Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

While semi sort of on the topic, I need to ask: just what the heck *are* we supposed to do with ARCs, ethically speaking? I’m not being sarcastic, I truly need a solution. I generally give mine to the library, but for all I know, *they* sell them on ebay.  Would authors truly feel better if I put them in the recycling bin? That’s pretty much the only way to guarentee they’re not going to be sold somewhere down the line.

just call me mean38

Candy:  As soon as I read that line, I *knew* you’d love the description of SBWLTN!  Too bad they didn’t name you outright, though. 

Shiloh Walker did a Romancing the Blog post on the topic of authors behaving badly, too:  http://www.romancingtheblog.com/blog/?p=674

I’m with you, Robin…why didn’t they mention our names?  Ads in RT are expensive, darnit!

Re: ARCs, I can’t speak for all authors, but yeah, if it’s one of my ARCs and you’re finished with it, trash it.  Dump it in recyling.  Or, if you don’t mind coughing up the postage, mail it back to the publisher. Then it’s their problem.

Oh, I want to act badly, too.  Candy and Sarah, what would you recommend as the most effective way to alienate the most readers with a modicum of effort on my part?  Busy, yet self-absorbed authors want to know! 

P.S.  I am searching for a yes-man who will do all this dirty work for me.  I’d prefer if he affected an English accent, was willing to be called “Derrick,” and could be snitty at a moment’s notice.  He would visit anyone trying to sell an ARC and thrash them roundly about the head with it until they cried.  If you know of any candidates, I can pay with leftovers and he can sleep outside on the deck.

I’m not going to get up in arms about what readers choose to do with their property, whether it’s my book or my publisher’s ARC. I’m sure when I throw a book across the room because it’s driving me nuts, the writer of said book would have preferred I didn’t. ;-)

If someone wants to pass my ARC around, I think it’s a good thing. More fans. Maybe when the book comes out, they’ll tell their friends to buy it. Maybe they’ll recommend it to their library. Maybe they’ll buy it themselves. Maybe they’ll buy the next one.

Personally, I think this whole “Authors Behaving Badly” thing is out of control. Time was an author used to have to have an all out flamewar online with a reader to get people pissed off. Now all it takes is single polite comment and three weeks later, you’re being burned in effigy without even knowing it. It’s really not fair to those authors who have put much more effort into “behaving badly” that now, any writer with an opinion that differs from a reader’s is going to be tarred with the same brush.

A far as I know, you may still give them to your local library or Uncle Bob, as long as you don’t sell them. The passing around wasn’t the issue, if I recall.

The thing that got authors up in arms are people who have tons of ARCs because they review, who then proceed to sell them on ebay. In many cases, they are marked that specifically they can not be sold.

That’s taking royalties from authors. While big names may not suffer, that’s most painful to a small press author who fights for every sale. If you resell a book you paid for, the author gets royalties, because they received them from the original sale. You sell an ARC that nobody paid for, they get nothing.

K. Cut violins.

As for bad behavior…Far be it from me to try to teach anyone manners. But I do reiterate my comment about taking a minute before posting to decide if someone would want to kick your ass for what you’re preparing to post, and if you are willing to take the asskicking that ensues.

You say it, own it. Either have the temerity to deal with the aftermath or have the testicular fortitude to say “Hey, I fucked up, and I shouldn’t have said that. My bad.”

As someone with chronic foot in mouth disease, I know from whence I speak.

When I read the column in RT I first thought “hee hee, they’re calling Smart Bitches controversial” which was cool.  Then I had a little shocked feeling when I realized, heyyyyy…I think they’re talking about MaryJanice and moi!  THEN I realized I was being called a bestselling author (like mega-bestselling MJD) and I forgot about everything else and just giggled.

Mistress Steph - you summed up the ARC issue perfectly, and you didn’t say fuck once.  If I had a hat I’d take it off to you.  You were much more succinct than I.

Diana - well put on the authors behaving badly comment.  And I must tell you that the splash page/opening on your website kicks ass.

My husband owns a bookstore, and it receives lots and lots of arcs (including mine). They do several things with them. One, they read them—and if the book’s appealing, seems like it would do well for them, they order it and potentially hand sell it, esp if it’s a new author.

They have several store events a year, and offer arcs as door prizes through them. Many arcs are passed to readers this way through the year. Hopefully, the reader will enjoy it (hey, you picked it), and then go on to buy future books by said author.

If an arc’s been sitting in the door prize box for a loooong time, it gets tossed in the trash.

No arcs go on the shelf for sale. Ever. No bookseller sells one on e-bay or anywhere else.

It’s a pretty simple routine, really. And pretty simple to do the ethical thing.

If the arcs survived the 5-10 employees who read them, an employee at the store I used to work at would take them to the assisted living facility across the road or drop them off at the hosiptal. We ended up with a couple of hospital volunteers and patients hooked on James Patterson and Jane Green.

Having now read some of the so-called “ass-kicking” being discussed I think it’s out of proportion to anything the authors have said. In most cases, it looks to me like people who want to start wars and finding a reason—any reason—to talk smack about total strangers.

I read one blog about an author with a self published book who is taking the money for her books and not delivering the product. That one I’ll get behind as bad behavior. Most of the rest of it seems like a difference of opinion that’s met with the kind of vitriol I try to reserve for people who break into my house and boil my pet rabbit. Maybe that’s the nature of the internet, that conversations get out of hand really qucikly? I don’t know. 

I used to work at an insurance company doing customer service. Sometimes people were rightfully mad at us, because we were bureaucratic drones with zero power and we were frustrating the hell out of them. Sometimes, however, their anger took on some scary levels, probably because we were on the other end of a phone line. In person, I don’t think they would have acted that way. I htink there’s some of the same effect going on here.

About the ARCs, let me clarify. I don’t care if they sell my ARC on eBay. I’ve posted about this before. PC Cast and I disagree about this one, probably because we’ve got very different ARC experiences, and that’s cool. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that she and I are probably not going to start some kind of online flamewar where we call each other names we wouldn’t use in front of our grandmothers and devote entire posts to how much the other person sucks and start yahoo groups and invent acronyms to talk about our hatred and in general have a big ol’ party of venom.

But, PC, if you throw a drink in my face in Hotlanta, it’s SO on.

‘Mistress Steph - you summed up the ARC issue perfectly, and you didn’t say fuck once.  If I had a hat I’d take it off to you.  You were much more succinct than I.’

Well, I did, but not in that part.

‘It’s a pretty simple routine, really. And pretty simple to do the ethical thing.’

Pretty much, yes. Basically, if you didn’t pay for it, the author didn’t get paid either.

Not that there’s any reason for unprofessional behavior, but if you worked your ass off at a day job and the guy next to you got a cut of your pay when he did nothing but sit there, you’d be pissed, too.

If someone gives an ARC away to a library, family member, or as a door prize at a book store, then it can potentially end up on Ebay.  Quite possibly, this is often how it often happens.

So, the people selling ARCs on Ebay have something of value and are trying to profit from that.  Isn’t that the spirit of capitalism? They never had any real obligations to review or destroy the book.

While the transaction may have some potential negative effect on the author’s profitability, I don’t see how it could be so potentially ruinous so as to be unethical.  It’s not like it would drive the author into bankruptcy.

That’s my take.

Throw a drink in your face Diana?!  GASP!  No way would I waste perfectly good alcohol on such rude, tacky behavior.  Unless you’d like to play Alexis and Chrystal (may I please be Alexis?).  I’ve definitely been raised better.  I even understand the concept of sending thank you cards.  Through the real mail.  But I would have a drink with you in Hotlanta!

And I wish I was married to Nora Roberts and owned a bookstore…sigh…

‘While the transaction may have some potential negative effect on the author’s profitability, I don’t see how it could be so potentially ruinous so as to be unethical.  It’s not like it would drive the author into bankruptcy.’

Okay, so let’s say your selling one ARC doesn’t bankrupt the author. That’s a reasonable assumption.

If.

If the person you sold it to keeps it.

What if they sell it as well? What if they scan it into an ebook or make copies and sell a hundred? A thousand?

I mean, it’s all right. YOU sold it, so it must be okay to do whatever they want with it. That’s what this kind of behavior perpetuates. I can do what I want, and screw the copyright page.

THAT could bankrupt an author.

Which is unethical.

‘While the transaction may have some potential negative effect on the author’s profitability, I don’t see how it could be so potentially ruinous so as to be unethical.  It’s not like it would drive the author into bankruptcy.’

I don’t think something has to be potentially ruinous to be unethical. I just think it has to be unethical. When there are rules and standards and someone says, basically, screw the rules and standards I can make a buck here, that, to me, is unethical behavior.

For me, this is an issue of principle, not of profit and loss.

what’s’ a theremin noise?

how do you know the recycling people wont take them?

‘how do you know the recycling people wont take them?’

You don’t.  But it doesn’t make for a good reason to do it yourself.

Following that logic, I could kick someone I don’t know in the ass just because someone else might. Imagine explaining THAT to the judge.

‘Following that logic, I could kick someone I don’t know in the ass just because someone else might. Imagine explaining THAT to the judge.’

Might, occasionally, be worth it. However . . .

You can’t know that someone won’t cop an arc out of the recycle bin and pop it onto e-bay. You can’t know if a reader who’s given one as a door prize or special gift won’t rush cackling with glee to e-bay. You can’t know if there are gangs of canny arc thieves dumpster diving at midnight and banking e-bay profits.

All you can do is the right and ethical thing. Again, that’s pretty simple.

I read a lot about the ARC controversy before my book was released.

I do have a problem with “reviewers” who never look at an ARC before hawking it on Ebay.  Some people have a big business going with ARCs and they are clearly in it for the money.  They’ve sold hundreds of ARCs.

Other people have an ARC or two that they’ve read.  Okay, the ARC has then served its purpose, especially if this person reviews the book, tells others about it, or lists it in some way.

So far as I know, the best publicity for a novel is word-of-mouth.  An ARC in the hands of an enthusiastic buyer on EBay may well be excellent advertising.

Color me as confused. I thought reviewers often sold their copies on the second-hand or resale market. Seems to be a well-established custom. At least, I’m always buying them, because when I shake the books, the pesky press releases, which have been folded up inside, fly free & flutter to the floor. I am getting these copies from the basement at The Strand Bookstore in Manhattan, which seems to be quite a solid & legal establishment. I mean, they’ve been selling these for years. So how are they getting away with selling contraband? Or are they selling “non-advance” reviewers’ copies? I’ve never seen “Not for Resale” on any of these books, BTW. And they certainly do have a barcode on them. If not for the PR enclosed within them, they’d be the same as what you’d buy, two blocks north, at the Barnes & Noble on Union Square.

For the record, I’ve only purchased one ARC in my life.  I got it for $.50 at my library’s book store.  It was an already published book, and to me it was the same as purchasing a used book (and we aren’t going into the ethics of that).

But to sell a not-yet-published ARC on Ebay is just tacky.

to me it was the same as purchasing a used book (and we aren’t going into the ethics of that).

Oh, let’s.  Isn’t that one of the unspoken issues in this whole ARC debate?

‘to me it was the same as purchasing a used book (and we aren’t going into the ethics of that).

Oh, let’s.  Isn’t that one of the unspoken issues in this whole ARC debate?’

I don’t understand this statement. Speaking for myself, I have no problem whatsoever with anyone buying or selling a used book. I’ve been paid, someone bought the book which then becomes their property. They’re free to sell it, shelve it, give it away or toss it. It’s theirs.

An arc isn’t a used book. It’s a review copy, an uncorrected proof marked not for sale. There are times a publisher sends out the finished book, corrected, pretty cover—I’ve gotten some of those sent to me. Nothing on them about limited distribution or not for sale.

Most in the industry know about The Strand in NY. We’re told—I can’t say if it’s true or not—that the review copies aren’t shelved and sold until after the book’s released. I still don’t like the policy, but that’s just my personal stand on it.

ARCs and used books have nothing in common morally or otherwise.  ARCs are clearly marked not for resale.  They don’t even look like the finished book.  Reviewers, etc., know that they include errors and are simply an early glimpse into the book.  I don’t understand how the ethics of “not for resale” can be confused.

I have no problem with used bookstores.  Actually, I adore them, especially for finding obscure research books and old, old cook books and gardening books.  None of which are ARCs.

Actually, purchasing a used book is perfectly acceptable. The author got their royalties when it was originally purchased.

As long as you no longer use it, you can resell it. That’s your right, because of your financial investment. Even if it changes hands ten times, it’s still acceptable. That’s why used bookstores can operate. No debate there.

It’s a bit interesting that basically what’s being said is that being handed a free book before anyone else gets to see it, which makes a lot of people fairly pleased, isn’t enough…you also have to make a profit regardless of whether the person who actually wrote it does.

And people point fangs at the authors.

Of course they have fangs. If they don’t give out ARCs, they’re snobs who forget where they came from. If they do, instead of a thank you, they get to see them up on ebay before the release date.

And you see nothing wrong with that?

Huh uh. I’m not weighing in on this one again ... lest I be called stupid again.

I cannot vouch for the Strand’s business practices, of course. But I just did a spot check—I pulled a few books off my shelves & looked at the dates given in the press releases & compared them against the date on my sales receipt (which I often stick inside the books, as book marks). So far, from the six hardcovers that I’ve examined, all six were purchased after the book’s release date, ranging from about a week to a month afterward.

I have also twice bought uncorrected galleys at the Strand. One such purchase was accidental; the markings were very discreet & I’d bought a stack of about eight books that day & just threw it on the pile. Both were purchased long after the books’ release dates—the books had been out for a few years by then.

I buy an appalling number of books every month, many of them new, many from small & independent & university presses (because that’s where you have to go, for poetry).  If I like a book, I will buy multiple copies because I know I will actually wear it out & need a second one, or will give it away to someone with a fervent recommendation. I am a book enthusiast, and I know that I cause a lot of sales & acquisitions because of my advocacy for certain books & authors. So, believe me, despite my ownership of some books of questionable provenance (though all were purchased legally through a rather famous second-hand bookstore), I am not an enemy of writers or the publishing industry. I’m more the kind of reader that an author would want to acquire—even at the price of a reviewers’ copy.

Sherry,

The issue is not with people who buy ARCs from used bookstores, it’s with the people who sold them to those bookstores in the first place.

If you got a free ARC, would you think “Free sneak peek, thanks!” or “Damn, I could bang this up on Ebay and make a bundle.”?

Therein lies the difference.

Actually, purchasing a used book is perfectly acceptable. The author got their royalties when it was originally purchased.

As long as you no longer use it, you can resell it. That’s your right, because of your financial investment. Even if it changes hands ten times, it’s still acceptable. That’s why used bookstores can operate. No debate there.

It’s a bit interesting that basically what’s being said is that being handed a free book before anyone else gets to see it, which makes a lot of people fairly pleased, isn’t enough…you also have to make a profit regardless of whether the person who actually wrote it does.

First let me say that I’m not trying to defend the sales of ARCs or suggesting that authors shouldn’t or don’t have a right to be upset about their sale.  I’m not in any way, shape, or form trying to argue that the pre-publication sales of ARCs is ethically right. I’m just trying to piece my way through a lot of anger over this issue and its various sub-issues.

Some of the things I walked away with after the last discussion on this topic here included the assertion that “not for sale” stamped on a book is not legally binding language (I got a lot of this legal stuff from comments by Jane, who, I’m pretty certain, is an attorney); ARCs are presented by the publisher as promotional material and are not intended ever to earn the author royalties in and of themselves; publishers tend to distribute relatively small ##‘s of ARCs pretty widely (some say indiscriminately), and publishers own the ARCs and, legally speaking, their sale is not comparable to pirating softwawre, for example, because the seller is not making another copy of the item for resale.

Based on the comments of authors in that discussion and here, the ethical violation seems to be linked to the issue of lost royalties and pre-publication availability/profit, both of which I understand and am not trying to contest.

Here’s where I get stuck:  if, for example, someone sells an ARC after a book has gone to press, isn’t it technically a used book at that point, especially if, indeed, someone has already read it (although technically a used book doesn’t have to be read, does it)?  The ARC itself would not have earned the author royalties to begin with, and it also won’t on the resale market.  Removing what seems to me the most controversial aspect of the ARC sale—that is, selling it before its formal publication by someone who makes quite a profit from it—I’m having a hard time distinguishing the sales of used ARCs from the sales of used books, especially if the author would make no royalties on either sale.  As for pre-publication sale of ARCs, I do think that only die hard fans of an author’s work would pay inflated prices for them, and that these fans are also likely to buy a brand new copy of a book on the very first day it’s available in stores.  However, I understand that even if this is true, it doesn’t negate the ethical violation of selling an ARC pre-publication (just to clarify that I’m not advocating that practice).

I remember when Amazon started providing links to used books on the same page it was selling new copies, and some of the arguments advanced against such a practice sounded similar to those presented here, especially that of depriving royalties to the author. 

Then I think about the numbers here, especially the paltry # of ARCs relative to the #‘s of used books sold, and I feel like, well, if authors are so upset about the sales of ARCs, why not a similar upset about used books?  Is it because so many readers buy used and they don’t want to piss off potential readers and new book buyers?  Is it because there’s no NFS(or NFR) stamped on an actual book?  Is it simply the principle?  Is it because authors already feel nickel and dimed by their publishers and are frustrated by the idea that people who don’t care about a book can make a profit of it its sale in violation of the implied contract of ARC distribution?  Is it that the seller of an ARC never paid for it to begin with (which may also be the case for used books)?  Are authors similarly angry at publishers for indiscriminately sending around ARCs that authors will never get paid for? 

Again, I’m not suggesting that authors shouldn’t be upset over the pre-pub sale of ARCs, nor do I think it’s unreasonable to protest an act purely on ethical grounds.  What I’m saying is that when I piece through the sheer amount and level of upset over this issue, and when I think about how some of the relevant issues intersect with those related to the sales of used books, it’s difficult for me to fully comprehend why one thing makes authors so angry and the other doesn’t, especially when the real numbers seem to be on the no anger side.

I just don’t get it.

An ARC is an advanced reader’s copy, which means the book is going to be published en masse very soon.

So why pay oodles of money for an uncorrected proof of a book that will soon be sold in better condition and with better editing?

Patience is a virtue, right?

‘It’s difficult for me to fully comprehend why one thing makes authors so angry and the other doesn’t, especially when the real numbers seem to be on the no anger side.’

K. Here’s the deal.

The difference is, a used book was paid for. The author was compensated from the initial purchase. The person who bought it invested money in it, and there’s no shame in reselling it.

With an ARC, the author makes no money, yet the person reselling it does, while simultaneously depriving the author of a sale. Enough people do this, and it cuts into the author sales and sales ranking, not not mention setting a precedent that it’s all right to do so, which encourages other behavior, such as the pirating you mentioned.

In addition, it puts into circulation unedited copies of a work, which is kinda like being caught with your pants down. An ARC is not intended to be circulated or sold, and contains errors.
Author like to present their best face to the world.

The numbers would be on the no anger side because there are only so many authors, particularly ones who speak up.

Does that make sense?

:-) Hi!  I’ve been visting this site for a while, but this is my first post. 

I buy tons of new books.  I rarely check things out from the library and I usually only buy out of print books at the UBS.  I like new books and if I like a book it never gets resold.  So far this month I’ve purchased Linda Howard’s “Cover of Night”, Nora Robert’s “Angels Fall”, Janet Evanovich’s “Twelve Sharp”, Peter Singer’s “In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave”, and Matthew Pearl’s “The Poe Shadow” all in hardcover.  The list of paperbacks is scary.  :-)

I’m a college student who has two jobs.  I make a whopping $6 an hour at my bookstore job.  As an avid reader, specifically in the romance genre, I get asked all the time by customers for recommendations.  I’ve gotten several readers hooked on my fav, Linda Howard and recently was able to get some people to try Elizabeth Vaughans “Warprize” and Shana Abe’s “The Smoke Thief.”  Last week I started a customer on the In Death series. 

I’ve been reading these threads and figured I should say something.  I’ve sold around 10 ARCS on Ebay, granted not before the release date, but I did make a few bucks profit.  I guess that makes me an unethical person, huh.  I don’t pay to mail them back to the publisher.  I read them and then sell them (If I then like the book I buy the “official copy”). I’ve also bought ARCS at garage sales and really old ones from my UBS.  8-/

I understand why authors would be upset at this.  I also think they should understand that I’m one of those people who actually purchases their product and I’m also someone who influences what other readers buy. I can assure those few bucks profit I made on ebay went to buying books.  Would authors rather I get books from the library? 

From some of the comments I’ve read on this and other sites I’ve already decided to no longer purchase a particular author’s books and am selling the books of hers I did own.  I’m sure one less customer won’t affect her sales, but by being particularly insulting about this issue she did lose at least one paying customer.

On one last note, I think authors like Nora Roberts are being civil in this thread, but I do have to laugh about this as an ethical issue.  I guess because I see so few really honorable people in the world that I’m cool with being called an asshat for selling a few ARCS and I’ll keep thinking people who eat meat, and by doing so support factory farming, are morally bankrupt.  I know, off the issue, but hey if what to do with ARCS can be used as a standard on what makes an ethical person I figure how we treat other sentient beings can be mine.

Heck of way to make friends with your first post.  Sorry, I’m just a little opinionated. :)

Once again, no sub-text, an arc is not an used book. Never was, never will be a used book. Because it’s an uncorrected proof.

A used book was purchased by someone at some point in time, and at that time the author was compensated for the work, and the publisher for the investment. An arc was sent to a reviewer or bookseller before final corrections, before final cover treatment, gratis, in order to generate interest in the upcoming book—which will be an actual book, not an uncorrected proof thereof.

They are nowhere near the same animal.

If you want to spend double, triple or more the cover price for an arc, have at it. I’ve got no problem. You must be a collector. Or a little bit crazy. Either way, it’s your money. And yes, if you’re a collector or a little bit crazy you will very likely purchase the actual book as well.

But you opt to sell one, when you were given it for a very specific purpose, with very specific guidelines—legal, schmeagal—you’re unethical. Period. You profited in an underhanded and slithery way.

Where I get stuck is why this is a difficult concept, or why anyone would feel it must connect to a different area of the business.

It’s not about the number of arcs sold v the number of used books sold. One has nothing whatsoever to do with the other.

It’s not about being worried or upset about the publisher nickeling and diming the author. The publisher went to the time, trouble and expense to produce the arcs in order to boost interest in the book, and hopefully to increase sales for the author. They shipped or mailed the arcs at their expense.

As for Amazon advertising the sale of used copies of a book on the same page on which they advertise it new? Different topic, different problem, and very likely different opinions.

The difference is, a used book was paid for. The author was compensated from the initial purchase. The person who bought it invested money in it, and there’s no shame in reselling it.

With an ARC, the author makes no money, yet the person reselling it does, while simultaneously depriving the author of a sale.

Okay, I think it’s the zero sum logic that bothers me here.  Obviously a new book gains an author royalties, and that’s how it’s supposed to be.  And an ARC will NEVER gain an author royalties.  However, I’m not sold that someone reselling an ARC will be depriving an author of a new sale, because, at least if we’re talking about an ARC sold after pub date, wouldn’t the reader likely be buying it as if it were a used book (like at discounted rates as a used book?).

I inadvertantly bought an ARC after the pub date of a book, and it bugged me because it was not of the same quality as the published book—no cover art, typos, etc.  I didn’t think I got a better deal, when in fact my purpose was to get a used book, one with all of the publication values I expect in a final copy.  Either way the author wasn’t getting my money as a royalty payment, and I wasn’t depriving the author of that $$.  Now, if you go back to the person who originally sold that ARC, then yes, you’re right that they’re selling something they didn’t have to pay for.  That would piss me off as an author.  I just don’t think that the practice of selling ARCs after the pub date is necessarily depriving authors of a new sale, because I don’t think the market is the same at that point.

I totally understand why it bothers you, and I’m not trying to take that away.  I just the issue may come down to one of whether or not you think it’s wrong on principle than one of economics.

In addition, it puts into circulation unedited copies of a work, which is kinda like being caught with your pants down. An ARC is not intended to be circulated or sold, and contains errors.
Author like to present their best face to the world.

I actually think this is one of the best arguments I’ve heard for restricting the circulation of ARCs, although one ARC that someone gave me once did not vary AT ALL from the final book (although it should have, believe me—major copy editing mistakes, and we’re talking about a big house here).  This point brings up another question for me, though, which is how does it feel for you, as an author, having reviewers read your uncorrected work, seeing that they will be showing your face to the world, too, so to speak.

Where I get stuck is why this is a difficult concept, or why anyone would feel it must connect to a different area of the business.

Maybe it’s not so much that it’s a difficult concept but rather that I was trying to be polite in expressing my disagreement with black/white ethical/unethical dichotomies and my skepticism around some of the arguments advanced against the sale of ARCs by various authors, especially those that distinctly overlap with the used book issue (especially when ARCs hit the used book market and are sold as used books, as I’ve seen them many, many times).  I don’t think I’ve made a connection, but merely noticed one that others have both covertly and overtly drawn.

It’s clear from this post that this is a sensitive issue for you, and I respect that you have a strong position regarding what you see as a clear ethical issue.  But with all due respect, that doesn’t make my questions and my skepticism illogical or unfounded or wrong; it just means we disagree.

What some people are ignoring is that books are copyrighted material.  They are both a thing, the paper and ink, and intellectual property.  Selling an ARC is stealing that intellectual property and profiting from it.

If you check EBay, there are people who sell hundreds of ARCs as unread.  These people are just as sleazy as the sellers of fake McCoy pottery and counterfeit Tiffany.

Some people don’t realize that buying an ARC perpetuates this intellectual theft, but once you know, why do it?  Why say, “Yes, but I’m only stealing from you a little?”  Would you take a few quarters from your friend’s wallet without her permission and think it was all right?  She won’t miss it, and besides, didn’t you treat her to lunch once and don’t you tell everyone how nice she is?

Booksellers know they aren’t supposed to sell ARCS just as surely as we know we’re not supposed to shoplift.

‘I know, off the issue, but hey if what to do with ARCS can be used as a standard on what makes an ethical person I figure how we treat other sentient beings can be mine.’

I wasn’t discussing the ethical nature of people as a whole, or saying that selling ARCs made them unethical people. I expressed that I felt the action of doing so was unethical. People can be angels and still do unethical things. No need to take it personally.

‘This point brings up another question for me, though, which is how does it feel for you, as an author, having reviewers read your uncorrected work, seeing that they will be showing your face to the world, too, so to speak.’

This is actually the original and only purpose of an Advance Review Copy (No, not reader copy):

It’s sent out so authors have reviews to put on their cover blurbs and to post on their sites and in ads when the book is released. That is why it has errors…they need those quotes before production, so it’s sent out while it’s in the final stages of proofing. Reviewers work under the expectations that this work will be flawed if it is marked as an ARC, and make allowances for typos and such.

That is why they’re not supposed to be sold or transferred. They are flawed versions intended for one use—to get advance reviews. Period. Literally, review it and toss it.

Authors started giving them to readers to reward constant fans and critters, and for contests.  It was a trip to get to see it first.

But since people are selling them, the flawed versions that weren’t intended to see the light of day are ending up on store shelves.

What some people are ignoring is that books are copyrighted material.  They are both a thing, the paper and ink, and intellectual property.  Selling an ARC is stealing that intellectual property and profiting from it.

Can you explain this a little?  I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say here and I don’t want to jump to conclusions you don’t intend.

This is actually the original and only purpose of an Advance Review Copy (No, not reader copy):

It’s sent out so authors have reviews to put on their cover blurbs and to post on their sites and in ads when the book is released. That is why it has errors…they need those quotes before production, so it’s sent out while it’s in the final stages of proofing. Reviewers work under the expectations that this work will be flawed if it is marked as an ARC, and make allowances for typos and such.

So any changes made wouldn’t be significant and affect the review?

Maybe some of the difficulty comes from the fact that apparently booksellers get lots of ARCs, too, and clearly these are given to encourage ordering of the final book.  From what I’ve read, ARCs seem to be distributed all over the place, and many people who get them have more than they know what to do with.  I think that if publishers really see this as a problem that maybe they should include a stamped return envelope in which ARCs are expected to be returned. Otherwise, isn’t even giving them away problematic from the error/unfinished perspective?

For myself, while I can see the vigorous charges of unethical behavior directed at people who sell pre-publication ARCs on eBay for big $$, I have a harder time seeing a local library selling an ARC for a couple of bucks as a sleazy profiteer.

<

>

Okay, when you’re selling a book, you’re not selling a bunch of paper.  Here’s a definition from San Diego Bus. Law Firm of intellectual property:  “A creation of the intellect that has commercial value, including copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and industrial processes.”

The intellectual property, the story itself, has value.  Others are not allowed to use it without permission.  Permission to sell this intellectual property has been expressly withheld for ARCs. Permission to resell is not withheld for purchased copies.

If some people chose not to respect the law on that account, then fine.  But realize that the violation of federal copyright law is the violation of federal copyright law.

‘So any changes made wouldn’t be significant and affect the review?’

Correct. It’s usually just surface errors and typos, in the final proofing stage. Content edits are usually complete, and as I said, the reviewer takes it into consideration.

‘Maybe some of the difficulty comes from the fact that apparently booksellers get lots of ARCs, too… I think that if publishers really see this as a problem that maybe they should include a stamped return envelope in which ARCs are expected to be returned. Otherwise, isn’t even giving them away problematic from the error/unfinished perspective?’

Yes, if publishers were really concerned about it, they could certainly do that.

But…

They aren’t required to be returned. If a reviewer wanted to keep it or toss it or give it to their Aunt Fanny, that’s accepted. The impression is that the reviewers WANT to keep them, and it would be obnoxious and time-consuming for them to send them back. So giving them away or tossing them is the common practice.

But to sell it is the main issue. Copies of a book not intended to be sold are being sold by people who do not have the right to sell them.

It can also open you up for a lawsuit if you’re not careful. Our copyright page, which is on all our ARCs, states outright that sale of this book without our permission is prohibited. I doubt I’m the only one who has it. That’s a step higher than Not for Resale, which actually is legal.

‘For myself, while I can see the vigorous charges of unethical behavior directed at people who sell pre-publication ARCs on eBay for big $$, I have a harder time seeing a local library selling an ARC for a couple of bucks as a sleazy profiteer.’

That’s a horse of a different color. If someone donates an ARC to their library, that’s not selling it, it’s donating to a nonprofit organization. When the library sells it in a book fair or somesuch, they’re also supporting a nonprofit organization. 

I personally don’t think authors would have an issue with that. Technically it’s a gray area.

The intellectual property, the story itself, has value.  Others are not allowed to use it without permission.  Permission to sell this intellectual property has been expressly withheld for ARCs. Permission to resell is not withheld for purchased copies.

If some people chose not to respect the law on that account, then fine.  But realize that the violation of federal copyright law is the violation of federal copyright law.

My understanding on this is a little different.  While authors have rights to the intellectual property of their work, they don’t have redistribution rights.  What I’ve been told is that ARCs basically have the legal status of gifts, and in many cases, they are unsolicited gifts and therefore selling them is not a violation of federal copyright law because the NFR language is not a legally binding contract but more like a statement of purpose (i.e. this book was not *intended* to be resold).  I can imagine how utterly frustrating it must be to authors to have so little dominion over the redistribution rights of products created from their own intellectual work, but, as someone pointed out to me, if publishers really wanted ARCs to be legally bound to the publisher, they could distribute them as locked PDF files, because unlocking and making copies of those files WOULD be piracy.

‘What I’ve been told is that ARCs basically have the legal status of gifts, and in many cases, they are unsolicited gifts and therefore selling them is not a violation of federal copyright law because the NFR language is not a legally binding contract but more like a statement of purpose (i.e. this book was not *intended* to be resold). ‘

See my previous post.

If that’s all it says, that would be true, yes.

But most ARCs, including mine, have a copyright page that states quite clearly that selling them without the express permission of the publisher is illegal.

I snipped a portion of mine below as an example.

Copying, scanning, uploading, selling and distribution of this book via the Internet or any other means without permission from the publisher is illegal, punishable by law and will be prosecuted. Please purchase only authorized electronic editions, and do not participate in or encourage the piracy of copyrighted materials. The authors of Mojocastle Press appreciate this consideration.

Think that spells it out pretty clear?

But most ARCs, including mine, have a copyright page that states quite clearly that selling them without the express permission of the publisher is illegal.

Okay, I have two of these things, both of which I purchased as “used books,” and both of which are stamped “uncorrected proof.”  One, by Brava/Kensington, has NO language regarding sale of the book, inside or out.  The other, from Berkley, simply has the “not for sale” language, nothing more specific or binding than that.  Ironically, they are books by two authors who have weighed in on this discussion.

Hi! :-)  Back again!  Okay, have a few more points to make. 

If you want to make a black and white statement, fine selling ARCS is wrong. 

So, if a bookstore gives away ARC copies are they profiting from others work?  Are they attracting customers?  Fostering customer loyalty, goodwill by these give aways?  Do these bookstores compensate the author for that ARC?  Or is not a question of ethics in that instance, just for me to sell it on ebay?  Also, isn’t it unethical for a store to give books to customers that are so inferior to the final product?  Isn’t that a diservice to the author, not showing their work to the best possible advantage?

When a publisher sends ARCS out are they doing it out of altruism or are they expecting the recepient to provide them a service?  Am I getting a gift or am I expected to work for this “free” book by selling their product for them?  Aren’t I being “paid” for this service with the ARC or am working for the publisher for the hell of it? 

If this is screwing over authors so much, if ARCS provide no service, then by all means stop sending the damn things.  If, on the other hand, they attract new readers, if booksellers and reviewers are reading the material and doing the WORK for the author/publisher by getting their product sold then what the hell is the problem?  Why do you expect to still own something you gave away???? 

Finally, if you really want to look at this issue realistically, you have to know the people buying ARCS are, for the most part, die hard fans who do spend money buying your finished work.  You don’t want to alienate library/UBS fans, but you are so annoyed by the people who pay for your books?  I don’t get that.  Fine, be mad at me for selling them.  I will rethink this issue and consider that I might be stealing from an author, but at the same time I’m going to be reevaluating authors/publishers expectation of me to work for them without compensation.  And, no, giving me an inferior product I’m expected to dispose doesn’t cut it.

Hope I’m not sounding too mean.  I know the internet doesn’t allow for inflection.  Not trying to be too bitchy ;-), just a little bit. :-)

‘One, by Brava/Kensington, has NO language regarding sale of the book, inside or out.  The other, from Berkley, simply has the “not for sale” language, nothing more specific or binding than that.  Ironically, they are books by two authors who have weighed in on this discussion.’

Then what you said is correct. And the pubs should get on that.

If someone donates an ARC to their library, that’s not selling it, it’s donating to a nonprofit organization. When the library sells it in a book fair or somesuch, they’re also supporting a nonprofit organization.

What it I sell my ARC to a bookstore and THEY donate it to the library?  Or what about an author selling his or her own ARCs (you can’t tell me this doesn’t happen)?  Is it the first sale itself that’s unethical or the idea of a profit being made from that sale that doesn’t directly benefit the author?

My ARC says:  “This advance uncorrected reader’s proof is the property of Simon & Schuster.  It is being loaned for promotional purposes and review by the recipient and may not be used for any other purpose or transferred to any third party. etc.”

I don’t see that this could be any clearer.  You can bet that several attorneys vetted this.

Seems to me that some people are coming up with very convoluted justifications for violating copyright law.  Again, if you want to break the law, then go ahead and break it, without elaborate rationalizations.  Come on, own up to your outlaw instincts and drop the shackles of suburban rectitude.  First ARC sales; next an alcohol and drug fueled robbery spree involving handsome but naive young men, a souped up Fleetwood, and trunk full of cash and Manolos.

Okay, bored of this subject now and onto the hysterical Romance Mad Lib generator.

‘So, if a bookstore gives away ARC copies are they profiting from others work?’

No, because they’re not selling them. The operative words here are ‘give away’, which nobody has an issue with.

‘Do these bookstores compensate the author for that ARC?’

No, because they’re not selling them. 

Or is not a question of ethics in that instance, just for me to sell it on ebay? 

No, because you’re selling it. They aren’t.

‘Also, isn’t it unethical for a store to give books to customers that are so inferior to the final product?  Isn’t that a diservice to the author, not showing their work to the best possible advantage?’

That’s between the publisher and the bookstore. I personally think you’re right. It’s why I don’t give ARCs to anyone but reviewers.

‘When a publisher sends ARCS out are they doing it out of altruism or are they expecting the recepient to provide them a service?’ 

ARCs are generally sent with the hope that the recipient will return something, even if it’s just a word of mouth recommendation to a friend. They are also used to generate interest in an author. So yes, something is expected.

‘If, on the other hand, they attract new readers, if booksellers and reviewers are reading the material and doing the WORK for the author/publisher by getting their product sold then what the hell is the problem?  Why do you expect to still own something you gave away????’

They don’t. In exchange for a free book, they get whatever you relay.

‘Finally, if you really want to look at this issue realistically, you have to know the people buying ARCS are, for the most part, die hard fans who do spend money buying your finished work.  You don’t want to alienate library/UBS fans, but you are so annoyed by the people who pay for your books?’ 

But in this instance, they’re not paying for them. They’re selling books they got for free.

  ‘I will rethink this issue and consider that I might be stealing from an author, but at the same time I’m going to be reevaluating authors/publishers expectation of me to work for them without compensation.  And, no, giving me an inferior product I’m expected to dispose doesn’t cut it.’

If you accept an ARC, they will be expecting that compensation. You aren’t working for the company….you are getting a free book and expressing an opinion.  It’s not like they’re hiring you to do promotion.

If you don’t like the terms, don’t ask for or accept the ARCs, and nothing will be expected of you. Simple as that.

It’s pretty wild to expect pay for getting a freebie. Kind of like expecting the grocery store to pay you for trying a free sample and telling the guy next to you how good it was.

Hope I’m not sounding too mean.  I know the internet doesn’t allow for inflection.  Not trying to be too bitchy wink, just a little bit. :cheese:

No worries from my end. :-)

>>First ARC sales; next an alcohol and drug fueled robbery spree involving handsome but naive young men, a souped up Fleetwood, and trunk full of cash and Manolos.<

<

LMAO! :lol: Hell yeah, sounds good expect the Fleetwood. I'm a Mustang type of gal.

>

>Seems to me that some people are coming up with very convoluted justifications for violating copyright law.<

<

God, so not the it's the law therefore it's right type either. The ethics of giving something (such as an ARC) away, but still trying to own it seems fucked up to me. That's all I'm saying. ;-)

>

>Okay, bored of this subject now <<

Okay,:roll:, uh, good argument.

‘What it I sell my ARC to a bookstore and THEY donate it to the library?  Or what about an author selling his or her own ARCs (you can’t tell me this doesn’t happen)?  Is it the first sale itself that’s unethical or the idea of a profit being made from that sale that doesn’t directly benefit the author?’

Great questions.

In my opinion, if you sell it, you’re still doing what I consider unethical, even if the book later goes to charity. The bookseller would get props for not reselling the book, but donating it.

Hmm. I bet it does happen. In my experience, the author is also not allowed to sell books without permission from the publisher.

So going on that assumption,(it may vary from pub to pub) the author would be just as guilty as others if they sell their ARCs without pub permission, unless it’s otherwise stated in their contract.

‘so not the it’s the law therefore it’s right type either.  The ethics of giving something (such as an ARC) away, but still trying to own it seems fucked up to me.  That’s all I’m saying.’

I guess it does kinda read like that.

Basically, the publisher owns the book and the rights to selling it. Until you pay for it, those rights remain theirs; in essence, when you buy a book, you’re buying the rights to resale for that particular copy of the book. You can sell it for whatever you want to anyone you want.

When they send out an ARC, the resale rights remain with the publisher because there was no compensation for the rights. They are working under the expectation that all you want is a free book. That’s why you can read it and give it away, but not sell it.

Personally, if I sent someone an ARC and they talked my pub up nice in open forums, I wouldn’t be adverse to buying a ‘real copy’ of the completed paperback and shipping it to them.

THEN you could sell it if you wanted, because it was paid for, and everyone’s butt is covered.

Does that make any more sense?

And I talked WAY too much. Anyone who wants to keep talking, holler me up in email.

‘Maybe it’s not so much that it’s a difficult concept but rather that I was trying to be polite in expressing my disagreement with black/white ethical/unethical dichotomies and my skepticism around some of the arguments advanced against the sale of ARCs by various authors, especially those that distinctly overlap with the used book issue’

I haven’t seen any overlap of arguments by authors re used books, arc selling in this discussion. It may very well have happened elsewhere. But from reading the comments made by authors here, it seems pretty straight down the line that the opinion is used books and arcs are entirely different. Just no connection between the two.

I can’t speak for other authors on how they feel about their publisher creating and sending out arcs, but again from what I’m reading here, none are blaming their publishers for having the arcs end up on e-bay.

The blame appears to be strongly pointed at the seller.

And yeah, if that seller is the author, she’s just as guilty of unethical behavior, imo.

Oops, screwed up the quotes in the last post. :bug: 

Anyway, hi Stef! :-)  I understand what you are saying.  Yes, the store isn’t taking cash for the ARC in that analogy, but aren’t they recieving compensation none the less in customer turn-out and goodwill?  So, it’s not stealing from the author in that situation if the customer was going to buy the book, but instead wins the ARC?  Seems like a double standard to me.  Would it then be ethical for me give away ARCS on ebay if the customer purchases something else?

Granted I’m a peon at the bookstore, but as far as I know the ARCS that come to us are unsolicited.  I see your point about the sample at the grocery store.  Would it be right for me to try to sell that product?  Maybe not, but does the store have ownership rights to that triscuit after they hand it over???  They gave it to me hoping I would buy their product.  Isn’t that all they can expect from me?  Don’t I now own the triscuit or is it on some kind of leasing program? %-P Honest to god, I bought a perfume sample at a garage sell just last weekend.  In what kind of world would the lady I bought it from be arrested for selling her perfume sample, lol.  It’s a win win situation for the perfume co.  I like the scent and am going to spend the $60 something for it at the store. 

Hell, maybe I’m justifiying doing something unethical.  Then again, since I’m always right :coolsmile:  ;-), how the hell can you own something you gave away?

‘Would it then be ethical for me give away ARCS on ebay if the customer purchases something else?’

Hmm. I’d say tentatively yes, but it would probably depend on the publisher in particular. As long as you stressed they are not for resale so your butt was covered.

‘They gave it to me hoping I would buy their product.  Isn’t that all they can expect from me?’

Exactly. That is all they expect. Not for you to sell their product, just buy it, and maybe tell a friend. If you do buy their books, you can sell them. But not the ARC.
 
It’s called copyright and distribution rights. You don’t have them, you can’t legally sell a book. You don’t pay for a book, you can’t sell it. Especially if it says specifically that you can’t sell it right on it.

Like I said, if you don’t like the the rules, don’t take the ARC. If they send it, you don’t have to accept it. Toss it in the trash if you don’t want the responsibility. But if you take it, accept that you’re not supposed to sell it.

  ‘In what kind of world would the lady I bought it from be arrested for selling her perfume sample, lol.  It’s a win win situation for the perfume co.  I like the scent and am going to spend the $60 something for it at the store.’

A perfume sample doesn’t have someone’s intellectual property in it, nor would anyone lose royalties from a perfume sample being resold.

“If the person you sold it to keeps it.

What if they sell it as well? What if they scan it into an ebook or make copies and sell a hundred? A thousand?

I mean, it’s all right. YOU sold it, so it must be okay to do whatever they want with it. That’s what this kind of behavior perpetuates. I can do what I want, and screw the copyright page.

THAT could bankrupt an author.

Which is unethical.”

Mistress Stef,

I don’t understand why you’re comparing the illegal reproduction of copyrighted work with selling an ARC that you received with no obligations or agreements with the publisher or author (i.e. a door prize at a book store.)  You’re talking apples and oranges.

If a buyer of an ARC illegally reproduces the material, that’s unethical.  But I don’t see how you can hold the seller responsible just because it’s an ARC.

Is Borders responsible is someone photocopies a book they purchased?  How does that change if the item is an ARC sold on Ebay?

‘I don’t understand why you’re comparing the illegal reproduction of copyrighted work with selling an ARC that you received with no obligations or agreements with the publisher or author (i.e. a door prize at a book store.) You’re talking apples and oranges.’

An ARC is generally marked “Not for Sale” or some other terminology. As I also said, most come with some sort of copyright page or statement on them as well. Which means if you sell it, you’re doing something illegal because it says not to sell it right on it. Apples and apples.

‘If a buyer of an ARC illegally reproduces the material, that’s unethical.  But I don’t see how you can hold the seller responsible just because it’s an ARC.’

If you sell something that specifically says right on it not to sell it, you are held responsible because IT SAYS NOT TO SELL IT AND YOU DID IT ANYWAY.

Nobody forced you to do it. You want to ignore the rules, prepare to deal with the repecussions.

‘Is Borders responsible is someone photocopies a book they purchased?’

No, because they are only responsible for the sale they handle, and they are selling the proper editions in the proper manner, and they have PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER TO DO SO.

‘How does that change if the item is an ARC sold on Ebay?’

Because an ARC is not a proper edition and is marked NOT TO BE SOLD. A person listing on ebay is not a licensed distributor, nor do they have permission from the publisher to sell their ARCs. So the difference is:

Known distributor selling properly finished copies that are intended for sale with full approval of publisher and all people involved receiving proper compensation.

VS:

Unknown random person without any kind of company support selling an incomplete and flawed work that is not to be sold (and marked as such)not only without the publisher or author’s approval but against their wishes, and the only one who gets compensated is the random person.

BIG difference.

What if you got the ARC from a donation bin at the Helpless Kittens Charitee Booke Shoppe?  What if the staff at the Shoppe had already reviewed the ARC in their Help the Helpless Little Kittens Newsletter?  (They panned it because the story did not have a positive image of Helpless Kitties.)

What if the staff said that if you did not sell the ARC on EBay and then give them the money, then helpless kittens would be fed to slathering Rottweilers?

What if the people at the Charitee Booke Shoppe said that they had never asked for the ARC, that the ARC was like a gift from a magical unicorn or elf that was intended to save the helpless kitties?

What if they said that their kitten groomer had watched an episode of “Barnaby Jones” and learned that publishers’ copyright restrictions were invalid?  (“The Case of the Bibliophile & the Sad Little Lost Kitten.”)

What if you read the ARC first, told all your friends about it, bought the book, and then sold the ARC on EBay in order to save the poor little kittens? 

What if someone had crossed out the “not” on the “do not sell” notice on the cover of the ARC, so it said, “Do sell”?  This is not a black and white issue—you want to save a helpless kitty that is a Siamese mix and has cute stripes and blue eyes.

Why do mean selfish authors HATE HELPLESS KITTENS AND WANT THEM TO DIE a gruesome and brutal death?

Please don’t let Whiskers, the little helpless kitty, die!

I dont get why this is difficult to understand.  If I loan you my lawn mower so you can cut your grass, I don’t expect you to sell my lawn mower on Ebay when you’re done with it.  Even if it’s a special lawn mower that I designed and then I eventually sell in Home Depot for $50, I would think that if you are an ethical person your thinking would not be “Oh, she has a million of these, I’m sure she won’t mind if I sell it.  I know a lot of people have been dying to get a hold of this lawn mower before she releases it to the public.”  I would at least expect you to ask if I want my lawn mower back before you make such a decision.  The lawn mower was not a gift, it was something I loaned to you with a specific purpose in mind.

If, however, I gave you a lawn mower as a wedding present with no caveats attached, feel free to sell it at your next tag sale.

‘Please don’t let Whiskers, the little helpless kitty, die!’

Yeah, the whatifs are getting a little obscure.

But that’s silly. It’s publishers who torture kittens, not authors.  :roll:

Note: No kittens were harmed in the making of this post.

Poor, poor kitties! We are not heartless. We are not cruel.

I have—as I know many of my kind have—donated arcs to non-profit charity auctions for the salvation of the sweet little kittens. Such is given, with full permission, to raise funds to save tiny furry kittens everywhere.

Such is not given to those who rush off to ebay to sell, for personal gain, without a thought to helpless orphaned kittens, but simply to fund their vacation to Aruba.

I, personally, would be willing to donate an arc to any non-profit group’s charity auction to raise funds for the rehabilitation of slathering Rottweilers.

Fair is fair.

An ARC is generally marked “Not for Sale” or some other terminology. As I also said, most come with some sort of copyright page or statement on them as well. Which means if you sell it, you’re doing something illegal because it says not to sell it right on it. Apples and apples.

The copyright statement in my two ARCs only prohibits reproduction without permission (standard copyright language), NOT distribution.  And these are two biggie publishers. As for the legal implications of *more* language *beyond* NFS on the cover, some dim memory of IP law is sending up a red flag for me, but I can’t figure out why (may it’s related to the first purchaser who breaks the copyright chain?).  I have a friend who works for a leading IP firm, though, and I’m going to ask him about that when I see him next month.  Hopefully I’ll be able to refrain from doing all sorts of research on this before then, because with all the work I have on my plate now, that would be such a great distraction!

I read NR’s charity auction to raise funds for the rehabilitation of slathering Rottweilers. as rehabilitation of slathering Rothwells.

I was ready to start slathering.

So we have finally clarified the ongoing ethical-moral-philosophical-spiritual question:  When is it all right to buy or sell an ARC?

Answer:  Only if the life of a poor, helpless kitten is in eminent danger.  If there is no hurry, request an ARC from the author or publisher.

The subordinate question:  How does one properly dispose of an ARC?

Answer:  One donates it to the nearest Helpless Kittens Charitee Booke Shoppe where it can be shredded for use in the litter boxes of helpless kittens.

Robin,

I would LOVE to hear anything you find out from your friend. That would be good info to have. Can you also find out the same relevance in terms of ebooks?

‘Answer:  One donates it to the nearest Helpless Kittens Charitee Booke Shoppe where it can be shredded for use in the litter boxes of helpless kittens.’

Or the Society United for Care and Kindness to Every Rotweiler.

I would LOVE to hear anything you find out from your friend. That would be good info to have. Can you also find out the same relevance in terms of ebooks?

Yeah, Stef; I’ll email you whatever info I find out, assuming you know that it won’t be, like, legal advice, but merely information someone gives me.

Understood, Robin.

Understood, Robin.

I wasn’t trying to be condescending, Stef; I just feel the need to disclaim everything, since there are strict rules against my giving the impression that I’m practicing law until I’m actually licensed to do so (one more year, one more year, one more year—sorry, can you tell I’m anxious?).  And right now I’m studying for the professional responsibility board exam, so it’s all very fresh in my mind.

I didn’t take it as condescending at all. Curse the Internet demons for not allowing tone of voice or expression save these grinning icons. :vampire:

And you’re absolutely right. Even when you do practice law, that disclaimer is a smart move. CYA becomes a reflex after a while.

:roll: Okay, ignoring the whole kitten thing.  Nothing personal, just not a fan of silly. Meh 8-/ (trying to find the bored smiley)

Quote
“When they send out an ARC, the resale rights remain with the publisher because there was no compensation for the rights. They are working under the expectation that all you want is a free book. That’s why you can read it and give it away, but not sell it.”

Excellent point Stef! :-)  I will consider that in relooking at this issue.  I still think it’s a gray area to give away something, but still expect to have ownership rights over it.  However, you have given me something to mull over.  Thanks for the well thought out response. :)

One another note, I don’t think anyone has adequately addressed the issue of the store give aways.  If authors are really objecting on the basis of lost royalties it should not be acceptable to give away the copies anymore than it is to sell them.  Regardless of the legalities and only looking at the ethics of the issue there is no real difference to me.  Ms. Robert’s husband shouldn’t be preventing honest sales of those books by giving away ARCS (and, might I add, benefiting from those give aways) anymore than I should be selling them on ebay. If preventing future sales is really what is at issue, ARCS shouldn’t be passed on period.

As an internet community dedicated to all things books I can see why ARC selling may be enough of an issue here to call into question someones ethics.  I’m also aware that, in looking at a myriad of other issues, all of us engage in some conduct that can be called into question.  I personally thing bad tippers/people who stiff waitresses should rott in hell. ;-)

I do have to add this is a hell of an issue to alienate a dedicated ARC buying fan over.  I understand being pissed at the seller, but not at your customers.  Sorry, had to throw that one in as a response to previous threads.

`If authors are really objecting on the basis of lost royalties it should not be acceptable to give away the copies anymore than it is to sell them.  Regardless of the legalities and only looking at the ethics of the issue there is no real difference to me.  Ms. Robert’s husband shouldn’t be preventing honest sales of those books by giving away ARCS (and, might I add, benefiting from those give aways) anymore than I should be selling them on ebay. If preventing future sales is really what is at issue, ARCS shouldn’t be passed on period.’

Lost sales are only part of the issue—and imo, a very minor one.

The uncorrected proof says Not For Sale. It does not say Do Not Give This Book Away For Free. It’s not the same thing to take a review copy, given to you for the purpose of review and/or creating interest in the upcoming book and sell it on ebay to put money in your personal pocket as it is for a bookstore to offer the arc as a free gift or doorprize. The first is against the rules—clearly stated—and done for the seller’s gain only. The second is not against the rules, and does exactly what the arc was intended to do when sent to a bookstore. It creates interest in the upcoming book.

The bookstore doesn’t make a profit on the give-away. The only benefit to the bookstore would be, hopefully, making a customer happy with a special prize. Happy enough, the customer will continue to buy the author’s books. Everyone has done the correct thing. Everyone wins.

‘Thanks for the well thought out response.’ 

You’re very welcome.

‘If preventing future sales is really what is at issue, ARCS shouldn’t be passed on period.’

That’s an option the publisher can take, but then, a lot of people who don’t abuse the privelege and really like them lose out. Punishing everyone for the behavior of some sucks.

It’s also cutting authors off from a good promotional tool and being able to get advance reviews.

‘I personally thing bad tippers/people who stiff waitresses should rot in hell.’ 

That I agree with wholeheartedly. Scope out bitterwaitress.com.

‘I do have to add this is a hell of an issue to alienate a dedicated ARC buying fan over.  I understand being pissed at the seller, but not at your customers.’

The main force of the diatribes ARE aimed at the seller. That’s the only person benefiting from the action in most cases, and the source of the problem. People stop selling them, then the issue is moot. But buyers can help out, even if the listing doesn’t tell them it’s an ARC.

I bought software off Ebay recently. First off, the seller acted suspicious, so I put a lock on the transaction. The software was sent two days later—a burned copy.

I sent it back to him and documented the return, then told the CC company to deny his payment, which they did, because pirating software is illegal and his listing wasn’t truthful. (That’s why I always use a CC through Paypal rather than my bank account. Faster than Paypal if there’s an issue.)

If someone purchases a book online and when it shows up, it’s an ARC, they can do the same thing for the same reason.

No buyers, people have no reason to sell.

<< Okay, ignoring the whole kitten thing. Nothing personal, just not a fan of silly. Meh (trying to find the bored smiley)>

>

Well, I reverted to a parody of the silly and ridiculous justifications people were giving in order to justify violating federal copyright law.

It is irrelevant really why any individual author objects to the sale of ARCS. It is still a violation of the law to sell them. 

If you want to buy them anyway, buy them, but trying to justify this infraction is tedious and self-serving.  Instead of asking authors for their reasoning, own up to the fact that you don’t respect the copyright law as it stands and choose to break it.

Of course in this country we can change laws.  If someone objects to a law, she can always write to her elected officials and set about trying to change it.

objects to the sale of ARCS. It is still a violation of the law to sell them.

I’m sorry to be redundant on this point, but if ARCs only contain the NFS language, my understanding is that is it NOT a violation of the law to sell them (I’m curious, too, about the legal status of the more extensive language—IP law has a lot of gray areas).  You think it’s a crappy and unethical thing to do, and I understand why it pisses you off, but the legality issue is somewhat separate.  Now, if you make copies of said ARC and sell them, THAT’s clearly a violation of the copyright, and from what I understand, some people do this.

The whole ARC thing is actually fascinating to me, precisely because of all the ways in which IP law intersects with the UCC and contract and property law.  It’s like a big puzzle with lots of interesting and strangely shaped pieces.  For example, I’ve seen some ARCs with the “for limited distribution” language on them, which makes me think, well, what’s limited?  Does that include reviewers or booksellers or my neighbor giving them away several times over, or publishers indiscriminately sending them out to people beyond reviewers?  At the point where they have been purchased and the copyright chain is broken, how is an ARC different from any other second hand book?  I realize that for most authors it’s just a sucky situation and you hate it, but for someone like me who is trying to understand all of the legal issues involved, it presents some meaty food for thought.

Oops, sorry for the mangled quote in my post; it should read this way:

<objects to the sale of ARCS. It is still a violation of the law to sell them.

P.S. Not meaning to be harsh.

Intellectual property laws are currently under hot debate, particularly with regard to musical downloads.

Obviously the html code is possessed or I’m experiencing a psychotic episode:

“It is irrelevant really why any individual author objects to the sale of ARCS. It is still a violation of the law to sell them.”

>>You think it’s a crappy and unethical thing to do, and I understand why it pisses you off, but the legality issue is somewhat separate<<

Actually I only think it’s crappy and unethical when a person poses as a reviewer to receive them then sells them en masse on EBay.  Otherwise I don’t really care one way or another about an ARC being sold—even if it states very clearly on my ARCs that they are the property of my publisher on loan.  It’s a loaner, not a giveaway, and I don’t see the legal gray area there.

I would rather have the ARC in the hands of a fan who will enjoy it than stuck unread on a shelf.

“even if it states very clearly on my ARCs that they are the property of my publisher on loan.  It’s a loaner, not a giveaway, and I don’t see the legal gray area there.”

I don’t know enough about IP law to comment on these kinds of statements, per se, but the sad fact is that in general, just because a lawyer drafts something doesn’t make it legally binding.

This is how I do things.

All ARCs are approved and distributed by the pub. I generally only send them to review sites, and even then, only at the request of the author. I prefer not to allow them to be used for other reasons. I also prefer reviews be done on the final product. Since we do ebook first, it’s okay to do it that way, because it’s a matter up updating a website. Print comes later.

If an author wants to give away an ARC as a prize, I suggest several alternatives that do the same thing ARCs do, but things are more secure. Like a “teaser” of a few chapters rather than the full book. I format them nice for them so they look like an ARC, and mark that they aren’t complete. They still do the job of intriguing the reader, but if they’re resold, there’ll be some pissed off buyers.

`At the point where they have been purchased and the copyright chain is broken, how is an ARC different from any other second hand book?’

Because an arc isn’t the book, it’s an uncorrected proof of the book. They really aren’t interchangable.

But I do get where you’re coming from, as per the legal points or questions or tangle. And why that end of it would be of particular interest to you.

I don’t know the legalities myself, and I’m pretty sure my head would explode if I tried to pick through them. But it would great to have some clear cut information on that end. Don’t know if it would change a thing, but information is always good to have.

Meanwhile, for me, it remains black and white, right and wrong, an ethical choice.

My publisher, due to the problem of having so many of my arcs end up on ebay, dramatically cut back on the number produced for my current book and the one to follow. That works for me.

I’d hate to have new authors, authors just starting to get a nice push, have to settle for the same solution.

Quote
“The bookstore doesn’t make a profit on the give-away. The only benefit to the bookstore would be, hopefully, making a customer happy with a special prize. Happy enough, the customer will continue to buy the author’s books. Everyone has done the correct thing. Everyone wins.”

Hi Ms. Roberts! :-) God, I hate arguing with authors when I like their books.  Heck, I’d rather not you really exist so anything personal doesn’t impede on my enjoyment of your books. :bug: :) However, I do have to disagree with you on this.  There is no alturism here.  Are you really saying the store does not recieve some gain, albeit not monetary, for these give aways?  No attracting of customers to their stores, no customer good will fostered?  Maybe I’m not reading these posts as thoroughly as I should, but I’m pretty sure author’s losing out on royalties has been at issue.  I clarified in my last post I was talking ethics not legality.  It still seems to me a double standard to laud stores for giving away ARCS that are never meant to be for the public and to crucify others for selling them.  If it’s wrong to treat them like property and they are actually to be read, reviewed, and then tossed why isn’t that true for bookstores as well as individuals?  And again I’m talking ethical standards NOT legality.

Quote
” If you want to buy them anyway, buy them, but trying to justify this infraction is tedious and self-serving.  Instead of asking authors for their reasoning, own up to the fact that you don’t respect the copyright law as it stands and choose to break it.”

Hi Marta! :-) Okay, maybe I’m not geting something because I’m trying to understand why I should stop selling ARCS.  I’m reading other people’s viewpoint on this issue to make up my mind.  You sound like one of those if it’s a rule it should followed type of people which is cool, but not really where I’m coming from.  I’m not close minded.  Well, okay, that’s not true. I can’t tolerate people who think it’s acceptable to abuse animals. :mad:  I will listen to other viewpoints and several posts here have made me think again about the issue.  I thought this was the type of place where different points of view could be argued without the your wrong, you want to justifiy bad things, and your boring me response.  You’re not offending me at all and I hope I’m not bugging you.  I’m still working on how to type and sound very civil. :-)  You seem like you can take me making a definite argument. %-P

Quote
“That’s an option the publisher can take, but then, a lot of people who don’t abuse the privelege and really like them lose out. Punishing everyone for the behavior of some sucks.
It’s also cutting authors off from a good promotional tool and being able to get advance reviews.”

Hi Stef! :-)  Okay, then do you agree with me, to stay consistent on this issue, ARCS should only be given to the reviewer/bookseller/whatever then tossed and not given to the public?  Thanks for the suggestion.  I have been to that bitter waitress site. LOL! :snake:

`Are you really saying the store does not recieve some gain, albeit not monetary, for these give aways?  No attracting of customers to their stores, no customer good will fostered?’

Attracting people to the store, no. Certainly not in the case of my husband’s. Four events a year, probably a dozen arcs given out as door prizes annually. Arcs are not part of the business, and I’ve never known a single customer to come through the doors because of a possible doorprize.

Good will? Certainly. The same good will which would hopefully be fostered if after reading the arc, ordering the book, the bookseller hand sold it to a customer she believed would enjoy it.

The PURPOSE of the arc is to generate interest in the books and to garner some reviews. By giving an arc away as a prize to a customer, the bookseller is adhering to the purpose of the deal. No ethical line has been crossed.

Selling it for personal profit isn’t the purpose. 

You can certainly say the bookstore gains something. What they don’t gain is profit by selling what they agreed not to sell when accepting the arc.

It’s not altruism—I don’t believe I implied it was. It’s ethical business practice that benefits all involved.

If an author or a publisher requested the store not use the arc for a give-away, I can promise you my husband would cooperate. To date, this has never been requested.

It still seems to me a double standard to laud stores for giving away ARCS that are never meant to be for the public and to crucify others for selling them.  If it’s wrong to treat them like property and they are actually to be read, reviewed, and then tossed why isn’t that true for bookstores as well as individuals?

I completely understand where you’re coming from, Katie.  What it comes down to for me is that numerous authors completely dislike the practice of selling ARCs, and I understand that.  If I was an author and saw a pre-pub copy of my new book selling on eBay 3 months before the final pub date, I’d probably be pissed, too (unless it was selling for a lot, at which point I might be sort of stoked, too :)).  But from my different POV, a lot of the opinions regarding what ARCs are or aren’t and the various circumstances under which they should or shouldn’t be sold, can and can’t be donated, etc. seem artificial to me and break down at some point in the analysis (I think this becomes even more the case when you do factor in some of the legal issues).  Authors may see selling ARCs as a personal violation of their work (the text itself, which is their intellectual property) and their royalties, while I may be looking at it in terms of redistribution rights and de facto commercial practices, etc. (I can’t bring myself to sell ANY books, even the ones I hate, so it’s not a personal dilemma for me).  Publishers obviously have their own take on this as well.  I wonder whether authors were just as pissed about this before eBay, or whether the very public practice of auctioning pre-pub ARCs there has catalyzed a lot of the anger.

My publisher, due to the problem of having so many of my arcs end up on ebay, dramatically cut back on the number produced for my current book and the one to follow. That works for me.

I’d hate to have new authors, authors just starting to get a nice push, have to settle for the same solution.

Just out of curiosity, how many ARCs are generally produced?  Is it more for established authors or for new authors the publisher wants to heavily promote or is it tied to the initial print run of the book?  I thought I remembered reading something about how some authors have to pay for their own ARCs—is this true?  Also, is there any difference anymore between the a)uncorrected proof, b) advanced review copy, and c) advanced reader copy?  Thanks in advance for the info.

>>Hi Marta!  Okay, maybe I’m not geting something because I’m trying to understand why I should stop selling ARCS.  I’m reading other people’s viewpoint on this issue to make up my mind.  You sound like one of those if it’s a rule it should followed type of people which is cool, but not really where I’m coming from.  I’m not close minded.<<

Hi, Robin,

I’m not a person who believes all rules should be followed, or even all laws. 

I am addressing this as a legal, not a moral issue.  Your morals are your own business.

I believe we make our decisions.  We sometimes decide to break a law because it is a) dumb, b) morally wrong, c) we don’t care, or d) our personal benefit outweighs our concern for legalities.

I disagree with you that there is ambiguity and gray areas around copyright laws re: ARCs.  They seem clear and easy to understand.

If, however, you are truly interested in the legal reasoning, I’m sure you can contact any major publisher’s legal department and ask them to provide the codes, etc. that uphold these rights.  If you chose to do this, please update us on their response.

ARCS shouldn’t be sold because they are cutting into an author’s profits.  No, ARCS can be given away because in that instance it’s not an issue.

ARCS are unproofed, unpolished copies only being circulated to get reviews and not for public consumption.  No, ARCS can be owned by the general public they just have to have been won and not bought.

ARCS are not really owned by the recepient, but “gifts” to be used for express purposes only.  No, ARCS are just not to be sold by individuals, but stores actually do own them and can raffle them as doorprizes.

Okay, I get it. :roll: 

Quote
“What it comes down to for me is that numerous authors completely dislike the practice of selling ARCs, and I understand that.  If I was an author and saw a pre-pub copy of my new book selling on eBay 3 months before the final pub date, I’d probably be pissed, too (unless it was selling for a lot, at which point I might be sort of stoked, too ).”

Hi Robin! :-)  I’ve been reading your posts for a while and think you express yourself extremely well.  God, I wish I had some of your tact. :coolsmile:  Anyway, I do understand that point of view and that is why I’m going to reconsider selling the darn things.  I guess I am a little frustrated at the lack of consistency shown as to why I’m being unethical and stores are not, but no big deal. :) Are you studying to be a lawyer?  You certainly have the mind for it. :-)

I have absolutely no idea how many arcs are generally produced, even for myself personally. Just don’t get that nitty-gritty into it. I know my numbers were cut back because my publisher specifically told me they were, and why they were.

I’ve never been asked to pay for an arc. I can’t say if any other authors has been asked or required to do so—but none I know of personally.

Again, I’m no help. I don’t know if publishers gear up more advance review copies for established authors or new ones. I’ve never thought about it, never asked anyone—and wouldn’t know how to compare as I have no clue how many of mine traditionally are sent out.

An uncorrected proof is an advance review copy (not reader). Arcs are sometimes mistakenly called advance reader copy, but the term—to my knowledge is review. Bound galleys are slightly less snazzy versions of arcs.

There are also, in many cases, actual copies of the book sent out to reviewers, to media people. Somebody wants to pop those on ebay or wherever, fine and dandy. Nothing on there that says Not For Sale. It’s a book, and though given free, it remains the finished, published book.

Nora

Wow.  I can’t believe I missed the orginal post.  That’s what I get for avoiding all media on my birthday.

I can’t believe the author let loose with an angry and bitter profanity laced tirade and then tried to pass it off as sarcasm. 

I recommend that Ms. Cast re-read Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”, Frank Moore’s editorial on giving porn to children, or Maya Angelou’s article on how Bill Clinton is the first black president to get a better idea of what intellegent literary sarcasm is.

‘ARCS shouldn’t be sold because they are cutting into an author’s profits.  No, ARCS can be given away because in that instance it’s not an issue.’

One more time, and this will certainly be the last.

Arcs shouldn’t be sold because they say right there in black and white: Not For Sale. By accepting the arc, you’re accepting the terms. Arcs can be given away because nowhere does it say otherwise.

‘ARCS are unproofed, unpolished copies only being circulated to get reviews and not for public consumption.  No, ARCS can be owned by the general public they just have to have been won and not bought.’

Arc are uncorrected proofs given to reviewers AND bookstores in order to generate reviews and interest in the upcoming book. They are NOT meant to be sold, but may indeed—unless expressly requested otherwise—be given, without monetary compensation, as a prize or gift.

‘ARCS are not really owned by the recepient, but “gifts” to be used for express purposes only.  No, ARCS are just not to be sold by individuals, but stores actually do own them and can raffle them as doorprizes.’

Arcs are uncorrected proofs generated by the publisher and sent to specific people for the express purpose of promotion for the uncoming book. Raffling implies money changing hands, and if this were the case, this is not an ethical practice. Giving said arc as a door prize, with no monetary compensation would, logically, equal promoting the book by generating reader interest in same.

You can’t get it, you can’t get it.

My take is that you’d like to continue to buy and sell arcs without feeling a twinge—without thinking it may not be quite kosher.

I have to agree with the previous poster who suggested if you want to do this, do it. But own it.

Hi, Robin,

I’m not a person who believes all rules should be followed, or even all laws.

I am addressing this as a legal, not a moral issue.  Your morals are your own business.

Hi Marta,

FYI, you’re actually responding to Katie’s post here, not mine.  I don’t sell ARCs (or any books, for that matter).  As for the legal issues surrounding ARCs, I think we’ve been round the block and then some on that, and I’m not up for a fight about it.  I guess we’ll just have to keep our own counsel on those. :) (sorry, couldn’t resist the pun)

Quote
“I have to agree with the previous poster who suggested if you want to do this, do it. But own it.”

Am I being dense or have I already said I’m reconsidering my stand on this issue and have been reading the other side to see if I can see their point, which I do.  I think the hypocrisy on the issue needs to be “owned.”  But hey, that’s just me. :coolsmirk:

Quote
“My take is that you’d like to continue to buy and sell arcs without feeling a twinge—without thinking it may not be quite kosher.”

Okay, that’s your viewpoint.:long:  By the way, hate the kosher reference (really cruel animal slaughter practices spring to mind).  I thought I was trying to have a debate and discuss certain aspects of this issue that I find to be in a gray area.  You don’t agree that anything is grey, fine.  I guess that without feeling a twinge thing is working in regards to the bookstore give aways.  Cool, you have your justifications.  Anyway, I guess there is only side of this issue that needs be discussed, except maybe legal definitions.  As an evil Willow on Buffy would say “Bored Now.” ;-)

Mistress Stef said: A perfume sample doesn’t have someone’s intellectual property in it, nor would anyone lose royalties from a perfume sample being resold.

Actually, there

are

intellectual property concerns with perfume:  patent and trademark. I think selling anything that is explicitly marked as “Not for resale” is unethical, and that goes for perfume, software, and books.

Would I go after someone who did it? Probably not.

‘Okay, then do you agree with me, to stay consistent on this issue, ARCS should only be given to the reviewer/bookseller/whatever then tossed and not given to the public?’

I think that may be a very good compromise, in addition to the suggestion I noted earlier: where the reader gets a condensed version. 

I’d say we’re pretty much tapped out pending the Robin Report on IP.

But…

You know what’s cool about this discussion VS. many others in this vein?

1. Everyone involved, sarcasm and forays into kitten bashing humor aside, is being civil and respecting differences of opinion while expressing their own. Except Invisigoth not liking the kitten sarcasm. I thought it was hilarious myself. But it’s all good.

2. Both sides are recognizing that each side has valid points.

3. When we don’t know the absolute reality of the legalities, we bloody well admit it and note to research it later.

4. A newbie (Hugs, Katie) felt comfortable enough to jump in and ask quaestions, even though it was a potentially volatile situation.

Frankly, I think we just proved that a discussion can be done without namecalling and BS no matter how touchy…IF it doesn’t start out with somebody being rude as hell.

Fangs be damned.

:vampire:

Hi, I missed out on the last entries yesterday since I had to do a book reading (great fun by the way). 

Robin, thanks for correcting my error that it was Kate’s comment, not yours I was answering.  I got confused in the jumble of things.

Mistress Stef, Invisigoth (fab name) was objecting to the “sarcasm” of PC Cast’s obscenity-laced post re: ARCs, not my helpless kitten posts which had no profanity.

I also enjoyed the long exchange and thought most participants were civil considering that this is a heated topic.  Kudos to Nora Roberts for maintaining the most reasonable voice throughout.

‘Mistress Stef, Invisigoth (fab name) was objecting to the “sarcasm” of PC Cast’s obscenity-laced post re: ARCs, not my helpless kitten posts which had no profanity.’

Oops, my bad. Sorry, Invisigoth.

We should all blog this convo as an answer to all the nasty ones. Then the SBs get some free promo.