I admit that I've been known to go out of my way just to stop at a used book store. When I lived in Los Angeles, I knew all of the better used book stores well enough that I could usually tell when new titles had been placed on the shelves.
And yet, while a good deal of my book collection consists of books that were purchased used, I've always maintained that the idea of used books was illegal. I often wondered how a used book store was even allowed to set up in the first place? I mean, how can you justify a business in which your entire inventory consists of items are copyrighted works and neither the copyright holder, author, or publisher are not getting their cut?
Well, most people just shrugged their shoulders and didn't give it another thought.
And while I would hate to see my favorite type of stoe be put out of business, I couldn't help but wonder why the mega-conglomo-coporate publishers didn't exert a little muscle.
Well...maybe they are waking up. And part of the reason they are waking up is the increased visibility and ease of ordering used books on-line. You can read an interesting article by clicking here.
My thoughts... music downloading might not have been aggressively prosecuted if it hadn't been flaunted. So, too, with selling used books. You can do something boder-line illegal if you're not making waves about it, but when you are a major on-line retailer (say, Amazon) and you advertise cheaper, used books on the same page as the new releases, then someone is going to notice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I'm not sure that selling used books is technically illegal (and, of course, the other side of that is I'm not sure it isn't). Once you own something, don't you then have the right to sell it to someone else? Used CDs/DVDs/etc. would be the same issue, and I see (and buy) plenty of those in stores that also sell new items. It's not like the publishers and producers are unaware this is happening.
I would say that it's a bit of a gray area, at least.
If you want to sell your property, that's one thing, but once you make a business of making money off other people's work without compensating them, then it get's touchy. And I think that when the giants like Amazon and B&N start doing so at the expense of the NEW books and CDs in their catalog, they are asking for new laws (or at least industry rules) in the market.
Though I don't have proof it right now, I swear that back in the 60's I recall books with the fine print stating "This book may not be reprinted or resold in any form." Now the fine print simply says "May not be reproduced in any form including electronic..."
And yes, used CDs/DVDs?etc are absolutely in the same issue. And so we come to the matter of the giant music industry taking people to court for file swapping of music. They AREN'T even SELLING! They're trading! No profits! But people are going to jail for it. So why shouldn't buyers and sellers of used CDs go to jail? How is it different?
You're right, producer are aware of this, as I said in the blog. But until now, it's always been a small share of the market. Suddenly that market has grown and the producers are taking more of an active interest.
But really now...let's think....
Someone wants to GIVE me a lesser quality format (say, MP3) version of a new James Taylor disc. I, in turn, give a lesser quality format version of a new Original Cast Recording of WICKED! I might be aggressively sued by the recording industry. Why?
You could go in to a store a buy a used, actual copy of the same James Taylor album. Money has traded hands. Someone has made a profit, but no one actually connected to the CD sees any money from that. But somehow that is more legal than the trading of digital files?
Post a Comment