If you aren't E-with us...

According to the New York Times, Amazon and Apple arelooking into creating a store to sell used e-books and possibly otherelectronic merchandise.

On one hand, this definite progress.  Amazon and Apple have shut down entire accounts because the owner simply lent a kindle or ipod to a friend or, even pettier, because the companies suspected something on the device was not an authorized copy.  This behavior has led to distrust and a demand for new copyright laws in regards to who actually owns the actual device—does Amazon own the kindle you purchase and Apple the ipod, or did you exchange money to acquire property under your own name?

Ever since shortly after the beginning of capitalism, owners have wanted to resell their wares, after all, that’s how they acquired most of them.  Why can’t digital property be resold?

While this debate is still a mess in the courts while sites like redigi are legal until considered copyright violation, a strange urban myth has risen out of the article thanks to two particular paragraphs: ‘Sales of digital material are considered licenses, which give consumers little or no ability to lend the item. The worry is that without such constraints digital goods could be infinitely reproduced while still in the possession of the original owner’ and ‘An Amazon spokesman declined to comment on the patent, including how soon or even whether the digital marketplace would be set up. The patent does not make clear if such a bazaar would need the publishers’ permission.’

A small but vocal group of authors is trying to rise—not through action and asking Amazon to consider their rights and incentives concerning the store, but through complaints alone—by proclaiming this will swamp the store with pirates who copy e-books. 

Despite the policy of ‘one copy existing at a time in the store’ as well as managed by Amazon or Apple—companies who were infamous for trying to fight piracy with such zeal that they angered legitimate customers and created the demand to define property laws concerning digital media—running the stores will be any reason to trust the stores will not flood with pirated e-books.

Further complaints by the group were made when examples of fighting piracy without a used store were made.  When told of Comixology and other companies sold cheaper digital books because they did not try to make digital copies compensate for a loss of profit from print books, they responded by saying those lost money, as well as being told of fans of Game of Thrones asking tolegally purchase just the show instead of having to subscribe to outrageouscable fees, and that Apple and Amazon—as well as third-party vendors of used merchandise—even physical merchandise—neither work with nor even like pirates, the group claimed those points were all made by rabid pro-piracy advocates

Ignoring how erroneous the claims are, how damaging are they?  How large and vocal does a group have to be that their claims that Amazon and Apple work hand-in-hand and will do so more to make the companies concerned?  How much does it hurt an author’s reputation when they say claim e-book so many consumers are or side with pirates?  How much do they distance themselves when they claim other authors who choose to sell their e-books cheaply in order to attract customers are pirates and not legitimate authors?