3 ms·

>Authors aren't benefited by second hand sales. Authors should benefit from secondhand sales at least a little bit. The more demand there is for a used book,

>Authors aren't benefited by second hand sales. Authors should benefit from secondhand sales at least a little bit. The more demand there is for a used book, the higher sellers can price the used book. And as the price of a used book increases, more buyers will choose the new version over the used version. It's not as beneficial as buying a new copy, but it benefits the author more than just pirating it. Libby is similarly beneficial in an indirect way.

amanaplanacanal 4y ago
Would you propose this for all goods? Or just books?
- mtlynch 4y ago
  Yeah, I think it's true for most goods.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago
    Assuming your idea were implemented: when I buy clothes from some large retailer you expect they are going to send a bit more of the 2nd hand money back to the sweatshop that made it in the first place?
    - mtlynch 4y ago
      To clarify, I'm not proposing for anything to be implemented. I'm saying that I think the market works this way already. The scenario you're describing sounds different than what I'm talking about, though. You're talking a retailer selling a new product and then passing back commissions on the sale to vendors upstream in the supply chain? I'm not seeing the connection between that and the price effect of used goods on their corresponding new goods.
      - Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago
        >>>> Authors aren't benefited by second hand sales. >>> Authors should benefit from secondhand sales >> Would you propose this for all goods? > Yeah, I think it's true for most goods. You suggested that "most goods" already have money from 2nd hand sales flowing back to the "authors". I asked the obvious question about physical goods. Who would get the money? Now I obviously think it is ridiculous idea and "authors" shouldn't be profiting from 2nd hand sales of their works whether those are books or clothes. I am asking you, someone who seems to think it is a good idea, who gets that money from 2nd hand sales of physical goods? The retailer? The manufacturer? The laborer?
        mtlynch 4y ago
        Oh, sorry. I think the confusion is coming from the ambiguity of the word "should." When I said "should" I meant "logically should," not "morally should." I wasn't wishing for a world where this is true but rather describing our current world where this is already true. Like, "Hitting a lightbulb with a hammer should cause the bulb to break." It might help to have a more fleshed out example. Imagine a system where there are only two ways to buy my book. You can either buy it new directly from my website or buy it used on eBay. I sell it on my website for $60, but the current price for a used copy on eBay is $30. Suppose 100 buyers decide to start buying used copies on eBay. eBay sellers increase the price from $30 to $50 to match the increased demand. I, the author, still receive $0 on every sale of the used copy, so I don't see any new money directly. But there are buyers who are open to either a used copy or a new copy, depending on the price. As the price of used copies approaches the price of new copies, more buyers will choose to purchase new directly from me rather than from eBay. Even though the 100 new eBay buyers didn't benefit me directly as the author, it indirectly benefitted me by pushing up the used price and influencing other buyers to purchase the new copy instead of the used copy.
vivegi 4y ago
Generally, the price premium of goods already reflects the resale value. One could see this with automobiles. Make/models with higher resale value get priced higher on the initial sale. Also, you would be amazed at the amount of book returns that exists in the industry. Publishers routinely bake the cost of those returns into the hard/paperback's retail price and deduct the cost of the returns from royalties paid to authors. Most unsold pbooks are <gasp>destroyed!</gasp> This is because this is the relatively lowest direct cost option compared to the bookseller returning the book back to the publisher. For an example with self-publishers, see: https://www.ingramspark.com/blog/making-your-book-returnable https://www.ingramspark.com/blog/making-your-book-returnable If a self-publisher chooses to have the book returned to them (in the hopes that they can directly sell it from their author website), they are also charged the shipping & handling (deducted from the royalties). The reason I bring this up is because, the publishers would rather the used books sales completely disappeared. That is part of the reason why they don't hesitate to destroy the returned books to avoid crashing the price.

amanaplanacanal 4y ago

Would you propose this for all goods? Or just books?

mtlynch 4y ago
Yeah, I think it's true for most goods.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago
  Assuming your idea were implemented: when I buy clothes from some large retailer you expect they are going to send a bit more of the 2nd hand money back to the sweatshop that made it in the first place?
  - mtlynch 4y ago
    To clarify, I'm not proposing for anything to be implemented. I'm saying that I think the market works this way already. The scenario you're describing sounds different than what I'm talking about, though. You're talking a retailer selling a new product and then passing back commissions on the sale to vendors upstream in the supply chain? I'm not seeing the connection between that and the price effect of used goods on their corresponding new goods.
    - Am4TIfIsER0ppos 4y ago
      >>>> Authors aren't benefited by second hand sales. >>> Authors should benefit from secondhand sales >> Would you propose this for all goods? > Yeah, I think it's true for most goods. You suggested that "most goods" already have money from 2nd hand sales flowing back to the "authors". I asked the obvious question about physical goods. Who would get the money? Now I obviously think it is ridiculous idea and "authors" shouldn't be profiting from 2nd hand sales of their works whether those are books or clothes. I am asking you, someone who seems to think it is a good idea, who gets that money from 2nd hand sales of physical goods? The retailer? The manufacturer? The laborer?
      - mtlynch 4y ago
        Oh, sorry. I think the confusion is coming from the ambiguity of the word "should." When I said "should" I meant "logically should," not "morally should." I wasn't wishing for a world where this is true but rather describing our current world where this is already true. Like, "Hitting a lightbulb with a hammer should cause the bulb to break." It might help to have a more fleshed out example. Imagine a system where there are only two ways to buy my book. You can either buy it new directly from my website or buy it used on eBay. I sell it on my website for $60, but the current price for a used copy on eBay is $30. Suppose 100 buyers decide to start buying used copies on eBay. eBay sellers increase the price from $30 to $50 to match the increased demand. I, the author, still receive $0 on every sale of the used copy, so I don't see any new money directly. But there are buyers who are open to either a used copy or a new copy, depending on the price. As the price of used copies approaches the price of new copies, more buyers will choose to purchase new directly from me rather than from eBay. Even though the 100 new eBay buyers didn't benefit me directly as the author, it indirectly benefitted me by pushing up the used price and influencing other buyers to purchase the new copy instead of the used copy.

vivegi 4y ago

Generally, the price premium of goods already reflects the resale value. One could see this with automobiles. Make/models with higher resale value get priced higher on the initial sale. Also, you would be amazed at the amount of book returns that exists in the industry. Publishers routinely bake the cost of those returns into the hard/paperback's retail price and deduct the cost of the returns from royalties paid to authors. Most unsold pbooks are <gasp>destroyed!</gasp> This is because this is the relatively lowest direct cost option compared to the bookseller returning the book back to the publisher. For an example with self-publishers, see: https://www.ingramspark.com/blog/making-your-book-returnable https://www.ingramspark.com/blog/making-your-book-returnable If a self-publisher chooses to have the book returned to them (in the hopes that they can directly sell it from their author website), they are also charged the shipping & handling (deducted from the royalties). The reason I bring this up is because, the publishers would rather the used books sales completely disappeared. That is part of the reason why they don't hesitate to destroy the returned books to avoid crashing the price.