Out of Print Books, Out of Guts Networks December 2, 2004January 19, 2017 FROM 50 CENTS TO $631 IN MONTHS Will Galway: ‘A few months ago I bought a hardcopy of The Invisible Bankers, in nearly flawless condition, for 50 cents from the library near my wife’s place of work. (You know, folks contribute books to the library to help them raise money.) After picking up the hardcopy, I gave my ratty, old, paperback to our local public library.’ Brooks: ‘I KNOW I have a copy of it somewhere … but where? Damn.’ Brent Reeb: ‘After reading the WSJ article, I thought it was time to check out The Invisible Bankers from my university (Ohio State) library. I did so, and now that I have this great copy of your book in my hands (not checked out since 1996 and stored deep in our 2.5 million volume book stacks meant for preserving books), should I not sell it for $100, pay the library fine for ‘losing’ my book, say $50, and call it a day? I could then in a year’s time buy the book back, probably for $10, and give it back to the library, no?’ ☞ I took Ethics 101, but answering this one would require a graduate seminar. Split your profit with a starving Third World family and it surely would. (But the answer would still be no.) Jim Skinnell: ‘I kept a bunch of your books that my Dad had when he died a couple years ago, and The Invisible Bankers was one of them. He bought it for $3.08 at K-Mart (the receipt was still inside). So, I did a little checking around. You’re right on target with the Amazon prices. However, I was able to find a signed hardback on eBay for only $36. Does this mean that your autograph actually decreases the value of the book?’ ☞ Very possibly, but the bidding ain’t over yet. Hurry, the auction ends soon. OR WAIT – JUST READ THIS Stephen Gilbert: ‘If you put $100 in a bank, they give you $105 back after a year; if you put it in insurance, they give you $65.’ Isn’t that the upshot of The Invisible Bankers? (Remember Father Guido Sarducci’s 15 Minute University? They taught you only what you’d remember 20 years after graduation. The Spanish class was ‘Como esta usted? Muy bien, gracias.’ Your degree cost $25, including cap and gown rental.)’ Or wait – maybe we can reprint the book, after all . . . READING BOOKS FOR FREE AT AMAZON.COM You will recall this from last week, when we discovered you could search on page numbers from books, and thus begin with page 3 (to see pages 1-5), then 8 (for 6-10), and so on. One of you happens to be Paul Aiken, Executive Director of the Authors Guild, who writes: Amazon’s Search Inside the Book Program is intended, we’re told, to sell more books, and it may actually do so. Unfortunately, there’s no evidence that Amazon’s made available to writers to back this up. Novelists have little to fear from the program. Nor do authors of narrative nonfiction. But the more one moves toward the reference end of the nonfiction spectrum, the greater potential there is that browsing of the work will supplant purchases of the work. Our hunch is that Search Inside the Book is generally good for book sales, even of most reference works, especially if they have received little publicity and sell modestly, as most books do (fewer sales to displace, so the added exposure outweighs those concerns). Authors of popular nonfiction that might be used as a reference are at somewhat greater risk. What to do? Well, you’re probably entitled to have your work removed from the program. This is because Amazon’s “authority” to post electronic copies of your work comes from your publisher, who probably doesn’t have that authority to begin with. (Here’s a link to our story from last year when Amazon launched the program, with some details.) So far, all reports are that Amazon will remove works from the program if the author, through the publisher, asks for it. This may not be a good idea, however. Amazon’s program might be selling more books for you. A better solution would be to insist that Amazon provide you and your publisher with your work’s usage and resulting sales from the program. They certainly have that information available, but we’re told that Amazon isn’t sharing that data. It seems publishers haven’t pressed Amazon on this, which amazes us. Google’s launched a similar program, Google Print. They’re making data on usage and clicks on the online booksellers links available to publishers, who can make it available to authors. It’s still in its early stages — your book probably isn’t in there yet. Here’s our info on this program. Finally, regarding your high-priced but out-of-print title. We could have that reprinted for you at no cost and made available at online bookstores. Generous royalties, and you can pull out if you later decide you want a traditional publisher to reprint the title. It’s a program called Backinprint.com that we run for members. There are more than 1,000 titles in it. ☞ Great. And I think we should set the price at, oh, say, $125 a copy. Stay tuned. AN INCREASINGLY CONSOLIDATED, INCREASINGLY INTIMIDATED PRESS Doug Truth: ‘Josh Marshall ran a story about NBC and CBS not running an ad from the United Church of Christ. You gotta check it out. Where are we living, o my?’ ☞ I agree. You gotta check it out.
Well, Do YOU Wear Pajamas? December 1, 2004February 28, 2017 SHORT THAT BOOK Brian Vesley: ‘I am interested in purchasing a reasonably priced copy of your book, The Invisible Bankers. As a result of the October 27 Wall Street Journal article describing how useful the New York Attorney General’s staff has found it, there are now huge premiums being asked.’ ☞ Isn’t this why God invented libraries? But I couldn’t resist taking a look. I found a hardcover copy in fair condition (1982 retail price $12.95) for $315 via bn.com and three offered at Amazon ranging from $299.99 (in ‘acceptable’ condition) to $631.39 (‘good’). Ratty old paperback copies (originally $5.95) could be had for as low as $94.99. So I have a piece of advice for any of you who may have bought this book: SELL! Quick, because hours later I found the price for the ‘acceptable’ one had dropped to $249.99 and a ‘good’ one had dropped to $299, and a ‘very good’ one was offered at $631.38. Or instead of selling grabbing your $631.38 (a 15% compounded annual return on your 22-year investment), you could just leave it under a tree . . . SET YOUR BOOKS FREE Gloria: ‘A website I love, BookCrossing.com, has become so popular that bookcrossing has been accepted as an entry in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary: bookcrossing n. the practice of leaving a book in a public place to be picked up and read by others, who then do likewise. ‘I practice bookcrossing a lot. I think books are one of the greatest things in the world, and people don’t read enough. For the past two years I have given books instead of candy on Halloween. It must be working, because the house hasn’t been egged yet. Bookcrossing can be practiced in a serendipitous way (by leaving the books ‘in the wild’), or in a planned way (by e-mailing fellow bookcrossers and organizing a trade). I did a search for your books, and you have been bookcrossed 17 times! That’s a few dollars you will not make, but you have to admit this is a great system for reading on the cheap.’ YET MORE O’ BOREALIS I went to the US Patent & Trademark web site and searched on Borealis Technical. Here is what I got – 35 issued patents, the latest of which, #6,825,575, appears to have been issued . . . yesterday. I understand none of it, of course, but came closest to being able to make sense of this part: Objects of the present invention are, therefore, to provide new and improved methods and apparatus for prime mover-generator systems and control over them, having one or more of the following capabilities, features, and/or characteristics: A technical advantage of the present invention is that it provides new and improved methods and apparatus for prime mover generator systems and control over them. A further technical advantage is to provide a heat engine generator system in which the heat engine can be continuously operated over a wide load range without induction restriction, avoiding the need for engine throttling. Another technical advantage of the present invention is that higher engine efficiency is obtained by avoiding engine operation in a near closed throttle mode. Further, the heat engine does not have to be turned on and off in response to demand, but rather the engine runs steadily. This avoids the fumes and pollution caused when a heat engine starts and prevents the loss of rotational energy that occurs from repeated stopping and starting. A further technical advantage of the present invention is that it provides a heat engine generator system in which control is applied to the generator to electronically regulate the output of the system. Thus, control over the output of the system may be faster and more exact. Further, the load on the heat engine may be electrically manipulated to maintain a close to optimal run of the engine. A still further technical advantage of the present invention is that it provides a method by which a generator may be operated periodically as a motor. This allows the heat engine operation, during power absorbing strokes, to be improved by a periodic transfer of power from the generator, acting as motor, back to the engine. Thus, the present invention provides a simple method by which an electrical machine may alternate between generator and motor operation without direct control intervention, and without need to synchronize controller operation to heat engine operation. Other technical advantages of the present invention are set forth in or will be apparent from drawings and the description of the invention that follows, or may be learned from the practice of the invention. It sounds as if something like this could – conceivably – have an application in automobiles. I assume it will not come to fruition (how many patents do?). But wouldn’t it be fun if we owned technology that someday made cars more fuel efficient? There is a song in Pajama Game, the 1950s musical (not to out myself all over again), called ‘Seven and a Half Cents.’ It is sung by a starry-eyed young man who is imagining the implications of a proposed seven-and-a-half-cent an hour raise. ‘Seven-and-a-half cents,’ he concedes, in song, undaunted, ‘doesn’t buy a heck of a lot.’ Seven-and-a-half cents, indeed, ‘doesn’t buy a thing.’ ‘BUT! . . . give it to me every hour, forty hours every week – seven-and-a-half cents, I’ll be living like a king!’ He’s figured it out. He’s figured it out. With a pencil and a pad, he’s figured it out. ‘Only twenty years from today,’ he croons . . . ‘only twenty years from today, I can see it like a picture, only twenty short years from today . . . let’s see, 20 years at 52 weeks a year less two weeks vacation times 40 hours a week plus ten hours a month overtime at seven-and-a-half-cents an hour invested at 3% interest . . . why, that’s . . . that’s four thousand, two hundred seventy-two dollars and thirty-nine cents!!!’ I am paraphrasing from memory here (chicks and geese and ducks better scurry), but ‘that’s enough for me to buy . . .’ and then he lists, in song, all the amazing things he can buy for this phenomenal sum. (To put it in perspective, a dozen years of inflation later I was still able to buy a brand new Acapulco Blue 1967 Mustang with sports stripes for $2,411.) Does he get the raise? Does he keep at it for those twenty years? Or do people stop wearing pajamas (I know I have). But the dream’s half the fun, and if each new car brought a $10 fee to license this fuel-efficient technology, well, ‘let’s see . . . ‘