Publisher puts new limits on library e-books

[ERD50]

Manufacturers can suggest prices and recommend prices but cannot set them. The price needs to be set by the retailer. If the manufacturer sets the final retail price it is violating federal anti-trust law.

That can't be true, Apple for one high profile example does it all the time. hmmm. google, google, google...


Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Competition - Resource Guide to Business Competition

Reasonable price, territory, and customer restrictions on dealers are legal. .... . For instance, an agreement between a manufacturer and dealer to set maximum (or "ceiling") prices prevents dealers from charging a non-competitive price. Or an agreement to set minimum (or "floor") prices or to limit territories may encourage dealers to provide a level of service that the manufacturer wants to offer to consumers when they buy the product.

.... If a manufacturer, on its own, adopts a policy regarding a desired level of prices, the law allows the manufacturer to deal only with retailers who agree to that policy. A manufacturer also may stop dealing with a retailer that does not follow its resale price policy. That is, a manufacturer can implement a dealer policy on a "take it or leave it" basis.

Personally, I don't care if a mfg wants to fix the retail price or not. They are the seller, it's up to them. The product is either worth the offer price to me or it isn't. They still have to compete with others who are free to fix the retail price or not.

And I'll keep offering my nicely sharpened #2 pencil for $2,000,000. It's a limited edition unit, one of a kind. I doubt I'll get any takers, but I can't see why it should be illegal for me to offer it for sale.

-ERD50

 

[MichaelB]

That can't be true, Apple for one high profile example does it all the time. hmmm. google, google, google...


Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Competition - Resource Guide to Business Competition


Personally, I don't care if a mfg wants to fix the retail price or not. They are the seller, it's up to them. The product is either worth the offer price to me or it isn't. They still have to compete with others who are free to fix the retail price or not.

And I'll keep offering my nicely sharpened #2 pencil for $2,000,000. It's a limited edition unit, one of a kind. I doubt I'll get any takers, but I can't see why it should be illegal for me to offer it for sale.

-ERD50

ERD, a manufacturer can establish a price range and only deal with resellers willing to sell within the limits of that range, but they cannot set a fixed price. Apple can agree with it's distribution network for a price range for the iPod but then each is free to set final price within that range.

I didn't get the rest of your post.

 

[ERD50]

ERD, a manufacturer can establish a price range and only deal with resellers willing to sell within the limits of that range, but they cannot set a fixed price. Apple can agree with it's distribution network for a price range for the iPod but then each is free to set final price within that range.

That's just semantics. So they set the min at $999.98 and the max at $1000.00. Or maybe 999.99 for both min/max (I guess that depends how the law is written).

I didn't get the rest of your post.

I guess I'm not surprised

Bottom line is, outside of monopoly-like powers, a transaction is agreed to between the buyer and the seller. As long as there is transparency, there is nothing 'wrong' or 'unfair' about offering any price at all. The buyer can simply say "No thanks".

People seem to not acknowledge this when they want the govt to set price controls. Let the individual decide, I say. BTW, I think govt regulations regarding transparency are sometimes needed. The deal should be clear, but then it's up to me to make/take the offer or not.

-ERD50

 

[Westernskies]

They're really just a prop to hold up an existing supply/demand model built around what had been limited access to content.

Limited access to content?
Translation, please.

 

[Texas Proud]

Textbooks was the example I chose, because :
1. They are expensive
2. Multiple users need the same tome, sometimes year after year
3. College kids are pretty ingenious, well-networked, and most would rather spend money on beer than books.

I BOUGHT an out-of print e-book two days ago, downloaded as a copyrighted file in a "protected pdf format" for $10. Out of print copies, rarely available, are $150+. I wanted to read it on my Kindle, but, unfortunately, it wasn't available in Kindle format. So, voila, quick Google search and a free program download later, I converted it to a Kindle-readable pdf document, and an adobe-readable pdf document. The copyright meant nothing to the conversion program. I now can share it with anyone (loan or give a copy) if I were so inclined. And, I''m just a crusty old technophobe, not some savvy young technogeek, but it became evident to me pretty quick that electronic books have little or no downstream distribution limitations, unlike one- at -a -time published versions.

Publishers and authors have a right to be careful with their intellectual property, IMO. YMMV.

I will add a bit to this...


What you described is illegal... what you suggest students will do is illegal... there is nothing that can be done at this time to prevent it... so even if they had a 26 lend limit... someone would hack it and it would be available for people who do not want to pay for it..

The only thing that has changed is that law abiding people will have the costs go up at their library...


Now, I wonder if they want to put a 26 'give away' limit on the books... IOW, if you have a book on kindle and give it to me.. we now have 25 gives left... (I do not know if you can give a book.... I don't have a reader)...

 

[MichaelB]

Now, I wonder if they want to put a 26 'give away' limit on the books... IOW, if you have a book on kindle and give it to me.. we now have 25 gives left... (I do not know if you can give a book.... I don't have a reader)...

As a kindle user you have no right to sell or loan. Your rights are limited to single use on up to six devices (registered to the same Amazon account). The e-books are linked to the account, not the device.

Amazon has introduced a “loan” feature but (so far) it is focused on free books or those being promoted by the author and it consists of an email message to the recipient.

 

[MichaelB]

That's just semantics. So they set the min at $999.98 and the max at $1000.00. Or maybe 999.99 for both min/max (I guess that depends how the law is written).



I guess I'm not surprised

Bottom line is, outside of monopoly-like powers, a transaction is agreed to between the buyer and the seller. As long as there is transparency, there is nothing 'wrong' or 'unfair' about offering any price at all. The buyer can simply say "No thanks".

People seem to not acknowledge this when they want the govt to set price controls. Let the individual decide, I say. BTW, I think govt regulations regarding transparency are sometimes needed. The deal should be clear, but then it's up to me to make/take the offer or not.

-ERD50

Absolutely not semantics. The law is quite clear and your example is not realistic. Winks and smug responses aside, I still don’t understand what point you are trying to make or what it has to do with the e-books.

 

[Westernskies]

I will add a bit to this...


What you described is illegal... what you suggest students will do is illegal... there is nothing that can be done at this time to prevent it... so even if they had a 26 lend limit... someone would hack it and it would be available for people who do not want to pay for it..

The only thing that has changed is that law abiding people will have the costs go up at their library...


Now, I wonder if they want to put a 26 'give away' limit on the books... IOW, if you have a book on kindle and give it to me.. we now have 25 gives left... (I do not know if you can give a book.... I don't have a reader)...

Why would it be illegal for each student to share the one copy they were given? It was legally sold the first time, and then just lent or shared at no apparent monetary gain downstream. Each recipient would each be using it for their personal use, no one would profit from the individual transactions, it's probably a cleaner legal transaction than buying a used copy from a bookstore..... watch a group of kids pass around a joke or jump on a new facebook entry and you'll understand how an entire class could share a single electronic copy of a textbook in just few minutes. If Charlie Sheen can get a million twitter hits in a single day, how long do you think it would take to distribute a "free" copy of that expensive new ECON 101 text?

I believe the bigger issue is the easy electronic redistribution of e-books as opposed to the one-at-a-time limitation of physical books. If it takes someone two weeks to read and return a physical book, and the library system is 100% efficient, then each book can only be read 26 times a year. By then, anyone waiting for that title will probably have lost interest or found another way to access the material (new, used or e-book) or the book is so dog-eared , highlighted, coffee-stained, and bedraggled that it is retired from circulation. Electronic versions remain in pristine condition, in circulation forever, (unless we have an EMP burst...) And, as some have pointed out, there are those who have embraced e-technology and are profiting from personal appearances. That might work in the music industry, but when was the last time you heard of an author or a college professor selling out Yankee Stadium for a book signing?

So, as ERD50 pointed out, there are fundamental differences in electronic vs printed media. Why wouldn't different rules be appropriate for different media? Publishers and authors are the ones who determine how they want to release their IP to the public; if you don't like the format rules, don't buy it. As a consumer you have the ability to vote with your wallet, just as the publishing industry has the right to protect theirs.

 

[donheff]

Why would it be illegal for each student to share the one copy they were given? It was legally sold the first time, and then just lent or shared at no apparent monetary gain downstream. Each recipient would each be using it for their personal use, no one would profit from the individual transactions, it's probably a cleaner legal transaction than buying a used copy from a bookstore.....

WS - you are talking about making multiple copies and simultaneously giving them to multiple students. That is illegal with music, it is illegal with physical books, and it is illegal with e-books. From other posts here it sounds like even passing on a single copy of an e-book to someone not on your account (i.e. giving the ebook away when you are done with it) violates the kindle/Amazon contract. If so, I think the contract is lousy and I hope the courts invalidate it since I believe you should be able to give your books away after you read them. We shall see in the long run.

 

[MichaelB]

The rules are already in place and have been for years. Not just for e-books but other digital copyrighted material as well - video, audio, computer software. There is little chance first sale will be applied to e-books.

What needs to change, as M Paquette pointed out, is the business model that covers content creators, producers, distributors and users.

 

[Westernskies]

WS - you are talking about making multiple copies and simultaneously giving them to multiple students. That is illegal with music, it is illegal with physical books, and it is illegal with e-books. From other posts here it sounds like even passing on a single copy of an e-book to someone not on your account (i.e. giving the ebook away when you are done with it) violates the kindle/Amazon contract. If so, I think the contract is lousy and I hope the courts invalidate it since I believe you should be able to give your books away after you read them. We shall see in the long run.

donheff, you need to pay closer attention. I am NOT talking about "making multiple copies and simultaneously giving them to multiple students." Here is the simplistic version: I am talking about little Jimmy buying a legal e-copy of that ECON 101 textbook, then, in a moment of passion, sharing it with his wanna-be GF Janey. Well, Janey shares her copy with her BFF Sally, who is dating Raul, so he gets his copy from her. Raul gives a copy to his buddy Mikey, who shares it with Shaniqua. Shaniqua has a crush on Wu-Fong, so she gives him a copy... each person only passed on one copy, since they believe they "should be able to give their books away", (whether they read them beforehand or not is immaterial). So, one textbook (or any desirable new release) quickly becomes a hundred or more, depriving the publisher and the author of sales opportunities for copyrighted material.
That's why the evil corporate publishers and those greedy authors need to (and are) releasing materials with restrictions-- your statement that the " contract is lousy and I hope the courts invalidate it since I believe you should be able to give your books away after you read them." shouldn't apply to e-books like printed materials, IMO. Obviously, your mileage does vary.

 

[Bestwifeever]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how sequentially sharing a physical dead-tree textbook to 100 people one after another has ever been a problem to publishers or anyone else, WS. How exactly does it happen "one textbook (or any desirable new release) quickly becomes a hundred or more"? It's still one textbook.

 

[Westernskies]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how sequentially sharing a physical dead-tree textbook to 100 people one after another has ever been a problem to publishers or anyone else, WS. How exactly does it happen "one textbook (or any desirable new release) quickly becomes a hundred or more"? It's still one (e-)textbook....

(emphasis mine)

....with the potential to be in the hands of a hundred or more people simultaneously. That cannot happen with a physical book.

 

[ziggy29]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how sequentially sharing a physical dead-tree textbook to 100 people one after another has ever been a problem to publishers or anyone else, WS. How exactly does it happen "one textbook (or any desirable new release) quickly becomes a hundred or more"? It's still one textbook.

As far as making sure a single "copy" of an e-book can't be used more than once at a time, I think some e-readers have this sort of thing where you can "loan" out a book to someone else, but if you do, you can no longer access it on your own reader. I'm pretty sure the publishers wouldn't use the e-reader format, and I wouldn't blame them.

 

[Bestwifeever]

I don't think you can share e-textbooks like that, WS. Some info here: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/nookstudy/support/index.asp?cds2Pid=36201

 

[Texas Proud]

donheff, you need to pay closer attention. I am NOT talking about "making multiple copies and simultaneously giving them to multiple students." Here is the simplistic version: I am talking about little Jimmy buying a legal e-copy of that ECON 101 textbook, then, in a moment of passion, sharing it with his wanna-be GF Janey. Well, Janey shares her copy with her BFF Sally, who is dating Raul, so he gets his copy from her. Raul gives a copy to his buddy Mikey, who shares it with Shaniqua. Shaniqua has a crush on Wu-Fong, so she gives him a copy... each person only passed on one copy, since they believe they "should be able to give their books away", (whether they read them beforehand or not is immaterial). So, one textbook (or any desirable new release) quickly becomes a hundred or more, depriving the publisher and the author of sales opportunities for copyrighted material.
That's why the evil corporate publishers and those greedy authors need to (and are) releasing materials with restrictions-- your statement that the " contract is lousy and I hope the courts invalidate it since I believe you should be able to give your books away after you read them." shouldn't apply to e-books like printed materials, IMO. Obviously, your mileage does vary.

That is semantics.... the first time it was copied was illegal... all other copies are illegal... so, it does not matter if it was all done at once or over time... they copied illegally... changing the model as you put it will not stop this....


On your first example... if a group of people want to chip in a buy one textbook and 'share'... they have to figure out a way how to hand it over to the next person... or they have a study time when everybody gets to look at it together...

An ebook can be the same... if it is on my reader... there is nothing stopping me from loaning you my reader and you reading it... legally...

So, either way we have one legal copy... if it is in paper form, I can give the book to anybody I want... it sounds like if it is electronic I can not... and I am not talking about giving a copy and keeping it... but erasing it from my reader and it is now on your reader...

 

[SunsetSail]

Manufacturers can suggest prices and recommend prices but cannot set them. The price needs to be set by the retailer. If the manufacturer sets the final retail price it is violating federal anti-trust law.

So I think you are referring to vertical price fixing (i.e., price fixing between a manufacturer and a retailer) which may be illegal if other factors are present but the practice is not illegal per se.

Horizontal price fixing (between competitors) is illegal per se. So it is possible for a manufacturer to set a price to a retailer, albeit under somewhat narrow circumstances.

 

[ERD50]

Absolutely not semantics. The law is quite clear and your example is not realistic.

Please explain - it seemed clear to me from the link I provided that it is allowed. What am I missing?

As a practical matter - can you find a range of prices on brand new iPads of a specific model (not a refurb, or other bundle)?

Winks and smug responses aside, I still don’t understand what point you are trying to make or what it has to do with the e-books.

I'm making the "big picture" point. I don't care if we are talking pencils, cars, iPads, hardcover books or ebooks - a seller sets a price and terms, and a buyer can either accept it or not. If too few accept it, the business will adjust or go out of business and/or consumers will seek out alternatives.

So, specifically to ebooks - the sellers can set whatever limits/prices they wish. If you don't like it, don't buy/rent/loan ebooks. Tell your library not to. Whatever.

And we don't always get our way as individuals, if enough of the public goes along with the seller. For example, I'd like to see my cell phone carrier offer a "bring your own phone" rate, instead of bundling the cost of a rebate on a replacement phone every two years into the monthly bill. There are a few alternatives, but they have their limitations also. But cell carriers have an oligopoly, so it is tough.

My 'wink-and-nod' is I find that some people appear unable to accept the law of supply and demand - it befuddles me and I don't even know how to communicate with people who reject the concept.

-ERD50

 

[Sarah in SC]

Reminder of our Community Rules: Be courteous, please. Thanks!

 

[ziggy29]

So, specifically to ebooks - the sellers can set whatever limits/prices they wish. If you don't like it, don't buy/rent/loan ebooks. Tell your library not to. Whatever.

Agreed, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that publishers shouldn't have the right to set different terms for e-books than for hardcopies. I think the point is more that some of us don't understand why they would feel the need to have different pricing models, assuming the copyright protection in the e-books and e-readers prevents a "copy" of an e-book from being accessible to more than one e-reader at any given time. Sure, it's their right to do so, but it seems to make little sense to have different rules about the usage of a single copy.

In other words, it's questioning the rationale, not their right to do so.

 

[donheff]

donheff, you need to pay closer attention. I am NOT talking about "making multiple copies and simultaneously giving them to multiple students." Here is the simplistic version: I am talking about little Jimmy buying a legal e-copy of that ECON 101 textbook, then, in a moment of passion, sharing it with his wanna-be GF Janey. Well, Janey shares her copy with her BFF Sally, who is dating Raul, so he gets his copy from her. Raul gives a copy to his buddy Mikey, who shares it with Shaniqua. Shaniqua has a crush on Wu-Fong, so she gives him a copy... each person only passed on one copy, since they believe they "should be able to give their books away", (whether they read them beforehand or not is immaterial). So, one textbook (or any desirable new release) quickly becomes a hundred or more, depriving the publisher and the author of sales opportunities for copyrighted material.
That's why the evil corporate publishers and those greedy authors need to (and are) releasing materials with restrictions-- your statement that the " contract is lousy and I hope the courts invalidate it since I believe you should be able to give your books away after you read them." shouldn't apply to e-books like printed materials, IMO. Obviously, your mileage does vary.

OK, I wasn't paying attention But I don't see any theoretical problem with your scenario if the e-book was treated in the same manner as a physical book. Student 1 gives or sells his ebook to student 2 who reads it and gives or sells it to student 3 and so on. Student 1 does not retain a copy. That is the physical paradigm and that is essentially what a library serial loan entails. I was treating it as assumed (shouldn't have done that) that the student who wants to "share" his book is actually transferring it to the sharee. Anything else would involve illegal copying.

 

[Westernskies]

OK, I wasn't paying attention But I don't see any theoretical problem with your scenario if the e-book was treated in the same manner as a physical book. Student 1 gives or sells his ebook to student 2 who reads it and gives or sells it to student 3 and so on. Student 1 does not retain a copy. That is the physical paradigm and that is essentially what a library serial loan entails. I was treating it as assumed (shouldn't have done that) that the student who wants to "share" his book is actually transferring it to the sharee. Anything else would involve illegal copying.

Agree!

The biggest difference it the physical paradigm, which doesn't apply to e-books. (We've all seen what happens when theoretical protections meet the real world. Add $$ and stir for maximum standard deviation.)

 

[ERD50]

Agreed, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that publishers shouldn't have the right to set different terms for e-books than for hardcopies. I think the point is more that some of us don't understand why they would feel the need to have different pricing models, assuming the copyright protection in the e-books and e-readers prevents a "copy" of an e-book from being accessible to more than one e-reader at any given time. Sure, it's their right to do so, but it seems to make little sense to have different rules about the usage of a single copy.

In other words, it's questioning the rationale, not their right to do so.

That's not how I read this post for example (and a few others I won't take the time to track down):

When companies are greedy it prompts similar reactions in their customers. Serves them right if people start widely using account sharing techniques to download each other's libraries.

It just seems simple to me - the sellers want to continue to make the same profit from ebooks as they do with physical books. Their shareholders will demand it. And buyers will either support it or not. Now hopefully, this can be a Win-Win - if ebooks are cheaper to produce/distribute, then the seller can still make the same profit on a lower sale price.

edit/add - specific to this 26 lend rule - they are apparently trying to replicate the lost revenue from replacement of worn out books. It doesn't make any physical sense, but it is just something to replace revenue, and it models the physical world, which some people are comfortable with. Overall, it might be better than just raising prices overall, regardless of the number of uses a license gets. It actually makes sense on some level (but I'm not saying it's good/bad or there isn't better). One way or the other, they seem to need to raise revenue to maintain par, but w/o an inside look at the balance sheet we probably can't know that - but if there is competition in the market place, someone will want a piece of the action and offer a better price if they can do it profitably. /end edit

If it doesn't happen that way in the marketplace, I only see two likely
possibilities:

1) There is some monopoly power on one side or the other

or

2) People are willing to pay the higher price - they either see some perceived value, or just don't care or something - but enough do it willingly to allow the price to stay up.

-ERD50

 

[Westernskies]

I don't think you can share e-textbooks like that, WS. Some info here: NOOKstudy Support, Digital Textbooks, eTextbook Application - Barnes & Noble

Simple ( illegal? for "private use"?) pdf conversion. Commercial software, print/scan, or even captured screenshots.The electronic version of xeroxing that textbook, but a lot cheaper, less cumbersome, and a heck of a lot quicker. The potential for abuse is exponentially greater than with physical printed matter, it's just too easy... while the theorists will decry "but, but... that's illegal" it is reality to those dependent on sales for revenue and income.

 

[ERD50]

Reminder of our Community Rules: Be courteous, please. Thanks!

In case that was directed at me (fully or partially), or even if it wasn't, I'd just like to explain this comment I made - I wouldn't want it to be perceived differently from how I intended, and I see the wording might lead to that:

My 'wink-and-nod' is I find that some people appear unable to accept the law of supply and demand - it befuddles me and I don't even know how to communicate with people who reject the concept.

Wasn't meant to be negative, only honestly descriptive. I have often seen posts from people who simply appear to reject the laws of supply/demand and it is hard to for me to communicate with them. The whole idea of what is fair, or that a business is 'greedy' is foreign to me. In a free market, a business cannot be any more 'greedy' than what the market will bear. And they won't be any less 'greedy' either. The 'greediest' thing they can possibly do is lower prices to maximize the balance between profit and sales. And that is exactly what we want. Without that, we won't get the products we want at the best prices.

Are the buyers 'greedy' or unfair for wanting the product at a lower price?

Sorry if my wording offended anyone, I'm just trying to get this point across.


-ERD50