Buying Used books - Any guilt involved? Any authors here want to chime in?

[gljones]

I'm an author and I don't think anyone should ever feel guilty buying a used book. I'm not doing this to get rich, I'm doing this to entertain people, including myself by the way. I write stuff that I like to read and I hope others enjoy reading it as well.

[ArtNJ]

I buy used books when there is no kindle edition. If the publisher cant be bothered to make a kindle edition, they dont get my money. I'm sorry if that hurts the author, but paper books dont really work for me anymore, so I dont want to pay full price for one.

[gljones]

I don't think your alone on that. I'm scratching my head wondering how brick and mortar bookstores are going to survive. Maybe they won't.

[Loerwyn]

I buy used books when there is no kindle edition. If the publisher cant be bothered to make a kindle edition, they dont get my money. I'm sorry if that hurts the author, but paper books dont really work for me anymore, so I dont want to pay full price for one.

Can't be bothered? Ugh, that's such an incorrect argument. It's not about whether they can be bothered, it's about whether they can. Many book contracts have not been renegotiated since the recent rise of electronic reading, with the original contracts not being inclusive of electronic editions (or perhaps even audio ones!). Some authors are resistant to the change, too (I've forgotten who was notoriously resistant - Kurt Vonnegut?). The publishers might not even have the rights to distribute those editions, either. Books fall out of print, ownerships/rights/licenses revert and so on. You'll probably begin to see authors self-publish their back catalogue as the rights revert to them over the coming years/decades.

But regardless. It's not about being bothered, it's about being able to do it in the first place.

[ArtNJ]

Can't be bothered? Ugh, that's such an incorrect argument. It's not about whether they can be bothered, it's about whether they can. Many book contracts have not been renegotiated since the recent rise of electronic reading, with the original contracts not being inclusive of electronic editions (or perhaps even audio ones!). Some authors are resistant to the change, too (I've forgotten who was notoriously resistant - Kurt Vonnegut?). The publishers might not even have the rights to distribute those editions, either. Books fall out of print, ownerships/rights/licenses revert and so on. You'll probably begin to see authors self-publish their back catalogue as the rights revert to them over the coming years/decades.

But regardless. It's not about being bothered, it's about being able to do it in the first place.

So the big publishers cant assign an employee to an "Electronic Media Desk" whose job it is to round up their staple of authors and offer them a contract rider? If an author refuses, I get what your saying, but there are so few kindle editions of older books that I'm not buying recalcitrant authors as the problem. I think a better attack on my position is that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the publishers deciding it isnt cost effective to fuss with these these issues, and that this shouldnt be a reason to deprive an author of revenue.

But that is all besides the point for me. I just value a book on kindle more than I a value a paper book, so the only way a paper book makes sense for me is if its cheap, and that often means used.

[Loerwyn]

It's not financially viable to do that, though. It's not just about talking to them. The legal cost of redrafting and renegotiating all of those contracts would be immense. A number of publishers are taking a more relaxed approach because it's more viable for them to do so.