Hate doesn't sell--even when you say you're clean

Do you want to sell something?  Do you want to convince someone something is cool?  Then don’t be a douche—this is not swearing, this is a metaphor.  A douche goes somewhere private and claims it is good, but in actuality, it is harmful and unpleasant, but still somewhere private.

E-books versus print books has raged since e-books became assessable to more than just people who got bored with burning money.  Now that they’re accessible, unfortunately, they’re popular, which means the douches that come with them.  They needs to stop (so do douches that come with print).

Some e-book authors are clinging to any news about resale, including Scott Turrow’s recent argument and digging up his e-book hate, and claiming this means pirates are everywhere.  Ignoring that Scott is arguing over legal sales, they’re claiming pirates everywhere on ebay, amazon, amazon’s patent on e-books resale, and even certain country’s internet.  They decry anyone who uses these as ‘they could be pirates’ and ‘they help pirates’.  Douches.

They are sticking themselves into what is private.  If you buy resale, that’s no one’s business but yours and maybe taxes.  If you work in resale, that’s also private.  If you sell resale anywhere legally, even online, that’s private.  If you don’t do those things, that’s still private.  If you can do those things, that’s legal.  Rights are private and it’s your choice to make them public.  No one should associate you with anything illegal if you’re not doing anything illegal.

They are harmful.  Not only do these people want to take away resale rights—an essential right in all markets, including the digital one—but they want to take away resale rights purely because they think they are special.  They don’t like any resale because they could be hurt but resale of their product.  Could.  COULD.  Will they?  Who knows?  Ask around, even to companies and experts and you’ll get a range of  ‘we can’t tell’ and ‘probably not, but we’ll do our best to fix it.’

But the damage goes further.  As an author, you’re claiming ‘never resell my book, I am above the law’.  Legal resale is, well, legal.  You own it now and they don’t.  You can sell it. You can break it.  You can ignore it.  But do you want it in the first place?  Not only are you told ‘it’s not really your property’, but it’s followed up with ‘you scumbag, thinking about resale’.  You may not even be buying their book.  E-book authors don’t seem to care about their personal books short of ‘I’ve been pirated!  How dare they patent resale’. But they’d still scream bloody murder over thinking you might own something and want to sell it.  It’s starting to look like you’re buying more than just something to read on your tablet now and it’s getting unpleasant.

Worse, they say you lack intelligence and sense for resale, even if no one ever got hurt (which they don’t think is a realistic option).  You’re hurting business, as they assume the book was bought twice and paid for once.  They also ask why would anyone resell a book at all (even print).

Lastly, they demand money from those sales and think they deserve it.  They ignore all models of resale, even digital, claiming they need it and no one else does because they are entitled and they deserve it. They say resale steals form their profits.  Can you imagine if someone said that about a pair of pants or dishes?  They can’t, because they say they’re a completely different situation because they’re e-books and pirated.

Do these attitudes paint a good picture of any e-book authors?  When they’re noise covers up others’ silence or facepalms, they’re not just being douches, but they’re soiling people who aren’t douches.  What metaphor is appropriate for those who make innocent people look as bad as them by association the innocents never signed up for?

On the lighter news, they’re wrong.  Resale keeps stock rotated.  It keeps many companies strong, including future e-book resales.  Resale means it is sold twice (or more).

Here’s an e-book author (June solstice) who promotes strong and protected resale stores.  Go buy one, even if it’s not mine.  Go buy it where you want, I trust you. I trust all of you.  You’re a customer to somewhere and I believe you’re perfectly legit.

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?