[Quiss]

The cloud thing makes a lot of sense.

You sell your book, it disappears from your cloud and goes to someone's else's piece of it. This is much like selling a used book at a garage sale - you no longer have it to re-read or sell to someone else.

I'm still trying to figure out how to get Wool from my cloud reader at Amazon to my trusty Sony. No joy.

 

[SBJones]

The article doesn't go into much depth and even before I read it, the replies to this thread had me thinking about the First-Sale Doctrine.  Digital media isn't protected by the Doctrine for a various reasons.  Mainly because they create copies.  Even if you have the software disks, for them to work it creates a copy to the computer and once you're creating copies, well...  That's Copyright territory.  That's why e-books, iTunes MP3's, and software all are sold and managed by user agreements, leases, accounts and subscriptions.

Anyway, after reading that article, this looks like a way for people to transfer their digital libraries that they "technically" do not own to someone else.  Either by selling it to someone and filling out the transfer paperwork, or the more likely scenario of transferring a loved one or family members digital library to the person who inherits it.  Everyone remember a few months ago when Bruce Willis found out he couldn't transfer his $100K iTunes library to his kids when he dies?

This isn't a way for people to get free copies of your e-book nor is it in anyway going to stop piracy or allow someone else to legally sell multiple copies of an e-book they bought.

 

[Elizabeth Ann West]

Edited to add:
I suppose the good news is that Amazon have a patent on this, which means that it's exclusive to them. So at least writers will be able to move their work from KDP to iBooks, Kobo and Nook, comforted by the knowledge that the other companies can't decimate their revenue stream by pedalling second-hand files...

Nope. Not if other companies buy a license to use a similar system or just do it and wait for litigation to sort it out, i.e. look at smart phone patents and that mess.

I still bet that in this closed system, it will be for store credit (amazon coins) not real money. So let's say Reader A buy's Cancelled for $3.99. She liked it, but wants to trade it in to get new books. Reader B wants to read Cancelled and has 5 Amazon coins. Reader B pays 2 Amazon Coins to Reader A to get Cancelled, effectively half price. Reader A can now spend those 2 Amazon coins to get a new book or buy another used book. Amazon's original cut on the $3.99 purchase was about $1.

Assuming a book can only be traded once (i.e. consumers can't resell the used content they buy), there is only $1 of the original purchase that could be used for the value of those 2 Amazon coins. Probably even less than that if you include the original cost of the purchase, which was probably a few cents for infrastructure, insurance, and other costs of doing business.

All in all, I wouldn't expect to get money for the resale of Cancelled since it's no different than a paperback resale which I can't control. All I can do is set my price at a threshold that accommodates an expected resale. I would expect to get money from Amazon if a user used Amazon coins to buy a NEW digital copy. Something like 3 digital coins new, offers of the digital file book used for 1-2 digital coins. The incentive for the reader would be buying it new, they could potentially get a portion of the credits back for something else, buying it used, they're stuck with the content (which is what happens with MOST used paperbacks, most are not sold over and over again but donated).

Another potential model would be like KDP Select. There is a set pot of money for content transfers and depending on how many times customers "Traded" your content is how much you get paid, because your content is valuable to the Amazon ecosystem of keeping customers USING Amazon devices.

 

[Elizabeth Ann West]

Oh boy....

Reality? Only 3 out of every 100 readers currently pay me. I've sold about 1500 copies of Cancelled, digitally or otherwise. I've had 50,000 downloads. 97% of my readers do not pay a dime to read Cancelled.

Now before anyone goes ballistic, if I was a NYT Best-seller with my book in libraries across the country, as a mass market paperback readers could sell, give, or loan, I don't know that my percentage would really be MUCH higher. When I was buying paperbacks, I ALWAYS gave mine away that I was done reading and had no desire to re-read.

Most traditionally published writers don't make a "living" on their writing. If people truly want to "make a living" you need to diversify, do a bunch of different things. Some writers "diversify" by writing multiple genres, always be releasing etc. Others use their skills in other arenas. Me? I make the lion's share of my paycheck each month on my tech work, though I do have months where book royalties are an outlier and make up the lion's share (as in for April I am due about $1500 in royalties and lending from my Jan free run, which will be slightly more than my monthly paycheck from my other work).

I bet if other authors here did a ratio of their free downloads to paid purchases, they'll see equally disturbing ratios of readers who pay vs. those who don't. A system of every 2nd reader pays is great!

 

[jackz4000]

Would the resale from A to B count as a sale for rank or pop? How to weight it? Would the author get a piece of the resale? In cash or coin?

 

[JumpingShip]

Oh boy....

Reality? Only 3 out of every 100 readers currently pay me. I've sold about 1500 copies of Cancelled, digitally or otherwise. I've had 50,000 downloads. 97% of my readers do not pay a dime to read Cancelled.

Now before anyone goes ballistic, if I was a NYT Best-seller with my book in libraries across the country, as a mass market paperback readers could sell, give, or loan, I don't know that my percentage would really be MUCH higher. When I was buying paperbacks, I ALWAYS gave mine away that I was done reading and had no desire to re-read.

Most traditionally published writers don't make a "living" on their writing. If people truly want to "make a living" you need to diversify, do a bunch of different things. Some writers "diversify" by writing multiple genres, always be releasing etc. Others use their skills in other arenas. Me? I make the lion's share of my paycheck each month on my tech work, though I do have months where book royalties are an outlier and make up the lion's share (as in for April I am due about $1500 in royalties and lending from my Jan free run, which will be slightly more than my monthly paycheck from my other work).

I bet if other authors here did a ratio of their free downloads to paid purchases, they'll see equally disturbing ratios of readers who pay vs. those who don't. A system of every 2nd reader pays is great!

The difference is you have a choice to make your book free or not and can use it as a marketing tool. I've done the same thing with my books. The thing is, I don't do it with all my books. I have never made Deeds of Mercy free and I doubt I ever will, but I've sold thousands and would hate for those sold ones to come back on my page as available as used books. I don't even compare this to a used bookstore.

It would be more like if Barnes and Noble had your hardcover on the front table of the store and you, as the author and publisher, paid a premium for that spot. Then along comes some guy with a bag full of your books he got for free from all the ARC you gave out but were never read. This guy stands in Barnes and Noble and every time someone comes up to the table with your books, he hands the reader one from his bag instead and says, 'I can sell it to you for half price. Perfect condition.'

That's my issue. If they just want to set up shop on a webpage and sell used ebooks, fine. They will have to do all the marketing. I don't think I should have to market my book for someone else to get all the profit.

 

[J Bridger]

This makes me nervous!

 

[Rin]

What if they had a "resale fund" like they have the lending fund now?

It includes the authors, encourages them to opt-in. It means that they're included, and will profit from the resales, without taking away all of the money from Amazon.

 

[Guest]

Patent, Smatent

There's no ethical way to "resell" a "used" digital file. Patent be damned.

If a digital file is resold, then Amazon owes us a royalty.

A "used" digital file is not a physical product.

Indie authors are really getting shafted on this scheme.

 

[HeidiHall]

My head is spinning! But... in a sense this already happens if you allow lending of your book. Two readers, one price. But it's a one-time deal and the author has to agree to it. I think this "resale" thing could work if the original purchaser agreed to a higher price if they want to resell. As in: book ABC is $2.99, but if you want the ability to resell this content 1 time the price is $3.99. That way the purchaser could resell for, say, $2 and make most of their money back, the author makes a better royalty and the second purchaser gets a "deal." But you have to limit the # of times the book can be resold (I think once is plenty) and the author has to opt in. AMZ is not going to pirate our books because it would be bad for their bottom line - they make more money when the product is sold for full price and if authors see their royalties sink into an abyss there will be very little incentive to keep producing new product. Yes, I love writing, but I enjoy sleep too much to do it for free

 

[Ann Herrick]

Not sure how this will work or what it means to us, but Amazon is poised to sell used ebooks.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bookselling/article/55849-amazon-poised-to-sell-used-e-books.html?utm_source=Publishers+Weekly%27s+PW+Daily&utm_campaign=a0e5351729-UA-15906914-1&utm_medium=email

 

[RoseInTheTardis]

Impossible to say what it actually means but people are having fun with it on twitter using the hashtag #usedebooks.

I can't even wrap my mind around how it would work since digital content can't really be "used." Maybe my brain is too small but it makes zero sense to me.

 

[Carry Lada]

Thanks! John.

 

[Steve Vernon]

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bookselling/article/55849-amazon-poised-to-sell-used-e-books.html

Any thoughts on this (so far) rumor

 

[Betsy the Quilter]

Hi, folks,

I've merged several similar threads; sorry for any confusion.

Betsy
KB Moderator

 

[Mathew Reuther]

All I have to say is that those of you who think this will do anything to piracy don't actually understand piracy at all.

Outside of that I'll wait and see what actually happens before I choose which way to jump.

 

[P.C. (Peter) Anders]

I don't know why, but somehow, it doesn't quite sound right to me.

 

[Saul Tanpepper]

Patents though are secured all the time and nothing comes of it.

This. Happens all the time in the tech world. I see this more as Amazon making a strategic move to block its competitors from implementing the practice rather than an announcement of plans to implement it themselves, at least not anytime soon. In fact, Amazon would be remiss not to be jumping on patent filings of this sort. The resale of "used" digital content is a murky area of law and there are waaaay too many issues to clear up before this gets put into practice. I don't, however, rule it out at some point, just not soon.

Maybe writers should implement a strategy used by software developers to stay competitive and relevant: issue versions. "So, you want to resell my ebook and undercut my own price? Fine, but if readers want the latest version with all the newest bells and whistles and plot points, they have to come to me."

 

[Carry Lada]

Maybe writers should implement a strategy used by software developers to stay competitive and relevant: issue versions. "So, you want to resell my ebook and undercut my own price? Fine, but if readers want the latest version with all the newest bells and whistles and plot points, they have to come to me."

I like it.

We could then publish our first drafts and provide service packs.

 

[JRTomlin]

All I have to say is that those of you who think this will do anything to piracy don't actually understand piracy at all.

Outside of that I'll wait and see what actually happens before I choose which way to jump.

Exactly. And I don't know how all this relates to the licensing agreement. Most people pay for a license which severely restricts their rights to resale. I will see how this shakes out before I get excited.