, at a gut level, about the idea of publishers getting a cut of used book sales, and there's also something just hard to conceptualize about it. What am I buying when I buy a book? Is it the thing or the ideas contained within, and can I own full rights to transfer the thing while only partial rights to transfer the ideas?

What am I buying when I buy a book? Is it the thing or the ideas contained within, and can I own full rights to transfer the thing while only partial rights to transfer the ideas?

― Hurting

This reminds me of a recent thread in which people disagreed with me.

I was just reading how a lot of musicians were put out of work by the talking pictures.

Plus people who couldn't talk so good.

Nicole so OTM upthread. Nearly all the books I've purchased in the last few years have been Folio Society type things.

My house is overcrowded enough already -- the only books I collect are things I'm going to refer back to, like cookbooks.

Which I usually buy off of ebay because publishers charge crazy expensive prices for decent ones, so I guess I am part of the problem.

"There's a popular counter-fallacy to this that new technology never harms any artistic industry/economy."

Uh no that's not an argument that I've heard anyone make. The argument is that shit changes and it sucks when your chosen profession becomes outmoded and marginalized, but them's the breaks. I wonder if there was this much hue and cry for horse-and-buggy carriage drivers in the early 1900s?

I guess maybe there's a lingering sense that authors and musicians are still of more value to society than horse and buggy drivers? But maybe that's arguable.

Yeah but authors and musicians aren't actually going anywhere (I bet there are more of both now than ever before) whereas horse and buggy drivers were just plain fucked.

I bet there are more of both now than ever before

Most likely true, although there may be more half-assed ones and fewer making a living at it.

Avoid the half-assed ones and things is tough all over.

Looks like Donald Westlake will not have to contend with this problem.