8 ms·

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but my assumption is that buying second-hand books gives no money to the author. I don't know, morally speaking if this should be the

by snet0 5y ago

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but my assumption is that buying second-hand books gives no money to the author. I don't know, morally speaking if this should be the case. It does feel wrong for people to get the experience without paying the price of admission. Can this be solved logistically, though? And do publishers factor this into their RRP?

jrochkind1 5y ago
Once you go down that path, it starts getting kind of dystopian. Should it be illegal for me to lend or give a book to a friend without paying a fee, because then they are "getting the experience without paying the price of admission"? I'm reading a book to three kids, should I have to pay more than reading the book to one kid? That's three times as many kids "getting the experience", same "price of admission"! Taking the book to my brothers house to read to his kids -- nope, that's illegal unless you buy another copy?
- snet0 5y ago
  I absolutely agree, I don't think solving this problem is something that can really be considered. I do think it's a problem, though. I think you're taking my analogy of tickets too far, though. It was simply to highlight the fact that, by reading the book without paying the author a dime, you are getting permanent access to the materials without the author being paid, which I think is an issue. I think the only feasible solution is a kind of royalty fee on resales, but I can easily imagine this becoming a logistical nightmare. As I said, I'm not sure this problem has a workable solution.
  - jrochkind1 5y ago
    In fact, I think maybe in Europe second-hand bookstores do pay some kind of royalties? Maybe libraries do too? In the US, the "first sale doctrine" has legally preserved the right to give, rent, or sell an object legally in your possession, without the permission of the copyright holder. For 100 years (I believe the first sale doctrine was first established in 1908), it did not imperil the business of writing and selling books. In 2021, that market does seem imperiled, as the OP is about... but I don't think the 100-year-old first-sale doctrine is to blame, or eliminating it would fundamentally change the market forces. I mean, if it was the issue, then the market for books would be fundamentally different (and better for copyright holders) in Europe than the US, but is it?
ghaff 5y ago
That same logic presumably applies to libraries. Books are physical objects at the end of the day just like a piece of pottery someone made. First sale doctrine explicitly allows the owner to lend or resell it to someone else.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Some countries solve this by paying the authors for each lend. Ofc, not nearly similar amount, but over long term it's not unreasonable.
- ellegriffin 5y ago
  Yes! Exactly! Right now the ebook library model is based off the physical book library model where the library purchases a certain number of ebooks (say 10) and the author only gets a portion of the royalties on those ten copies, and then the library loans those copies out to an unlimited number of people. It should be managed more like Spotify- where books can be read unlimitedly, but the author gets paid royalties every time someone reads their book. (Similar to how an artist gets paid everytime their song is streamed). I might actually write about this for a future post.
  - snet0 5y ago
    This is what I think the best course looks like. I know there are issues with Spotify's model (at least, I have heard people make this claim), but given that music had to transition to a streaming-based model (and considering that written text looks to be slowly going this way, too) the per-consumption royalty looks good to me. Of course, instantiating this in the real world is another question. For ebook libraries, it certainly seems plausible, but for regular libraries?
    - ellegriffin 5y ago
      Right, exactly. And we could learn from spotify (pay the creators more). But the ebook library is huge now and could easily be transformed. The only problem is that they aren't charging a monthly subscription fee (like Spotify) and so they would have to use donation dollars to fund that. And yet, I have to wait 15 weeks to get a book on my kindle because other people are reading it first, which seems very outdated.
matsemann 5y ago
But things I cannot resell I would pay less for. For certain items the amount I'm willing to pay is a function also including what I can sell it for when I'm done with it.
- snet0 5y ago
  Yes, I absolutely agree. When you buy something you imagine yourself reselling, you can factor the resale price into the total cost. I don't think this is a counter to my argument, though. I'm not saying it is wrong to be able to resell books, I am just pointing out that reselling books without the author receiving any money strikes me as morally improper. As I mentioned in another comment, I'm not convinced that there exists a decent solution to this problem, and I imagine that it's at least in part factored into RRPs, but I just thought it was something to consider.
jogjayr 5y ago
Buying a house from a homeowner gives no money to the original builder, or the first human being to inhabit that piece of land. Do you feel guilty about getting shelter without paying the price of admission?
- snet0 5y ago
  I think this is a disingenuous comparison. Builders get paid to build houses. Authors, to my knowledge, do not frequently get paid to write books, they get paid when they sell books. When you resell a house, you are not denying the builders anything. When you resell a book, you are (possibly) denying the author a sale.
  - nly 5y ago
    Builders don't necessarily get a dime until the house sells either. Lots of property development is fueled by credit
  - jogjayr 5y ago
    > When you resell a house, you are not denying the builders anything You're denying the builder a sale of a new house. Re-selling books is already legal. You bought a physical item, not the right to use the item. Ownership implies the right to dispose of the item as one wishes. You asked whether it was morally correct. I was showing you that many other things are frequently resold with no moral implications.
ellegriffin 5y ago
NFTs are trying to solve for this, but I'm not sure how mainstream that will become. For instance: https://emily.mirror.xyz/0AFENlMKv9amUC1OJIZY26udpISw_raXkoEcvelPvzg https://emily.mirror.xyz/0AFENlMKv9amUC1OJIZY26udpISw_raXkoE... In this case, Emily crowdfunded her novel using the cryptocurrency ETH. People "invested" in her book buy purchasing the NFT, so that they can later sell their investment again (and the writer will get royalties if they do). I think this might be a little too out there to become mainstream. HOWEVER, I do think the library model could be tweaked to favor the author. Right now the ebook library model is based off the physical book library model where the library purchases a certain number of ebooks (say 10) and the author only gets a portion of the royalties on those ten copies, and then the library loans those copies out to an unlimited number of people. It should be managed more like Spotify- where books can be read unlimitedly, but the author gets paid royalties every time someone reads their book. (Similar to how an artist gets paid everytime their song is streamed). I might actually write about this for a future post.
spoonjim 5y ago
Well technology is solving this problem, e-books are not transferable so there is no secondhand market. Problem solved! (but don't expect to ever inherit a book collection that has titles you'd never heard of, that opens your eyes to different things).
whimsicalism 5y ago
No, because second hand markets influence the first hand price.

by snet0 5y ago

jrochkind1 5y ago

Once you go down that path, it starts getting kind of dystopian. Should it be illegal for me to lend or give a book to a friend without paying a fee, because then they are "getting the experience without paying the price of admission"? I'm reading a book to three kids, should I have to pay more than reading the book to one kid? That's three times as many kids "getting the experience", same "price of admission"! Taking the book to my brothers house to read to his kids -- nope, that's illegal unless you buy another copy?

snet0 5y ago
I absolutely agree, I don't think solving this problem is something that can really be considered. I do think it's a problem, though. I think you're taking my analogy of tickets too far, though. It was simply to highlight the fact that, by reading the book without paying the author a dime, you are getting permanent access to the materials without the author being paid, which I think is an issue. I think the only feasible solution is a kind of royalty fee on resales, but I can easily imagine this becoming a logistical nightmare. As I said, I'm not sure this problem has a workable solution.
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  In fact, I think maybe in Europe second-hand bookstores do pay some kind of royalties? Maybe libraries do too? In the US, the "first sale doctrine" has legally preserved the right to give, rent, or sell an object legally in your possession, without the permission of the copyright holder. For 100 years (I believe the first sale doctrine was first established in 1908), it did not imperil the business of writing and selling books. In 2021, that market does seem imperiled, as the OP is about... but I don't think the 100-year-old first-sale doctrine is to blame, or eliminating it would fundamentally change the market forces. I mean, if it was the issue, then the market for books would be fundamentally different (and better for copyright holders) in Europe than the US, but is it?

ghaff 5y ago

That same logic presumably applies to libraries. Books are physical objects at the end of the day just like a piece of pottery someone made. First sale doctrine explicitly allows the owner to lend or resell it to someone else.

Ekaros 5y ago
Some countries solve this by paying the authors for each lend. Ofc, not nearly similar amount, but over long term it's not unreasonable.
ellegriffin 5y ago
Yes! Exactly! Right now the ebook library model is based off the physical book library model where the library purchases a certain number of ebooks (say 10) and the author only gets a portion of the royalties on those ten copies, and then the library loans those copies out to an unlimited number of people. It should be managed more like Spotify- where books can be read unlimitedly, but the author gets paid royalties every time someone reads their book. (Similar to how an artist gets paid everytime their song is streamed). I might actually write about this for a future post.
- snet0 5y ago
  This is what I think the best course looks like. I know there are issues with Spotify's model (at least, I have heard people make this claim), but given that music had to transition to a streaming-based model (and considering that written text looks to be slowly going this way, too) the per-consumption royalty looks good to me. Of course, instantiating this in the real world is another question. For ebook libraries, it certainly seems plausible, but for regular libraries?
  - ellegriffin 5y ago
    Right, exactly. And we could learn from spotify (pay the creators more). But the ebook library is huge now and could easily be transformed. The only problem is that they aren't charging a monthly subscription fee (like Spotify) and so they would have to use donation dollars to fund that. And yet, I have to wait 15 weeks to get a book on my kindle because other people are reading it first, which seems very outdated.

matsemann 5y ago

But things I cannot resell I would pay less for. For certain items the amount I'm willing to pay is a function also including what I can sell it for when I'm done with it.

snet0 5y ago
Yes, I absolutely agree. When you buy something you imagine yourself reselling, you can factor the resale price into the total cost. I don't think this is a counter to my argument, though. I'm not saying it is wrong to be able to resell books, I am just pointing out that reselling books without the author receiving any money strikes me as morally improper. As I mentioned in another comment, I'm not convinced that there exists a decent solution to this problem, and I imagine that it's at least in part factored into RRPs, but I just thought it was something to consider.

jogjayr 5y ago

Buying a house from a homeowner gives no money to the original builder, or the first human being to inhabit that piece of land. Do you feel guilty about getting shelter without paying the price of admission?

snet0 5y ago
I think this is a disingenuous comparison. Builders get paid to build houses. Authors, to my knowledge, do not frequently get paid to write books, they get paid when they sell books. When you resell a house, you are not denying the builders anything. When you resell a book, you are (possibly) denying the author a sale.
- nly 5y ago
  Builders don't necessarily get a dime until the house sells either. Lots of property development is fueled by credit
- jogjayr 5y ago
  > When you resell a house, you are not denying the builders anything You're denying the builder a sale of a new house. Re-selling books is already legal. You bought a physical item, not the right to use the item. Ownership implies the right to dispose of the item as one wishes. You asked whether it was morally correct. I was showing you that many other things are frequently resold with no moral implications.

ellegriffin 5y ago

NFTs are trying to solve for this, but I'm not sure how mainstream that will become. For instance: https://emily.mirror.xyz/0AFENlMKv9amUC1OJIZY26udpISw_raXkoEcvelPvzg https://emily.mirror.xyz/0AFENlMKv9amUC1OJIZY26udpISw_raXkoE... In this case, Emily crowdfunded her novel using the cryptocurrency ETH. People "invested" in her book buy purchasing the NFT, so that they can later sell their investment again (and the writer will get royalties if they do). I think this might be a little too out there to become mainstream. HOWEVER, I do think the library model could be tweaked to favor the author. Right now the ebook library model is based off the physical book library model where the library purchases a certain number of ebooks (say 10) and the author only gets a portion of the royalties on those ten copies, and then the library loans those copies out to an unlimited number of people. It should be managed more like Spotify- where books can be read unlimitedly, but the author gets paid royalties every time someone reads their book. (Similar to how an artist gets paid everytime their song is streamed). I might actually write about this for a future post.

spoonjim 5y ago

Well technology is solving this problem, e-books are not transferable so there is no secondhand market. Problem solved! (but don't expect to ever inherit a book collection that has titles you'd never heard of, that opens your eyes to different things).

whimsicalism 5y ago

No, because second hand markets influence the first hand price.