PDA

View Full Version : Do studios collect any royalties from "USED" CD sales


Mr Buttons
09-05-2009, 01:58 AM
I visit a local chain-store cd store quite frequently. I've been building up my database of 90's cds (a lot of which I owned before, but got scratched to hell.)

Anyways, I pretty much vow to myself that I will only buy a cd if it's used. Why buy a fresh cd for $19.99 when I could buy the 100% guaranteed used cd for $7.99. This might sound harsh, but I've found great used cd's lately, and I think it's because the crappy economy is forcing some people to part with their old cd's.

Back to the main question.... does buying a used cd at a record store return any money to the artist, or is the chain just pocketing the $6 from paying $2/cd to reselling at $8?

StaudtCJ
09-05-2009, 02:18 AM
That's actually one of the behaviors that the music and publishing industries are trying to stop, because secondhand items don't give royalties. The chain is just pocketing money. It's also one of the big reasons for the invasive DRM on software.

Synthetic Reality
09-05-2009, 02:29 AM
As far as I am aware it all runs under the first sale doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine). One the original owner sells a CD to another party they relenquish all rights to that copy. If the new owner decides to sell it the original owner can't claim any royalties.

Morkfromork
09-05-2009, 02:45 AM
Why in hells name should they. One well knomw artist in the UK a friend of Tony Blair and co wants the royalties laws changed in the UK so that the familles get royalties for 100 years after his death The thing is as far as the public know he does not have any family himself.
What makes me laugh is that these people are multi millionaires and they still squeeze the public for every penny they can get.
The government are in process of making it possible to monitor our internet use and have said it your isp tracks you using torrent sites to download music etc then your broadband acess will be cut off. and you will be arrested police state or what

RealityChuck
09-05-2009, 08:38 AM
No. Copyright only protects copying. Selling an original is not make a copy and thus not a copyright issue.

There has been no serious effort on the part of the music industry to change this; just an occasional complaint or a baseless rumor. Even if you could get a law passed that would eliminate the first sale doctine -- unlikely in the extreme* -- it was be impossible to enforce on CDs anyway in a way that generates royalties.

The closest to this is the issue of stripped books. Sales of paperbacks without covers are illegal. These are books that were returned to the publisher for credit but which find their way into stores. "First sale" doesn't apply -- the books were never sold -- and this is clearly fraudulent (the book returning the covers is required to state that the books have been destroyed).

*There are too many interest groups who like it as it is, and collectively, they have as much force as the recording industry, if not more.

Sage Rat
09-05-2009, 09:11 AM
Why in hells name should they. One well knomw artist in the UK a friend of Tony Blair and co wants the royalties laws changed in the UK so that the familles get royalties for 100 years after his death The thing is as far as the public know he does not have any family himself.
What makes me laugh is that these people are multi millionaires and they still squeeze the public for every penny they can get.
The government are in process of making it possible to monitor our internet use and have said it your isp tracks you using torrent sites to download music etc then your broadband acess will be cut off. and you will be arrested police state or what
Most artists are not multi-millionaires. Only a handful of artists make much money at all.

racer72
09-05-2009, 10:32 AM
I caught a bit of a Larry King show and Garth Brooks was the guest. He went into a 5 minute rant about people stealing from him and other artists when they sell used CD's and don't pay royalties. King tried to compare the sale of used CD's to the sale of other used items such as cars that are also often sold used. Brooks said that it is different, consumers only buy the enjoyment of listening to the music, they are not buying ownership of the song. So remember that if you ever sell a used CD, you are selling enjoyment, not music.

Mahaloth
09-05-2009, 12:54 PM
Why in hells name should they. One well knomw artist in the UK a friend of Tony Blair and co wants the royalties laws changed in the UK so that the familles get royalties for 100 years after his death The thing is as far as the public know he does not have any family himself.
What makes me laugh is that these people are multi millionaires and they still squeeze the public for every penny they can get.
The government are in process of making it possible to monitor our internet use and have said it your isp tracks you using torrent sites to download music etc then your broadband acess will be cut off. and you will be arrested police state or what

Uh.....yeah. Good luck with....all that!

:confused:

gaffa
09-05-2009, 03:17 PM
I caught a bit of a Larry King show and Garth Brooks was the guest. He went into a 5 minute rant about people stealing from him and other artists when they sell used CD's and don't pay royalties. King tried to compare the sale of used CD's to the sale of other used items such as cars that are also often sold used. Brooks said that it is different, consumers only buy the enjoyment of listening to the music, they are not buying ownership of the song. So remember that if you ever sell a used CD, you are selling enjoyment, not music.
Garth is welcome to his bizarre and completely incorrect interpretation of reality. Don't the buyers of a used car buy the enjoyment and utility of driving?

Personally, I want copyright returned to the same time limits as patents. The vast majority of the value of a copyright is obtained, or not, in the first few years. The only excuse for copyright term extension is to build business empires built on the work of creative people and support useless leech descendants of creative people.

Exapno Mapcase
09-05-2009, 05:03 PM
Why in hells name should they. One well knomw artist in the UK a friend of Tony Blair and co wants the royalties laws changed in the UK so that the familles get royalties for 100 years after his death The thing is as far as the public know he does not have any family himself.
What makes me laugh is that these people are multi millionaires and they still squeeze the public for every penny they can get.
The government are in process of making it possible to monitor our internet use and have said it your isp tracks you using torrent sites to download music etc then your broadband acess will be cut off. and you will be arrested police state or what

Police state! Yay! Wasn't Synchronicity a truly great album! Let's have more like that!

Da ICON
09-05-2009, 05:10 PM
The only excuse for copyright term extension is to build business empires built on the work of creative people and support useless leech descendants of creative people.

F@cking 'A' on the leech descendants...

"An entity greater than Lex Luthor, Doomsday, General Zod, Bizarro and Braniac combined is threatening to destroy Superman for all time"

"I'd like to buy who is Jerry Seigel's family for $500 Alex"

11811
09-06-2009, 07:13 AM
I caught a bit of a Larry King show and Garth Brooks was the guest. He went into a 5 minute rant about people stealing from him and other artists when they sell used CD's and don't pay royalties. King tried to compare the sale of used CD's to the sale of other used items such as cars that are also often sold used. Brooks said that it is different, consumers only buy the enjoyment of listening to the music, they are not buying ownership of the song. So remember that if you ever sell a used CD, you are selling enjoyment, not music.

Garth Brooks thinks people still buy his CDs?

11811
09-06-2009, 07:18 AM
I caught a bit of a Larry King show and Garth Brooks was the guest. He went into a 5 minute rant about people stealing from him and other artists when they sell used CD's and don't pay royalties. King tried to compare the sale of used CD's to the sale of other used items such as cars that are also often sold used. Brooks said that it is different, consumers only buy the enjoyment of listening to the music, they are not buying ownership of the song. So remember that if you ever sell a used CD, you are selling enjoyment, not music.

Garth Brooks thinks people still buy his CDs?

On a more serious note, I remember when the industry started putting those seals across the jewel case for CDs. It was supposed to be your guarantee of buying a new CD and supposed to discourage you from buying used.

Martini Enfield
09-06-2009, 07:44 AM
They recently changed the laws here in Australia so that painters and sculptors receive Royalties from subsequent sales of their Art, provided it's over a certain $ value ($1000? Something like that).

I don't agree with the law, not because I don't want to see artists compensated for their work, but because I believe it sets a precedent for musicians and movie producers (or, more realistically, the large companies representing them) to try and claim even more money for something they've already made a fortune off anyway.

Copyright needs to be shortened, IMHO, especially for entertainment software, but that's a topic for a different thread, I think...

Rick
09-06-2009, 11:10 AM
The closest to this is the issue of stripped books. Sales of paperbacks without covers are illegal. These are books that were returned to the publisher for credit but which find their way into stores. "First sale" doesn't apply -- the books were never sold -- and this is clearly fraudulent (the book returning the covers is required to state that the books have been destroyed).
I have seen warning about the sale of stripped books, but in all of my travels I have never seen one for sale. If this truly a problem the publishers could fix it right now by requiring the return of the cover + the first 15 pages of the book to get credit.

Alex_Dubinsky
09-06-2009, 11:23 AM
They recently changed the laws here in Australia so that painters and sculptors receive Royalties from subsequent sales of their Art, provided it's over a certain $ value ($1000? Something like that).
That one makes sense. You're a broke artist, you sell your work for peanuts. Then somehow you become well-known, and collectors are trading your pieces of obscene amounts. And you don't get anything off that?

Similarly, I can see why music should be charged to each user, including second-hand users. But in that case, they're already making too much money and not giving it to the right people.

Alex_Dubinsky
09-06-2009, 11:25 AM
I have seen warning about the sale of stripped books, but in all of my travels I have never seen one for sale. If this truly a problem the publishers could fix it right now by requiring the return of the cover + the first 15 pages of the book to get credit.
Haha, that's good.

I think the poor people who buy coverless books deserve to read them. Imagine how much shit publishers would be handing out over library system if the concept weren't over a century old. All these people *enjoying* books for free! (And CDs too...)

Exapno Mapcase
09-06-2009, 02:30 PM
I have seen warning about the sale of stripped books, but in all of my travels I have never seen one for sale. If this truly a problem the publishers could fix it right now by requiring the return of the cover + the first 15 pages of the book to get credit.

The whole point of stripping covers is for bookstores to provide a cheap and easy way to show that they've taken the book out of stock. It costs very little to ship covers. Requiring any more than the cover to be returned defeats that.

Problems with stripped books dates from another era in any case. Back in the 1970s, some enterprising locals would buy up lots of stripped books and sell them in used book stores. It was a variation on the remainder system of hardback books, but existed in a gray market. It wasn't strictly legal but on a small scale nobody bothered with them.

After a time, however, it became more widespread and whole shops sprang up to sell them. It's the age-old story. If you put serviceable goods into the market at a fraction of the normal price, people will start expecting to pay that price all the time. But the goods can't be produced for that low a price, and no vendor could stay in business selling them at that price. It only worked for stolen merchandise, where somebody else got stuck with the bill for the true cost. No different from selling hot microwaves off the back of a truck. Stolen merchandise has an advantage - until you crack down on the thieves.

Since it was technically illegal for the bookseller to be selling stripped books - they had a contract with the publisher that stripped books would be pulped - publishers could crack down on the the bookstores. So they did. And the problem went away.

Today, only a few publishers bother to print the stripped books reminder. It's a non-issue. The only stripped books on the market come from a few employees stealing them. These can be dealt with individually. There's no wholesale public market any more.

It's like all those jokes about annoying door-to-door salesmen. They once were very common, but today hardly exist at all. But the meme continues to live way beyond its time.

Bijou Drains
09-06-2009, 03:11 PM
I remember people buying stripped books but that was 20 years ago. Haven't seen any in a long time.

Magiver
09-06-2009, 03:36 PM
Garth Brooks thinks people still buy his CDs?

Yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garth_Brooks), Troubled by conflicts between career and family, in 2001 Brooks officially retired from recording and performing.[1] During this time he sold millions of albums through an exclusive distribution deal with Wal-Mart and has sporadically released new singles.

Magiver
09-06-2009, 03:52 PM
As far as I am aware it all runs under the first sale doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine). One the original owner sells a CD to another party they relenquish all rights to that copy. If the new owner decides to sell it the original owner can't claim any royalties.
Which means unless you have the original disk that any copies of it ripped to your MP3 player would in theory be illegal.

What harms the sale of music today is the nature of the digital process. the quality (value) of the music remains intact over time and can easily be replicated in virtual space for free. vinyl records are just the opposite. The second they are played the quality is degraded by dust particles and record wear.

How many people can say they own all the music they listen too?

silenus
09-06-2009, 04:01 PM
How many people can say they own all the music they listen to?

¿Que? Every song on my computer and phone is paid for, or was given to me by the artist.

wierdaaron
09-06-2009, 05:08 PM
The video game industry is pretty annoyed by the used game market, which is considerably larger than the used CD market. Blockbuster, GameStop, and EBGames pretty much run their entire business model around buying and reselling used games. The game publishers don't see dime-one from the resale, but they can't make a fuss about it because Blockbuster, GameStop, and EBGames are the largest buyers of new games.

New video games cost $50-60 now, and most people get at most a month of enjoyment out of them. They're not like DVDs where you can go back a few years later and enjoy them just as much. The entire situation pretty much invents the used game market itself. Sell your 1 month old game for $20 back to the store, use that money toward a newer game.

And the game stores love it too. The markup on a new release game is never more than $3, whereas they can mark up a used game by $10 or more.

Exapno Mapcase
09-06-2009, 07:07 PM
¿Que? Every song on my computer and phone is paid for, or was given to me by the artist.

You didn't buy it. You licensed its use from the owner or the owner's agent.

The difference between licensing a specific use and ownership is the absolute key to all issues on copyright. It seems also to be the one that is least understood.

A standard publishing contract for a book has pages of clauses about rights that are licensed by the publisher on behalf of the author. Book rights, audio rights, film rights, foreign rights, braille rights, electronic rights. The author gives the publisher a share of money to market these rights. The author retains all ownership of the original work. When the contract expires the author still retains all ownership and can license the rights elsewhere. And even while the contract is in effect, the author can license all rights not included in the contract.

It's no different in music, although the details vary somewhat and I'm not expert enough to list all the details. But that's why you can never say that just because you bought one version of a song in one format that you own the song or have rights to use the song in any other format. You licensed its use for that format.

In practical terms, people can and do move music from format to format because enforcement is impossible. In the same practical terms, people who paid to buy an album in vinyl have to pay again to buy that album in cassette and pay again to buy that album in CD and once more to download it to an iPod. Why? To put it in capital letters: You didn't BUY the music; you LICENSED the use of it.

Unless you completely and thoroughly assimilate that difference into your bones, you cannot understand why artists and writers of all kinds are so upset by these issues.

Fake Tales of San Francisco
09-06-2009, 07:39 PM
Unless you completely and thoroughly assimilate that difference into your bones, you cannot understand why artists and writers of all kinds are so upset by these issues.

And I wish people would stop thinking we're all multi-millionaires.

Magiver
09-06-2009, 07:57 PM
¿Que? Every song on my computer and phone is paid for, or was given to me by the artist. Me too. What do you suppose the percentage is in a class of high school kids?

Exapno Mapcase
09-06-2009, 08:21 PM
And I wish people would stop thinking we're all multi-millionaires.

Heck, I wish people would stop thinking we're all multi-thousandaires. :smack:

silenus
09-06-2009, 08:23 PM
Me too. What do you suppose the percentage is in a class of high school kids?

Good point.

Apollyon
09-06-2009, 10:09 PM
You didn't buy it. You licensed its use from the owner or the owner's agent.I was going to say that I thought you might have interpreted Magiver's question oddly, but...
But that's why you can never say that just because you bought one version of a song in one format that you own the song or have rights to use the song in any other format. You licensed its use for that format.

In practical terms, people can and do move music from format to format because enforcement is impossible. In the same practical terms, people who paid to buy an album in vinyl have to pay again to buy that album in cassette and pay again to buy that album in CD and once more to download it to an iPod. Why? To put it in capital letters: You didn't BUY the music; you LICENSED the use of it.OK... and here I was thinking I was legitimately format shifting the CDs that I had paid for onto my iPod because that is what I'm legally entitled to do under our (recently revised) Copyright legislation. (NZ Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act section 81A (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0027/latest/DLM1122619.html#DLM1122620))

Is there not a similar provision in US Copyright? :confused:

Martini Enfield
09-06-2009, 10:12 PM
I was going to say that I thought you might have interpreted Magiver's question oddly, but...
OK... and here I was thinking I was legitimately format shifting the CDs that I had paid for onto my iPod because that is what I'm legally entitled to do under our (recently revised) Copyright legislation. (NZ Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act section 81A (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2008/0027/latest/DLM1122619.html#DLM1122620))

They also recently revised the Copyright Act here in Australia to legalise format-shifting, taping stuff off TV, and declare parody/satirical use a "Fair Dealing" of the work, which is definitely a step forward, IMHO.

Is there not a similar provision in US Copyright? :confused:

Apparently not, which surprised me too.

racer72
09-07-2009, 09:57 AM
I remember people buying stripped books but that was 20 years ago. Haven't seen any in a long time.

My daughter's friend works at a big box bookstore. I asked her about this and she said the stuff that is stripped is recycled now. They have a big industrial sized shredder and everything must go through it. In my younger days I used to dumpster dive behind bookstores to retrieve stripped books and magazines and sell a bunch of it at a local swap meet.

Alex_Dubinsky
09-07-2009, 11:13 AM
And the game stores love it too. The markup on a $50-60 new release game is never more than $3
No way.

Lemur866
09-07-2009, 11:33 AM
Unless you completely and thoroughly assimilate that difference into your bones, you cannot understand why artists and writers of all kinds are so upset by these issues.

So why not stop complaining about the users ripping you off, and start complaining about the publishers ripping you off?

Telling confused users that they didn't buy the album, they bought the rights to an album, and they're ripping you off because they didn't pay you 10 different ways is ludicrous. Copyright law wasn't handed down from Mt. Sinai, it was created by human beings for a particular purpose. That purpose wasn't to make sure that creators became rich, it was to advance the useful arts and sciences. And since it turns out that people like money, if you figure out a way for people to make money by advancing the useful arts and sciences, then we get lots of people doing that work.

When things change and they get money but retard the useful arts and sciences, or they get nothing when they advance the useful arts and sciences, then things are broken and must change.

Copyrights and intellectual property rights aren't natural rights, they are human created rules created for the purpose of making society better. It isn't morally wrong to drive on the left side of the road, except that it turns out that unless everyone picks a side and sticks with it, the roads are useless. It isn't morally wrong to make a copy of a work, except that unless the guy who wrote the work gets something for his effort, he's going to stop making more.

Alex_Dubinsky
09-07-2009, 12:22 PM
Ignoring Lumur's more general rant about copyrights, Yeah, why aren't you sitting around being angry at the publishers? If you add up all the money they've withheld from you, i'm sure it's way more than your share of the sales lost to piracy.

Lynn Bodoni
09-08-2009, 12:18 AM
That's actually one of the behaviors that the music and publishing industries are trying to stop, because secondhand items don't give royalties. The chain is just pocketing money. It's also one of the big reasons for the invasive DRM on software. I think this attitude is penny wise and pound foolish. About three months ago, I picked up a used copy of Old Man's War by John Scalzi. After reading it and greatly enjoying it, I went to the local B&M bookstore and bought the rest of his novels new...and I also bought a new copy of OMW. I sold the used copy back to Half Price Books, where I hope someone else will discover that s/he loves this author.

I will take a chance on a new author if I only have to pay three or four bucks for one of his/her books. I'm not so willing to spend ten bucks or so on a new writer.

Exapno Mapcase
09-08-2009, 09:11 AM
Ignoring Lumur's more general rant about copyrights, Yeah, why aren't you sitting around being angry at the publishers? If you add up all the money they've withheld from you, i'm sure it's way more than your share of the sales lost to piracy.

Yeah, what have the Romans done for us? :smack:

Publishers don't withhold money from writers. They are essentially contractors, who get paid for services they provide.

Publishers edit, proofread, and copyedit books (three different things). They set them into print, doing all the design work necessary. They hire artists to do covers. They print, bind, and warehouse the books. They contract with thousands of bookstores all over the country to sell certain numbers of books and then ship the books to those bookstores. They have bookkeeping, accounting, warehousing, shipping, and liaison departments to keep track of all this. They do the paperwork and file the book with the copyright office. They have tax departments that calculate sales and royalties, and send out 1099 statements at the end of the year. They publish promotional catalogs of all their books and distribute those widely. They create and purchase advertising for the book. They set up promotional opportunities, interviews, readings, and talks.

That's for the main version of the book. Then there are what are called subsidiary rights. The publishers go out and look for other publishers to do mass market paperback editions. Or audiobook editions. Or electronic editions. Or non-US editions, in a variety of languages. Or book club editions. Or sell film options. Or large-print editions. Or special library editions. The list goes on. Each of these is a specialized field and the publisher must be knowledgeable about how to approach each and every one. Then after the sale, all the payments must be garnered, recorded, passed on to the author, and added to the main edition for accounting and taxes.

The publisher must continue to do this for many years, as long as the book is kept in print, sending out royalty statements twice a year, along with checks and 1099 forms, forever if necessary.

And the publisher does all this out of its own pocket, because the author gets an advance upfront when the manuscript is turned in and the publisher gets nothing until the money starts coming in from the publishers' efforts.

Sure, you can do all of this yourself. It can't hardly take any time or expertise, could it? That way the publisher gets nothing. And its deserves nothing, because it doesn't do anything, right?

That is your argument, isn't is? The publisher just withholds money from the writer for no reason at all? I should be angry at the publisher, not at the pirate, who doesn't do any of this stuff but actually does me a favor by making my work available free for the taking to anybody who wants it? The publisher is just a parasite and the pirate is my friend?

:smack:

Revtim
09-08-2009, 09:54 AM
I remember Garth Brooks' crusade about used CD sales. Once Napster came around, people pretty much forgot about that particular issue.

Alex_Dubinsky
09-08-2009, 10:55 AM
So what % of the revenue the publisher sees do you end up receiving?

control-z
09-08-2009, 11:33 AM
Garth Brooks thinks people still buy his CDs?

On a more serious note, I remember when the industry started putting those seals across the jewel case for CDs. It was supposed to be your guarantee of buying a new CD and supposed to discourage you from buying used.


If anything those stupid seals discourage me from buying new. But mostly the price discourages me.

SirRay
09-08-2009, 12:16 PM
If anything those stupid seals discourage me from buying new. But mostly the price discourages me.
Those seals that used to run around the edges of CD cases and were a pain to remove - I thought they were for anti-theft purposes (couldn't easily rip open a case and remove the disc) after the use of cardboard 'long boxes' was discountinued.
If they were supposed to guarentee 'brand new freshness' of the CD, they didn't have any such effect on me at the time...

Exapno Mapcase
09-08-2009, 01:47 PM
So what % of the revenue the publisher sees do you end up receiving?

I get whatever the contract calls for. Percent of revenue is not a meaningful number. Nobody calculates it.

But it is always more than zero, which is what I get from pirates.

StaudtCJ
09-08-2009, 02:11 PM
I think this attitude is penny wise and pound foolish. About three months ago, I picked up a used copy of Old Man's War by John Scalzi. After reading it and greatly enjoying it, I went to the local B&M bookstore and bought the rest of his novels new...and I also bought a new copy of OMW. I sold the used copy back to Half Price Books, where I hope someone else will discover that s/he loves this author.

I will take a chance on a new author if I only have to pay three or four bucks for one of his/her books. I'm not so willing to spend ten bucks or so on a new writer.

I absolutely agree with you. I'm the same way, actually. I pick up a new author, and then want the rest of the books, so I go out and buy them at Barnes & Nobles or something. Same with some software, actually, at least the old stuff. I'll buy the new versions because I tried the old version and liked it.

Alex_Dubinsky
09-08-2009, 03:21 PM
But it is always more than zero, which is what I get from pirates.
Oh, sure, it's more than zero. But haven't you ever heard of that economics concept that it's not the money you receive, it's the money you could be receiving? Heck, that's the same concept applied to pirates. And why not apply it to publishers? If you honestly tried, you'd see that the money you could be receiving from publishers if they paid you fairly is much more than the money you'd be receiving from pirates if they couldn't pirate.

Why do artists and authors get Stockholm syndrome?

Exapno Mapcase
09-08-2009, 03:38 PM
If you honestly tried, you'd see that the money you could be receiving from publishers if they paid you fairly is much more than the money you'd be receiving from pirates if they couldn't pirate.

This is sheer, utter nonsense. Since it comes from somebody who's already proven that he knows nothing about how the system works in the first place, that's probably not surprising.

It's like all those people who can't write out an equation trying to persuade Chronos or Stranger that their version of physics is more right. You can't be taken seriously trying to make a correction unless you show you have some expertise in the subject at hand. What you've shown so far is zero. Why would you think that's persuasive?

That works in general as well. So far in this thread people have shown that they know nothing about copyright, bookstores, book distribution, publishing, licensing, and intellectual property. That's not an issue if you're asking questions and trying to learn more about those subjects. It is a big issue if you're trying to push your viewpoints on them. Why would anybody listen? It doesn't work in physics threads. Whether you realize it or not, writing is a profession, just like physics. Not everybody agrees about every issue, just like physics. But you don't get to join a physics discussion unless you've at the very least mastered the basics of physics. It would be nice for you to give the same courtesy to writers.

TBG
09-08-2009, 04:52 PM
A few years back, a local bookstore went out of business. Before they closed up, they let people have any of the paperbacks for free, they just had to bring them up to the counter so the clerk could tear the covers off. I knew what they were doing, even if most of the "customers" didn't.

Martini Enfield
09-08-2009, 07:54 PM
A few years back, a local bookstore went out of business. Before they closed up, they let people have any of the paperbacks for free, they just had to bring them up to the counter so the clerk could tear the covers off. I knew what they were doing, even if most of the "customers" didn't.

I don't think they do that here (ripping covers off books, or selling them for next to nothing anyway) much for some reason. There have been a few bookshops around close down recently, and I've been in there on their last day of business looking for bargains and not had a lot of luck, as apparently they send the books back (with covers) and they either get redistributed to sold off to remainder stores.

A few local "chain" bookshops have started selling "damaged" books very cheaply, though, which is good- it's not uncommon to get fairly "new" books for $3-8, which is a real bargain here.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.