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.

What should be dark times to be an author

A man named Kirtsaeng has recently made news in the writing community thanks to Scott Turrow—president of the authors guild and fiction author—complaining about him to the point that the New York Times interviewed him and printed the report as ‘The death of the American Author.’

Shame on the New York Times, which is supposed to give actual insight into developments and give the whole story instead of just stopping at the interview.  Instead, the site techdirt, giving the low down on mostly news stories and even purely how they relate to tech-based jobs, gave the whole story, going, gar, far beyond the duty of a cross-country news site.

For those who read neither article (don’t blame you), a man named Kirtsaeng made thousands by selling textbooks on ebay.  While prices are artificially inflated here in America, they aren’t in Thailand, the land of Kirtsaeng’s parents. Everything was done legally, yet Scott claims this is the work of piracy and anything that allows it should be shut down.

Authors back Scott with his ridiculous fight against resale stores, only making people wonder what planet they think they’re on and a good argument to stray away from the book market until it learns what a market is and how it works. Only a few seem to be cluing in to what the implications of Scott's words.

Both sides have already been reported on, he side I feel needs far more attention is that Kirtsaeng’s actions should be lauded and should have brought to light a problem that has needed to be addressed since the economic crash.  For the last year, student loan debt has been speculated to slowing down recovery to destroyingthe economic prospects of an entire generation.  Textbook prices are a contributor.

How is Kirtsaeng not seen as a hero?  Especially by those who already know the hardship of struggling to pay for classes, study for and pass them, juggle jobs and chores, and hope to have time and money to spend on food, housing, and emergencies?  Every author who backs Scott should be asked: why are you punishing those in college?  Why are you not satisfied with royalties, but need pumped up royalties paid by a struggling demographic?

If only the guild had stood for gouging neither party for money.  I truly wish this were a black mark that would remain upon the guild’s reputation until they actively worked to redeem themselves from such a view.

It is a dark day to the an author, thanks to guilt by association.