Bravo, Cory!

What makes you think your post is less eloquent, mensagirl? You both wrote well. My thoughts:

First, it's kinda late in the day for the Author's Guild to discover that Amazon sells used books.

Second, I would not advise anyone to buy their used books through Amazon, but that's hardly the Author's Guild's business.

Third, long live the Doctrine of First Sale, and thank you Cory for putting a name on it.

Fourth, I'd say that if there were no used books, the changes in my reading habits would come out as a wash. I'd be more likely - but not much more likely - to buy a given book new because I couldn't get it used. But I'd be rather less likely to buy such a book on spec because I wouldn't be able to sell it if I decided not to keep it. Finances are, as both of you have observed, critical. The AG's fallacy is in thinking they can just squeeze customers without having any other effects.

My guess is, the AG has gotten infected by the "one user only" policy of electronic material. Next, they'll be outraged by the existence of public libraries. (You saw Ruben Bolling's cartoon on that, right?)

Bravo to you too, mensagirl! You both make compelling points.

I love used books and used bookstores myself, and still buy new books all the time (it can be problem, actually). But I buy books on half.com and eBay (one and the same now, of course) that I would not have bought otherwise. I try stuff out. I discover new authors. And I go on to buy more by those authors, often new, and to recommend them to other readers.

Here's my letter:

"Yeah! No more used books! And get rid of libraries too while you're at it!"

I think there are several good reasons to avoid patronizing Amazon. Principally, I'd prefer to see sales go to local independent bookstores.

But that they sell used books next to new ones isn't anywhere on my list.

yipyop and Meriadoc you're joking about publishers going after libraries, but it's really happening: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-530263.html?legacy=zdnn

One SF&F author I know has a plea to his readers on his web page. He not only wants them to buy New, but isn't comfortable with the idea of _libraries._

AG has at times petitioned for royalty fees paid by libraries -- which Canada already has.

Great post, mensagirl!

Judith Berman has an excellent article on her site about the aging of SF readership. I've corresponded with her about this as well. I think you've hit the nail on the head when you talk about the cost barrier for younger readers.

When I was a kid, (early 70s) I could buy a bottle of pop and some candy and a book or two with my allowance which was just a few dollars then.

A candy bar or soda cost about the same as a book or comic book then. Today a bottle of soda or candy bar at 7-11 costs about a dollar. Books cost $7. Comics $3 or more.

I think this has a great deal to do with the aging of SF readers. Basic economics.

Ms. Berman points out another economic problem with SF is in the short story market. The rates paid there haven't changed in, what, six decades?

Kermit

While I certainly appreciate Cory's POV on this issue, I think it should be acknowledged that TAG is merely asking its members to refrain from hosting links to Amazon on their websites. That's all. Compliance is completely voluntary, as is membership in TAG - it is not a union, or other type of mandated membership organization. Hey, I like (and buy) used books, but I would not expect *all* authors to feel likewise, and I certainly would not expect them to support Amazon through linking if they felt negatively towards the practice of used book sales.

And please, lets not bring up used bookstores and libraries. I think that we all implicitly understand that the leveraging power of the internet has a far greater impact upon the distribution of used books than the dusty old bookstores with their haphazard title availability, or local libraries with their limited collections. The web removes many if not all of the "barriers of inconvenience" that limited the impact of libraries and used bookstores on the average author's income.

No one is arguing against the existence of the first sale doctrine. But likewise, no one should argue against the right of authors to link to whatever bookselling sites they wish (including Amazon). If an author feels that used book sales hurt, he may omit such links. If he feels that used book sales help bring new readers to his work, then he can show his support by including links to Amazon, Half.com, etc.

I think that TAG (purposefully or otherwise) has managed to focus attention on an important issue, which shall become even more important if DRM-governed digital content should ever catch on in the book environment.

> While I certainly appreciate Cory's POV on this issue, I think
> it should be acknowledged that TAG is merely asking its members
> to refrain from hosting links to Amazon on their websites.
> That's all. Compliance is completely voluntary, as is
> membership in TAG - it is not a union, or other type of mandated
> membership organization. Hey, I like (and buy) used books, but
> I would not expect *all* authors to feel likewise, and I
> certainly would not expect them to support Amazon through
> linking if they felt negatively towards the practice of used
> book sales.

TAG did more than ask writers to stop linking to Amazon, it did so through a campaign of FUD that was hardly a quiet mention of Amazon's practice. Rather, it was a damning polemic that indicted Amazon for selling used books. I don't argue that TAG is trying to ban Amazon, but they ARE trying to muscle Amazon out of selling used books (else, why the action?)
> And please, lets not bring up used bookstores and libraries. I
> think that we all implicitly understand that the leveraging
> power of the internet has a far greater impact upon the
> distribution of used books than the dusty old bookstores with
> their haphazard title availability, or local libraries with
> their limited collections. The web removes many if not all of
> the "barriers of inconvenience" that limited the impact of
> libraries and used bookstores on the average author's income.

Please re-read my letter. I make a point of explaining this very thing, and address why it is good for writers.

> No one is arguing against the existence of the first sale
> doctrine. But likewise, no one should argue against the right
> of authors to link to whatever bookselling sites they wish
> (including Amazon). If an author feels that used book sales
> hurt, he may omit such links. If he feels that used book sales
> help bring new readers to his work, then he can show his support
> by including links to Amazon, Half.com, etc.

TAG *is* arguing against the social value of the Doctrine of First Sale, and has done so historically.

To sum up:

TAG released a statement calling on authors to do one thing, filled with their polemic. I released my own, which answered their polemic. Amazon called on others to do the same. This is a marketplace of ideas -- what's the issue?

I've been peeved at the extremism of the Author's Guild's stance. I'm a member. When they sent their first letter, I thought, whoa, you're going after Amazon.com, but all other stores that sell new and used side by side are okay? Also, the real issue is review copies and uncorrected page proofs. Some folks make a good side living selling these. I know some people who have made tens of thousands a year by selling off these editions they received as academic or media book reviewers. Publishers sometimes spatter the landscape with free books in the hope of ink, spending thousands of dollars in distribution instead of using that same money to do a focused campaign that would count.

Thus authors suffer twofold: no marketing budget, because funds are wasted on books to people who don't care (it must cost $15 to $20 to send each book out when you count staff time, postage, and raw goods); and with the books sold In advance of the actual publication date deterring purchasers of new editions who buy the uncorrected page proofs or reviewer's copies that are specifically not intended for this.

Take a trip to the Strand, and you think that basically every review copy in New York City winds up in their stacks.

Edited by author 04-16-2002 11:45 AM
>TAG did more than ask writers to stop linking to Amazon, it did so through a campaign of FUD that was hardly a quiet mention of Amazon's practice. Rather, it was a damning polemic that indicted Amazon for selling used books.

Really? Where's the link to the "damning polemic"? Everything I've seem so far from TAG seemed pretty reasonably argued, and certainly did not constitute a campaign of FUD. And please show me where TAG has advocated against first sale - I would be very interested to read about this, if it exists.

>I don't argue that TAG is trying to ban Amazon, but they ARE trying to muscle Amazon out of selling used books

Nice argument - since *no one* is arguing that TAG is trying to ban Amazon, why mention it unless you are trying to make that implication? Somehow, I really doubt that a small advocacy organization like TAG has the power to "muscle Amazon" out of anything.

I noticed that the only link you provided with this story was to Jeff Bezos' email to Amazon Marketplace sellers.
Bezos: "This group [TAG}...is the same organization that from time to time has advocated charging public libraries royalties on books they loan out."

Really, Jeff? Care to provide specifics? The facts: Approx *15* years ago (that is not a misprint) TAG supported an authors' lending right. This is a minor, government-funded royalty paid to authors of books borrowed from libraries. Most first-world countries have such a right. In this scheme, government pay these royalties, which a usually a few cents per use, as part of their general funding for the arts. Lending rights royalties are not charged to libraries or to readers, as Bezos implies.

Talk about sowing FUD!

I don't think uncorrected proofs and review copies are that significant a problem. People who buy uncorrected proofs are almost always rabid fans, who also buy all of the author's published works. As to review copies, it's a balancing act: if publishers sent out fewer or no review copies, then there wouldn't be a review copy resale "problem". There would also likely be fewer reviews, and likely fewer sales. The question is where the break point is -- what's the minimum number of review copies to get the best return?

I do not think that forbidding people from disposing of legally acquired books as they see fit is the right answer.

> Really? Where's the link to the "damning polemic"? Everything
> I've seem so far from TAG seemed pretty reasonably argued, and
> certainly did not constitute a campaign of FUD. And please show
> me where TAG has advocated against first sale - I would be very
> interested to read about this, if it exists.

Here's TAG's statement (found by typing "Authors Guild Amazon" into Google):
http://www.authorsguild.org/pramazon040902.html

"Amazon's practice does damage to the publishing industry, decreasing royalty payments to authors and profits to publishers. In time, as we pointed out to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos when it first began this practice over a year ago, the financial loss to the industry could affect the quality and diversity of literature made available through booksellers. If profits suffer, publishers will cut their investments in new works, and authors facing reduced advances and royalties will have to find other ways to earn income.

"We believe it is in our members' best interests to de-link their websites from Amazon. There's no good reason for authors to be complicit in undermining their own sales. It just takes a minute, and it's the right thing to do."


> Amazon's practice does damage to the publishing industry

Lie

> decreasing royalty payments to authors and profits to publishers.

Lie

> If profits suffer, publishers will cut their investments in new works, and
> authors facing reduced advances and royalties will have to find other ways to
> earn income.

Hysteria

> There's no good reason for authors to be complicit in undermining their own
> sales

Hysteria

Advocating a Lending Right (which TAG admits to:
http://www.authorsguild.org/pramazon041502.html#libraries) takes money out of the book-buying budgets of libraries. It is based on the principle that rights-holders should have control over their works *after they are bought and paid for*. That is contra-First Sale.

I'm a Canadian -- we have lending rights. I worked in Canadian libraries. I know what the Lending Right is.

>> I don't argue that TAG is trying to ban Amazon, but they >ARE
> trying to muscle Amazon out of selling used books
>
> Nice argument - since *no one* is arguing that TAG is trying to
> ban Amazon, why mention it unless you are trying to make that
> implication? Somehow, I really doubt that a small advocacy
> organization like TAG has the power to "muscle Amazon" out of
> anything.

TAG's note was clearly intended to pressure Amazon to change its
business-practice with the threat of economic punishment (otherwise, why bother?). TAG certainly believes that it has the power to harm Amazon's sales.
  
> I noticed that the only link you provided with this story was to
> Jeff Bezos' email to Amazon Marketplace sellers.
> Bezos: "This group [TAG}...is the same organization that from
> time to time has advocated charging public libraries royalties
> on books they loan out."
>
> Really, Jeff? Care to provide specifics? The facts: Approx
> *15* years ago (that is not a misprint) TAG supported an
> authors' lending right. This is a minor, government-funded
> royalty paid to authors of books borrowed from libraries. Most
> first-world countries have such a right. In this scheme,
> government pay these royalties, which a usually a few cents per
> use, as part of their general funding for the arts. Lending
> rights royalties are not charged to libraries or to readers, as
> Bezos implies.

See above.