"If You Bought This Book Without A Cover.....

Factual Questions
41

Actually, they haven’t “targetted” the purchaser at all. They’re informing the purchaser that there has been a contract violation and that the author is not receiving royalties. There is no threat; only information. Some, one hopes most, potential purchasers would think twice about completing the transaction.

In both cases, the statements inform the purchaser of potential bad behaviour on the part of the vendor. It very well may be meaningful to the end user to understand that the vender he or she is dealing with is not scrupulously above-board in his or her dealings.

42

No, this is an anti-piracy issue. It’s to prevent taking a book and reprinting it under a different cover and reaping the profits. This happens in certain countries more than it does in Western Europe and is essentially unknown in the States.

I don’t know about the U.K. but the U.S. has the doctrine of first sale. If you buy an item, like a book, you can do anything you want with it, rebind it or resell it, because it’s yours. I’m sure most EU countries have something similar.

But even that has some limitations. The problem the British boilerplate is referring to is systematic mass fraud. If you were to buy 10,000 remaindered copies of a book, strip off the old cover and reissue them under the name of your press you would wind up breaking a passel of laws, even under the doctrine of first sale. Since it’s a whole lot easier to do this with an electronic original, some corners of the world see this more than others, not unlike pirated DVDs and CDs.

43

I didn’t mean ‘target’ in the sense of doing harm to the purchaser. They are trying to get the purchaser to participate in their system of saving money. It’s not a bad thing by any means. But a purchaser has no obligation to participate. It’s obvious that the practice of selling coverless books in violation of contract is minimal to non-existent. It might be more likely that a cover is missing from a book because of mishandling than theft. It’s just a little weasely to say that an author is losing a royalty when the system is designed to save the publisher money, not earn any more for the author.

So you agree that they are equally meaningful to the purchaser. But now I disagree with you and myself. The furniture tags are more meaningful because they are required by law. Their absence is an indication of the sale of furniture that does not meet regulations. The book warnings do not have the equivalent weight.

Exapno - I think you know what I meant about ‘…keep your property on the street…’. The societal contract to help others maintain ownership has a sense of reasonableness on the part of everyone. Owners must take reasonable steps to protect their property in order to expect cooperation from others. I think that now in2011, book-sellers don’t care about the sale of stripped books because the cost of the problem is less than than the cost of paying shipping for their return. I just don’t think I’m obligated to help them maximize their profits in that manner. But that is not pertinent to the factual nature of this thread, just the basis of my comments on the subject.

44

There are obviously booksellers that don’t care. They’re the ones selling stripped books or giving them to employees.

Most booksellers really do care. Some feel it’s the right thing to do, and others are afraid of losing future return privileges.

Personally, I care because I like to think my word means something. The publishers (and distributors) say, “Hey, booksellers, we’ll let you save a ton on shipping by just returning the covers on these books if you’ll agree to destroy the rest of the book after removing the cover.” I agreed to that–at least tacitly–so I take steps to fulfill my part of the agreement and make sure the book is, indeed destroyed.

45

As you should Wombat, you are a party to the contract.

46

I have a Tom Clancy novel that I just bought a couple of weeks ago that has it. Says NYT #1 bestseller on the cover, so that’s about as mainstream as you can get. I don’t recall not seeing it in any mass-market paperback, no matter where it fell on the “genre” to “mainstream” line. I’ve seen it in recently bought non-fiction, too, so I suspect it’s still in most mass-market paperbacks.

47

So are all other booksellers. That was my point.

48

How does the publishing industry feel about those second-hand book stores - the ones where you can turn in any hardback or paperback for credit on something else they have you might wanna read?

Seems like that also is depriving them of a sale?

Thanks

Q

49

[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:47, topic:571979”]

So are all other booksellers. That was my point.
[/QUOTE]

I misunderstood your main point before, which was based on my poor wording. By booksellers I had meant publishers. I’m sure the retail outlets care about maintaining their contractual obligations. But the consumer is not a party to that contractual agreement.

IANA lawyer, but I don’t believe the sale of a coverless book that should have been destroyed is even a crime, as it has been characterized by some. It would seem to be a simple civil matter between the publisher and the outlet, and someone who is not a party to the contract shouldn’t be legally obligated to help fulfill those terms. As far as the morality goes, I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that a coverless book for sale was immorally obtained. You have confirmed that the motive for this practice is profit for publisher and/or outlet, and not sympathy for an author who is not recieving a non-existent royalty.

50

Gotcha. Yes, the term “bookseller” is used in the trade for one who actually sells books to consumers, not for wholesalers or publishers. Being allowed to strip covers rather than send back the whole book saves shipping costs for booksellers, so jeopardizing the arrangement by selling or giving away the books with stripped covers is not in our best interest.

To address the last part of your comment, though, I’m going to switch hats. Although I own a bookstore, the majority of my income is from writing. As an author, I do indeed have the hubris to think that if someone gets a free copy of my book, that’s a sale lost–hence a royalty lost. Sure, there are people who pick up free books that wouldn’t otherwise have bought them, but for the most part people don’t want to invest the time in reading a book (free or otherwise) unless it’s something that interests them. If they hadn’t gotten it free, they might well have bought a copy.

Disclaimer: None of my books have ever been released in mass-market editions, so this hasn’t affected me directly and personally as an author, only as a bookseller.

51

[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:50, topic:571979”]

Gotcha. Yes, the term “bookseller” is used in the trade for one who actually sells books to consumers, not for wholesalers or publishers. Being allowed to strip covers rather than send back the whole book saves shipping costs for booksellers, so jeopardizing the arrangement by selling or giving away the books with stripped covers is not in our best interest.

To address the last part of your comment, though, I’m going to switch hats. Although I own a bookstore, the majority of my income is from writing. As an author, I do indeed have the hubris to think that if someone gets a free copy of my book, that’s a sale lost–hence a royalty lost. Sure, there are people who pick up free books that wouldn’t otherwise have bought them, but for the most part people don’t want to invest the time in reading a book (free or otherwise) unless it’s something that interests them. If they hadn’t gotten it free, they might well have bought a copy.

Disclaimer: None of my books have ever been released in mass-market editions, so this hasn’t affected me directly and personally as an author, only as a bookseller.
[/QUOTE]

And the fact that libraries exist indicate that that is false. What are they doing, legal piracy?

Authors always think they have rights to things that majority of people do not think they have. I’ve seen people try to get rid of even the first-sale doctrine.

It is not stealing if I do not deprive you of property. It is copyright infringement. The fact that EM calls it stealing means he is making moral argument instead of a legal one, and morality is a matter of opinion, and people are free to have a different morality than him.

NonGQ digression follows:

[spoiler]While ordinarily I wouldn’t discuss morality in GQ, since it’s been brought up, I’ll say what I think. It is my observation that most people don’t agree with the law when it comes to ownership of intellectual property. They believe that, if they own the physical copy, they own the content, or at least have a license to either sell it as is or modify it for their own personal use. Both of which are in many circumstances technically illegal.

In fact, the widespread hatred for the RIAA et al. is because people think they used their power to get the law changed to be in their benefit at the expense of the consumers. That’s the real reason for widespread piracy–people deciding that, if the seller is only going to going to look out for themselves, then they might as well, too. It happens every time people feel cheated.

You don’t do yourself any favors when you get mad at people for observing their own morality. It just makes people think they are more justified in not listening to your wishes.[/spoiler]

52

Whoa, dial it back a notch, there, BigT. I’m not sure how I pushed that hot button of yours but you’re putting words in my mouth (well, on my keyboard). I didn’t use the words “stealing” or “piracy.” You did. I didn’t “get mad at people for observing their own morality.” Heck, I didn’t get mad at all. I have no problem with libraries because they legally purchase copies of my books (which I get paid for) and loan them out. I have no problem with that.

What rights do I think I have that you don’t think I have? I believe that, just like a welder, a cook, or a cabinetmaker, I produce something and I have a right to get paid for it. The industry has decided that, unlike those others, authors shouldn’t get paid up front. Publishers aren’t willing to take all of the risk, so they pass some of it off to us. We get a small amount up front (the advance), and a tiny amount per copy of our books that are sold (the royalty).

I think that when a publisher prints a copy of my book and a consumer ends up with permanent possession of that copy, I should get my royalty. If the cover is stripped, the publisher doesn’t get paid, so I don’t get paid. Can you understand why I have a problem with that?

And, Quasi, I certainly can’t speak for “the industry,” but I have no problem with used bookstores. I sell used books in my bookstore. Most of the authors I know rather like having used bookstores introduce new readers to their work, as those new readers will hopefully buy more copies.

53

This comment makes no sense. When we are talking about the reselling of stripped books, we are talking about physical property. I made this point explicitly. Neither copyright infringement nor any kind of intellectual property abridgment is involved. It is the theft of actual physical property that legally belongs to someone else and reselling it.

Our entire society agrees that this situation is legally theft. Virtually everyone agrees that it is morally wrong as well. Even the thieves probably agree that it’s morally wrong, but they prefer the money to morality. So do the people in your spoiler. But they are irrelevant to this discussion. The selling of stripped books is legally identical to the selling of any other kind of hot property off the back of a truck. It is a physical, legal crime. It’s also morally wrong, but that’s also irrelevant to the discussion.

54

I don’t think I’ve ever purchased a stripped book, but I’m pretty sure I saw them when I was working in a thrift store. Oddly enough, I used to wonder why it was a big deal, since there was no way a stripped book would sell as new, and a sale in a thrift store wouldn’t net the publisher or author any revenue anyway. But of course any organized dumping of these books on the used-book market is probably a way for some unscrupulous bookstore owner to commit fraud. OTOH, if a bookstore employee swipes one or two stripped books out of the pulping bin, and later donates them to a thrift store, it’s hard to see how the publisher or author is benefited if the thrift store destroys them of if customers eschew them for other donated books (which is not to excuse the original theft, though I can’t swear I’d be able to resist the temptation if I worked in a bookstore myself).

AFAIK, I own one stripped book, which I picked up from a free-book pile at a nearby college library. I have no idea whether the library staff put it there or someone else just left it there. It appears unread, but was printed over ten years before I found it. I probably wouldn’t have bought it new, but might have become a regular fan of the author’s if I’d enjoyed it. As it happened, I read the first chapter or two, wasn’t hooked, and put it on my bookshelf at home, in case I decided to give it another try some other time.

I’d be curious what Gary and others think I should have done when I saw the book in the give-away pile, and what I should do with it now. Also what I should have done with the stripped books I saw at the thrift store I worked at, and what I should do if I see them as a customer.

55

There are undoubtedly millions of stripped books sitting in homes today, because of that period 30-40 years ago when it was common to have bookstores that had a major portion of their cheap stock as stripped books. Like Cal, above, I bought them myself. That was before I understood what stripped books were. Like him, I would no longer buy a stripped book. If I were to get rid of any - and I have - I’d simply trash them.

Stripped books have little value today. I don’t think even library book sales and other sales of donated books would accept them. If I saw one, I’m not going to pull it off the shelves and yell at the seller. It’s a dead issue.

56

Here’s the thing guys! I use to go to a bookstore in our town that sold a lot of used comics, and once in a while he’d end up with one or two coverless ones! He always gave them away to good customers, of which I’m glad to say I was one of!! So without any theft involved I ended up with several coverless comics that I otherwise would never have had the opportunity to read! This only made me want to buy more comics, so all in all, everyone eventually wins on this!!(Course all of this was I was young and I no longer have any of these books, and the store has been gone for a good 40 years, and the owner passed away long ago sad to say!)

57

In the past, Asia Books stores in Bangkok often had books on sale with a piece of the cover corner removed. (I don’t know if they still do; since Kinokuniya opened book stores in Bangkok they get all my business.)

58

I recently acquired a copy of The Zombie Survival Guide without a cover.

59

I’m sorry, but that’s still stealing in a way-The retaler is giving away prduct that is supposed to be sold, depriving the wholesaler of profit. The word gerts around that “coverless” versions can be had for free, and some people will take advantage, skip buying the book, and wait a week or so before getting a book for free.

60

The retailer was selling used comics- I’m sure it doesn’t happen much anymore, but when I was a kid the “collectibles” (stamps , coins, comic books) store also sold used comic books that were not of collectible quality as well as used magazines. **startrekfan *isn’t describing a retailer stripping the cover, getting credit from the wholesaler and giving the comic book away for free. He’s describing a situation where I bought the March 1977 issue of a comic book (which the publisher got paid for) , sold it to the comic book store (most likely weeks if not months later) and at some point the book lost its cover and rather than try to sell it the owner gave it to a good customer. The wholesaler was never going to be paid again after the initial sale.