Poll of the Day > Should selling used books be illegal?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I say yes, but I expect most people to vote no, because they aren't as insightful as me.
---

The author already profited from the initial sale, so there's no reason why the person who bought it shouldn't profit as well.
---

The author DID profit from the sale, the original sale.
---

EclairReturns posted...

The author already profited from the initial sale, so there's no reason why the person who bought it shouldn't profit as well.

The author -- and no one else -- should profit every time someone pays for the book.
---

No. There's nothing wrong with selling anything used like that.
---

PoIl6177 posted...

EclairReturns posted...

The author already profited from the initial sale, so there's no reason why the person who bought it shouldn't profit as well.

The author -- and no one else -- should profit every time someone pays for the book.

If you sell your car should you have to give some of that money to ford?
Get the fudge outta here.

PoIl6177 posted...

EclairReturns posted...

The author already profited from the initial sale, so there's no reason why the person who bought it shouldn't profit as well.

The author -- and no one else -- should profit every time someone pays for the book.

So in any multilevel process the initial source should get a dividend from every following step?

How very marxist
---

Lokarin posted...

So in any multilevel process the initial source should get a dividend from every following step?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

ASlaveObeys posted...

If you sell your car should you have to give some of that money to ford?

No. A car's value depreciates with use. A book's value doesn't.
---

"You shouldn't be allowed to sell your car once you've paid it off." - Some dumbass.
---

Far-Queue posted...

"You shouldn't be allowed to sell your car once you've paid it off." - Some dumbass.

See above post
---

PoIl6177 posted...

A book's value doesn't.

What about the wear and tear that it experiences once it is being read by some bloke?
---

You used straw man wrong - I am correctly evaluating the situation.
---

EclairReturns posted...

PoIl6177 posted...

A book's value doesn't.

What about the wear and tear that it experiences once it is being read by some bloke?

Completely minimal. It is easy to read a book and maintain its original value, so long as you aren't careless with it; you couldn't do the same thing with a car.
---

Lokarin posted...

You used straw man wrong - I am correctly evaluating the situation.

What you inferred does not follow logically from what I actually said.
---

Let's make libraries illegal too! The author isn't profiting when people read books borrowed from libraries

PoIl6177 posted...

Lokarin posted...

You used straw man wrong - I am correctly evaluating the situation.

What you inferred does not follow logically from what I actually said.

Ah, a simple miscommunication.

That's not the correct fallacy, I think the correct fallacy would be ad absurdum. Strawman is something else.

Anyways, lets clear this up.

Any producer of anything (books, food, whatever) has no claim on redistribution or trade on additional levels
---

CaptainStrong posted...

The author isn't profiting when people read books borrowed from libraries

Libraries lend books with the author's permission.
---

Lokarin posted...

Any producer of anything (books, food, whatever) has no claim on redistribution or trade on additional levels

I'm not asking whether they do; I'm asking whether they should. And for this specific example, "they" == "authors".
---

Why must you people feed the trolls?
---

Lol this guy.
---

Because university text books arent a big enough rip off already!
---

Ogurisama posted...

Because university text books arent a big enough rip off already!

They inflate the prices to compensate for people lending / reselling used books. If that never happened in the first place, the manufacturers would be incentivized to lower the price.
---

I'm kind of surprised no one's really explicitly pointed out the parallel to used games, where we're constantly told that used sales cost developers money via lost new sales, and that no one "buys" a video game as much as we merely license the right to play the game while the developer retains all of the rights to the original content, thus making copying, modding, or otherwise altering "your" game technically immoral.



PoIl6177 posted...

No. A car's value depreciates with use. A book's value doesn't.

A book's value depreciates faster than the average car. Especially mass-market modern books from the last 100 years or so, which tend to use substandard paper and highly acidic inks.

Even barely read books from the 80s tend to be extremely yellowed in their pages, if not outright turning brown. Ink dims, cover colors fade if stored anywhere with any exposure to sunlight (or even just strong lighting in general), and the paper grows somewhat brittle. Meanwhile, books that are actually READ tend to develop creases in the spine (for paperbacks), suffer separation of pages from the spine either from stresses or due to adhesive losing grip, and generally just tend to have dog-ears and tears on corners.

And THAT'S from people who actually take care of books to some degree. If you read while you eat, or just toss books in a pile on the floor, or in a box, or bend the cover back over while you read, or leave it propped open to save your page, or otherwise treat it like crap, books tend to deteriorate extremely fast.

Most public libraries tend to have a significant turn-over in books because of this (especially in the children's section).



papercup posted...

Why must you people feed the trolls?

Because it's PotD. There's nothing else to do here.


---

PoIl6177 posted...

he author -- and no one else -- should profit every time someone pays for the book.

Weird that that normally doesn't happen. Everyone involved in the book gets paid, AFAIK. Like the editor and publisher, as well. Also, you're usually buying a book from somewhere, and whichever store you get it from will get profits. I don't think most authors are selling the books from their house without involving other people.

PoIl6177 posted...

No. A car's value depreciates with use. A book's value doesn't.

A book's value can depreciate like a car's. People can get them dirty, pages can get worn and torn, all kinds of stuff that people do. Please don't act like it's impossible.

PoIl6177 posted...

Completely minimal. It is easy to read a book and maintain its original value, so long as you aren't careless with it; you couldn't do the same thing with a car.

You can. Don't act like because you can't that no one else can. I know people who take extraordinary care of any cars they have. Some that just have it to have it. Other who always makes sure it's in perfect condition.

But you also seem to be a troll, so whatever...
---

PoIl6177 posted...

No. A car's value depreciates with use. A book's value doesn't.

Yeah, I guess that coffee stain on pages 35 - 41 and the dog-eared corners everywhere appreciate the value.

Don't be ridiculous. The entire value of a car is the number of miles it is capable of transporting you; that's a fixed number, and it goes down with every mile the car is driven.

A car with 0 miles on it is more valuable than the same car with 50,000 miles on it, which is more valuable than the same car with 100,000 miles on it, which is more valuable than the same car with 150,000 miles on it.

It is unreasonable to expect to buy a car, get a full car's worth out of it (IE, drive it for 200,000 miles), then sell it for anything near the same price you bought it. With a book, you can easily do that.
---

No, but then again I think recreational crack and fully automatic weapons should be legal as well.
---

PoIl6177 posted...

I say yes,

Are you real?

PoIl6177 posted...

I expect most people to vote no, because they aren't as insightful as me.

EclairReturns posted...

The author already profited from the initial sale, so there's no reason why the person who bought it shouldn't profit as well.

This, obviously. Same as when somebody sells their house or car.

PoIl6177 posted...

The author -- and no one else -- should profit every time someone pays for the book.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I'm kind of surprised no one's really explicitly pointed out the parallel to used games, where we're constantly told that used sales cost developers money via lost new sales, and that no one "buys" a video game as much as we merely license the right to play the game while the developer retains all of the rights to the original content, thus making copying, modding, or otherwise altering "your" game technically immoral.

Well, used games certainly do reduce new sales. Really not something you can debate. As for the rest, the license argument would specifically need to be baked into the terms of the sale for it to count... although it'd be ignored anyway.
---

LinkPizza posted...

I know people who take extraordinary care of any cars they have.

You cannot simultaneously use a car and maintain its value. For the most part, people who buy cars use them.
---

PoIl6177 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

I know people who take extraordinary care of any cars they have.

You cannot simultaneously use a car and maintain its value. For the most part, people who buy cars use them.

---

Zeus posted...

EclairReturns posted...

The author already profited from the initial sale, so there's no reason why the person who bought it shouldn't profit as well.

This, obviously. Same as when somebody sells their house or car.

Suppose a person buys a book for $5, reads it, and enjoys it. Then sells it someone else for $5, who also reads and enjoys it. Two people read, enjoyed and paid for the book, but the author only received $5. The author did not receive the full value for the entertainment he brought the customers.

Suppose a person buys a car for $20k, drives it for 100k, then sells it for $10k. That person drives it for 100k then junks it (engine dies). In this case, each person consumed half of the $20k car, and they each paid for half of it. The manufacturer received the full value of what was given to the consumer.

It's okay to sell used cars; it's not okay to sell used books.
---

Zeus posted...

Well, used games certainly do reduce new sales. Really not something you can debate.

Yes, this is all correct. Used games should also not be allowed to be sold.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Everyone involved in the book gets paid, AFAIK.

When a used book is sold, the original author is not paid.
---

PoIl6177 posted...

Zeus posted...

EclairReturns posted...

The author already profited from the initial sale, so there's no reason why the person who bought it shouldn't profit as well.

This, obviously. Same as when somebody sells their house or car.

Suppose a person buys a book for $5, reads it, and enjoys it. Then sells it someone else for $5, who also reads and enjoys it. Two people read, enjoyed and paid for the book, but the author only received $5. The author did not receive the full value for the entertainment he brought the customers.

Suppose a person buys a car for $20k, drives it for 100k, then sells it for $10k. That person drives it for 100k then junks it (engine dies). In this case, each person consumed half of the $20k car, and they each paid for half of it. The manufacturer received the full value of what was given to the consumer.

It's okay to sell used cars; it's not okay to sell used books.

What happens if a person buys a car for $20k then sells it down the road for $100k when it becomes a collectible? Why isn't the car company getting that extra $80k?

Otherwise, unless you're buying used, you're not buying a book for $5 and most people aren't able to sell a used book for $5 -- hell, you're going to be damn near giving the book away most of the time (mostly likely to a thrift store which will sell the book for a buck). And if the argument is against other people using somebody, why are you whining about selling books? Shouldn't you be complaining about lending books? And shouldn't 90% of your ire be directed at libraries and schools which let people use books for free? At any rate, now you've been fed so now you can shitpost.
---

PoIl6177 posted...

You cannot simultaneously use a car and maintain its value. For the most part, people who buy cars use them.

Not all of them use their car. But some do. And they still take amazing care of it. Again, just because you can't doesn't mean other can't. Some people actually take care of their car.
---

PoIl6177 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Everyone involved in the book gets paid, AFAIK.

When a used book is sold, the original author is not paid.

I'm talking about the original sale. You said only the author should be paid. But that's not the case with the original sale of a book.
---

Zeus posted...

What happens if a person buys a car for $20k then sells it down the road for $100k when it becomes a collectible? Why isn't the car company getting that extra $80k?

When a car company sells a car, they receive money in exchange for a person being granted a certain amount of transportation (i.e., the car can transport a person, say 200k miles). They didn't sell the car as a collectible, so they don't have a claim to its value as a collectible.

Zeus posted...

you're not buying a book for $5 and most people aren't able to sell a used book for $5 -- hell, you're going to be damn near giving the book away most of the time (mostly likely to a thrift store which will sell the book for a buck).

https://amzn.to/2LYNoWM

When comparing used vs new prices, don't forget to factor in the cost of shipping.

Zeus posted...

Shouldn't you be complaining about lending books?

Yes, that shouldn't be allowed either (without the author's permission).

Zeus posted...

And shouldn't 90% of your ire be directed at libraries and schools which let people use books for free?

Refer to post #17.
---

PoIl6177 posted...

They didn't sell the car as a collectible, so they don't have a claim to its value as a collectible.

What about books that become collectables?
---

LinkPizza posted...

PoIl6177 posted...

They didn't sell the car as a collectible, so they don't have a claim to its value as a collectible.

What about books that become collectables?

Same thing.
---

"See above post" - Some dumbass.
---

This user is probably a russian bot
---

Lokarin posted...

This user is probably a russian bot

Huh, AI must have developed 90 years of progress overnight.

EclairReturns posted...

The author already profited from the initial sale, so there's no reason why the person who bought it shouldn't profit as well.

Basically this.
---

GanglyKhan posted...

Lokarin posted...

This user is probably a russian bot

Huh, AI must have developed 90 years of progress overnight.

Asking random questions on the internet? We've had bots for that since like 80s
---

Lokarin posted...

This user is probably a russian bot

Bots are smarter.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

EclairReturns posted...

The author already profited from the initial sale, so there's no reason why the person who bought it shouldn't profit as well.

Basically this.

If a million people read a $5 book, and the first person to read it sells it to the next, and so on, then the author receives $5 for a million books read. You think that's fair?
---

PoIl6177 posted...

wwinterj25 posted...

EclairReturns posted...

The author already profited from the initial sale, so there's no reason why the person who bought it shouldn't profit as well.

Basically this.

If a million people read a $5 book, and the first person to read it sells it to the next, and so on, then the author receives $5 for a million books read. You think that's fair?

No, only one book was still read
---

Lokarin posted...

PoIl6177 posted...

wwinterj25 posted...

EclairReturns posted...

The author already profited from the initial sale, so there's no reason why the person who bought it shouldn't profit as well.

Basically this.

If a million people read a $5 book, and the first person to read it sells it to the next, and so on, then the author receives $5 for a million books read. You think that's fair?

No, only one book was still read

A million people read it, paid for it, and enjoyed it.
---

whether games, books, movies, or whatever, I don't think there's a clear yes/no answer. it's up to what the customer is willing to put up with, and/or what measures the publisher is able to implement. obviously a company thinking only of money would want to charge each viewer of the content individually. that just hasn't been an option, historically, with things like books. non-transferability of a book is just not enforceable. with digital media, now it is achievable. but it's not really right or wrong, it's just pro-corporation and anti-consumer. (but really, only relatively.)
---

Sahuagin posted...

but it's not really right or wrong, it's just pro-corporation and anti-consumer. (but really, only relatively.)

Are you sure about that? If a single book is bought and resold a million times, you can have a million people who paid for and enjoyed the book, and the author only gets $5. Could a reasonable person argue in favor of such a policy? No, a reasonable person could not.
---