In Defense of Online Purchases of Books and DVDs

38 posts / 0 new

Tue, 2010-01-19 22:20

500_Apples

I notice a lot of threads where posters are sad at the demise of independent book stores, due to the rise of Amazon and Chapters. I'm not a fan of Chapters, I won't defend it. However I'll defend purchasing books online, I think people judge the act too harshly as being pocket book driven, narrow minded and soullless.

Lots of posters are nostalgic for the feel of old community book stores. I think that to them it came off as providing recommendations of what to read. In my life, I've never relied on a bookstore to tell me what to read, I can't recall ever buying a book because it was well-placed. I never read the book reviews in the back of the newspaper of go to the library book clubs. I rely on word of mouth of friends, universes I'm familiar with from TV and movies, names of authors... and lately online commentary.

My favourite part about Amazon is the review system. For any product there that's remotely famous, there will be a large number of reviews discussing the merits of the product, and if you look on the page of some random book or DVD you'll find these reviews that are of very literary quality. I've come to rely on these for a lot of purchases. A while back I bought Babylon 5 and absolutely hated the first few episodes, and I was going to return it. I only stayed with it, because I noticed some of my concerns showed up in some of the reviews there... I kept watching and it's now my favourite series. Had I been browsing in a bookstore by myself, with one other guy in the store reading something else and listening to his IPOD, that would not have happened.

I'm reminded of a historical note I got from my roommate, a lit grad student. Apparently in the 19th century, working class people would get together in taverns and discuss their serialized fiction over beer. That sounds like fun, where do I sign up? I don't sign up anywhere, the practice is dead. There's a few reasons for this, but one of these is that there is a far greater number of cultural products, which means that the proportion of the population that likes what I like or what you like is much smaller. I have to go to io9.com to discuss science fiction in general from which I recently read the great recommendation to read Charles Stross, I have to go to syfy.com to discuss Galactica and now Caprica, Whedonesque to read commentary on any of his works, and Kryptonsite to read about Smallville. At that point, I'm already online, and it makes more sense to purchase books in that avenue.

Tue, 2010-01-19 23:28

Bacchus

I would have to agree. Plus the fact that Amazon gives me book recommendations absed on my choices which brings books to my attention I would never see in a bookstore. And most importantly the lower proce lets me buy more books for the same price.

Wed, 2010-01-20 11:11

Snert

An old school, independent bookstore can be a fascinating place to visit, and though I'm hardly a voracious reader, I take no delight in seeing some of them go.

At the same time, though, I think we all agree that the problems the record companies say they're having have everything to do with those record companies resisting change until it was way too late. I can't help thinking that a lot of bookstores took a similar approach.

Wed, 2010-01-20 12:22

sandstone

here is an option that started in canada that i use when buying books online.. perhaps many are already familiar with it... many small bookstores route their books via this online place....

http://www.abebooks.com/

Wed, 2010-01-20 12:58

Maysie

This topic is one near and dear to me, having spent almost 10 years working in an independent specialty bookstore as a bookseller, shelver, staffer, manager, event coordinator and office administrator.

abebooks is a great resource for out of print and hard to find books.

There's no question that the internet, and online bookselling, has changed the face of publishing in Canada and the US.

And moving away from the "nostalgia" argument about the role of small, independent bookstores (which I've ranted and raved about many times in the past.) why do we, as consumers, choose any independent store over a large chain?

As an industry, the printing, manufacturing and selling of books in Canada is extremely heavily subsidized by grants at the federal and provincial levels. The actual cost of that $22.99 trade paperback published by a Canadian publisher is far, far above that retail price. And yes, I agree that the cost of books is less affordable even with such subsidies. The purchase of new books has become more and more a pursuit of those with higher disposable incomes, something that should leave us as progressives rather fearful of the ways in which ideas and, more importantly, new authors, will get audience.

But the fast food industry had the same effect on restaurant businesses as the chain bookstores and online booksellers now have on the book industry. And because books aren't a Happy Meal, there are deeper implications to having an industry move more and more towards mainstream fast-selling crap and less and less towards new, innovative, progressive and radical authors.

Independent, small, progressive and radical publishers are facing similar issues as independent bookstores are. With one or two sales reps per region for a store like Crapters, how likely is it that these few gate-keepers will find and seek out books by more radical known authors, never mind lesser known ones? Call me a wacky lefty, but I don't have much faith in the corporate machinery of any industry.

And while I understand that price is an issue for some people, one has to ask oneself if a few dollars here and there really does make a difference. And yeah I understand that for some it does make a difference. I also understand that some people live in areas in which the only perceived option is to purchase from Crapters or Crapazon. I would gently suggest that finding the nearest independent bookstore and asking about special orders and shipping would take very few minutes out of one's day. Your $30 purchase makes a much bigger difference to a small store.

Wed, 2010-01-20 13:38

Bacchus

Oh I agree and make a point of purchasing from some independants here in toronto on a regular basis (Bakka, Sleuth of Baker Street and a few others). But for hardcovers, generally its online

Wed, 2010-01-20 14:10

Catchfire

The beauty of the interent is that it allows us to be at once diverse, pluralistic, global; and concentrated, unique, local. Blogs and discussion sites (Hey! Like this one!) act as virtual centres that attract likeminded people from across the globe to discuss books as radical as we choose, as common as we choose. Just as important, imo, are so-called "brick & mortar" communities in the real world, which act as centre for local culture, local geography and local interests. These can, but need not be, bookstores or librairies. Chapters and Amazon, it should be easy to see, fight both of these impulses. Chapters particularly streamlines choice and variety, ignoring vast swaths of writers, poets, novelists, cooks, musicians, etc, and foregrounding their hot-branded topsellers at the expense of true diversity. At the same time, it drives the small ecclectic community centres out of business, steamrolling difference and offering "more"--a completely virtual "more", of course: choice, as it is, without option.

Amazon is a bit more of an interesting problem, however, despite their culpability in the decline of the independent. The idea of the "long tail" seems to promote pluralism, but I've read enough to remain unconvinced at its existence. I'm more excited at places like abebooks, which, like the Amazon marketplace, is a diffuse collection of independent sellers, where different editions, translations and formats abound, without the corporate mainstage of Amazon and Chapters.

I think the only way the role the independent bookstore used to occupy can continue to be filled, is through a not-for-profit (or not-for-very-much-profit) enterprise, which relies on community involvement as its true resource. This blatantly utopian thinking, however, doesn't make it a very easy prospect to fulfill. Here's hoping the anarchists continue to come through for us...

Wed, 2010-01-20 15:26

RosaL

the hell with it (meaning I omitted my sarcastic point detailing my unwillingness to make big sacrifices of time and money in support of small-scale capitalism.)

Wed, 2010-01-20 18:42

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Ah, RosaL, I think you're making a mistake equating capitalism with the mom and pop business or independent book seller. It's easy to do, as many small business owners tend, also, to believe their interests lie with the forces that would erase them from this earth as easily as they would erase forests for parking lots.

But capitalism exists within the realm of industrialization and post-indusrialization. I would argue a book store owner selling radical political tomes among the literature and the magazines is no more a capitalist any more than you're a free marketeer when you purchase locally grown produce at the farmer's market.

Globalization has not only raped and pillaged the Earth victimizing indigenous peoples wherever they live above or among "economic resources", but it has also diminished our own sense of community, belonging, and economy reducing our own roles as neighbours, citizens, and active social and political participants to passive consumers of globalism's plunder.

Wed, 2010-01-20 19:02

#10

Boom Boom

Ain't no bookstores here on the coast and our nearest city (Sept-Iles) only has a couple of French-only bookstores, so I do all my shopping on the Internet. For music recordings, too. I use Amazon almost exclusively - they provide reviews, have an incredible store of items in stock and I've had excellent delivery times on every item I've ever ordered from them.

Thu, 2010-01-21 01:02

#11

RosaL

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Ah, RosaL, I think you're making a mistake equating capitalism with the mom and pop business or independent book seller. It's easy to do, as many small business owners tend, also, to believe their interests lie with the forces that would erase them from this earth as easily as they would erase forests for parking lots.

But capitalism exists within the realm of industrialization and post-indusrialization. I would argue a book store owner selling radical political tomes among the literature and the magazines is no more a capitalist any more than you're a free marketeer when you purchase locally grown produce at the farmer's market.

As long as "mom and pop" don't employ anyone, i won't call them capitalists. (I'm a long ways from a farmers' market, by the way, though, ironically, I am surrounded on all sides by farmers .)

Thu, 2010-01-21 01:43

#12

j.m.

RosaL wrote:

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Ah, RosaL, I think you're making a mistake equating capitalism with the mom and pop business or independent book seller. It's easy to do, as many small business owners tend, also, to believe their interests lie with the forces that would erase them from this earth as easily as they would erase forests for parking lots.

But capitalism exists within the realm of industrialization and post-indusrialization. I would argue a book store owner selling radical political tomes among the literature and the magazines is no more a capitalist any more than you're a free marketeer when you purchase locally grown produce at the farmer's market.

As long as "mom and pop" don't employ anyone, i won't call them capitalists. (I'm a long ways from a farmers' market, by the way, though, ironically, I am surrounded on all sides by farmers .)

Is their labour and means of production used to produce commodities for exchange value? Are those monies then used to buy other commodities, or reinvested in the forces of production (even if they themselves are the "labour"?). I think using the word capitalist is false - it suggests a belief in the system of capitalism. But their practices are structured by capitalism. I think the fact that these are seen as social exchanges as well plays into the dichotomy of the "social" vs. "firm-based" form of sales. I kind of dislike this comparison because it suggests a pre-modern and a modern divide, which is clearly false - we shouldn't fall for the idea of progress of time and social relations, and the corollary that mom and pop shops and farmers markets as historical entities in our modern world (but i digress... or retire!).

Thu, 2010-01-21 02:05

#13

RosaL

j.m. wrote:

I think using the word capitalist is false - it suggests a belief in the system of capitalism. But their practices are structured by capitalism.

I think the question of whether they employ anyone is crucial and the matter of their belief systems irrelevant.

Thu, 2010-01-21 02:43

#14

Bacchus

Depends what you mean by employ. Family or part time people just helping out as needs be (a necessity if a mom and pop place wants to even think of a break for mom and pop) or mom and pop hiring people to run it for them and just take the profits? Thats kind of more the question.

If I ran a bookstore I would have to be open 7 days a week (or a minimum weekends and a majority of the week) with some of those days stretching into night to get the customers needed to stay alive. Eventually I would need help if I didnt have enough family members in the operation, even if its just a teen/college student for a few hours here and there for a decent hourly wage.

To condemn any business that employs people means you dont buy newspapers, computers, books, magazines, TVs, radios, cars etc from anyone since all those require WAY more staff than a individual owner can do. And there aint that many co-op publishers, etc these days

Thu, 2010-01-21 02:44

#15

sandstone

does this make rabble.ca a capitalist organization? lol... shudder the thought.....

Thu, 2010-01-21 02:59

#16

Bacchus

Actually according to Rosa yes it is a capitalist organization that deserves no support.

Thu, 2010-01-21 12:33

#17

Michelle

Actually, no, rabble isn't a "capitalist organization". We're a non-profit. No one makes a profit here.

Thu, 2010-01-21 12:53

#18

Snert

Is rabble privately owned?

Thu, 2010-01-21 12:55

#19

Michelle

It's a non-profit. It's run by a board. Nobody "owns" it.

More information here.

Thu, 2010-01-21 13:03

#20

RosaL

Bacchus wrote:

To condemn any business that employs people means you dont buy newspapers, computers, books, magazines, TVs, radios, cars etc from anyone since all those require WAY more staff than a individual owner can do. And there aint that many co-op publishers, etc these days

You are misunderstanding pretty well everything I say, which is at least partly my fault. I need to explain at length if I want to be understood here. (Maybe another time .) All I said was that I wasn't going to make significant sacrifices to support small capitalists rather than large capitalists.

*Perhaps I should add that I give money (and time) to a number of non-profits (that employ people).

Thu, 2010-01-21 13:17

#21

Snert

Good enough. It had just been my understanding that it was once private property & wondered if it was still. I don't know that not making a profit is necessarily incompatible with being privately owned.

Thu, 2010-01-21 13:29

#22

G. Muffin

:) @ Snert.

Thu, 2010-01-21 14:50

#23

Bacchus

Well I stand corrected Well sit rather, since Im at my computer

Thu, 2010-01-21 14:58

#24

sandstone

not sure how much others know regarding the nature of non profit organizations, but wikipedia gives an okay overview of them... being paid and making a profit are considered 2 seperate ideas... npos often have staff that get paid, but no one is making a profit... thats my understanding.... perhaps a distinction is being made between what is the basis for capitalism verses a different platform...

Thu, 2010-01-21 19:56

#25

A_J

A non-profit organisation is incorporated much like any other corporation, but it has members rather than owner shareholders (so there is a legal corporate person "Rabble.ca", but it stands on its own without owners).

There are limits on accumulating profits (though it can still earn profits) and payments to members (it can pay salaries, but obviously can't distribute dividends to members as a regular corporation would).

Fri, 2010-01-22 02:20

#26

Sven

I don't see why purchasing books online even needs to be "defended" (as per this thread's title).

If a person wants to buy books online, then they should do so. If someone else wants to support independent book stores, then they should buy their books in independent book stores.

If there's sufficient interest in and support for selling/buying books in independent book stores, then those stores will survive. If not, then they won't.

Fri, 2010-01-22 05:03

#27

sandstone

sven, i think a concern for some is the idea of the small independant outlets being snowed under by large corporations like amazon or chapters... does buying something online help create a better world while at the same time supporting some large corp? are there other options that could be explored? i think these are some of the questions some here might be considering...

Fri, 2010-01-22 09:27

#28

Sven

sandstone wrote:

sven, i think a concern for some is the idea of the small independant outlets being snowed under by large corporations like amazon or chapters... does buying something online help create a better world while at the same time supporting some large corp? are there other options that could be explored? i think these are some of the questions some here might be considering...

Like you, I use www.abebooks.com (and I use it almost exclusively where a book has been out on the market for a year or more). So, I'm not defining "online purchases" to equal Amazon or Chapters.

As far as creating a better world goes, if people find more convenience, lower prices, and better selection through online venues (relative to brick-n-mortar locations), then isn't that, by itself, making the world better for book buyers?

Fri, 2010-01-22 09:46

#29

G. Muffin

Sven wrote:
I don't see why purchasing books online even needs to be "defended"

It's frowned upon. I just blew $300 at amazon.ca (books arrived yesterday) and that cash should have gone to a local bookstore. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to wait. The bookstore in Oak Bay Village is not top tier and they advise that they just don't order books for customers. That's all I needed to hear but I should have gone downtown to Munro's and/or Russells because those folks I care about, rather than the corporate owner of amazon.ca

Shopping at amazon.ca is a bit like shopping at Chapters. I don't carry the bag with pride, is what I mean.

Fri, 2010-01-22 09:48

#30

G. Muffin

Powells in Portland, OR is a reasonable online venue, Sven, but, again, money's leaving town. The UPS guy lives here, though. (Not here, in this apartment, just in Victoria, I would presume).

Fri, 2010-01-22 10:58

#31

p-sto

Proof that the corporate juggernaut needs to have it's finger in everything?

Quote:
AbeBooks Inc. is a subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc. AbeBooks, an online bookselling pioneer, was acquired in December 2008 and remains a stand-alone operation with headquarters in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, and a European office in Dusseldorf, Germany.

http://www.abebooks.com/books/CompanyInformation/

Fri, 2010-01-22 11:46

#32

RosaL

sandstone wrote:

sven, i think a concern for some is the idea of the small independant outlets being snowed under by large corporations like amazon or chapters... does buying something online help create a better world while at the same time supporting some large corp? are there other options that could be explored? i think these are some of the questions some here might be considering...

The better world is not going to come through shopping.

Fri, 2010-01-22 13:14

#33

sandstone

p-sto - thanks for that info.. it doesn't surprise me....

rosal - i agree.. i think it's a step in a direction that could favour the small over large corporations though which is something i value. from my pov corporate power has gotten out of hand... it's nice to think of the internet as the great equalizer until one realizes how the consumer platform hasn't changed much and large corporations continue to eat the small for breakfast... i don't think this is in our best interests...

Fri, 2010-01-22 18:31

#34

George Victor

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Ah, RosaL, I think you're making a mistake equating capitalism with the mom and pop business or independent book seller. It's easy to do, as many small business owners tend, also, to believe their interests lie with the forces that would erase them from this earth as easily as they would erase forests for parking lots.

But capitalism exists within the realm of industrialization and post-indusrialization. I would argue a book store owner selling radical political tomes among the literature and the magazines is no more a capitalist any more than you're a free marketeer when you purchase locally grown produce at the farmer's market.

Globalization has not only raped and pillaged the Earth victimizing indigenous peoples wherever they live above or among "economic resources", but it has also diminished our own sense of community, belonging, and economy reducing our own roles as neighbours, citizens, and active social and political participants to passive consumers of globalism's plunder.

FM very nicely explained the concept of "alienation", as described in Capital. New and Old Left understand that Marx was primarily concerned about this happening to people under the new relations forced upon people by Capitalism. He was no concerned about numbers, size of instttuions or simple economics, as some are making out here. Thinks social relations, and the human being in a truly free state - free to choose - the opening paragraphs of Capital. Anarchist and Marxist can celebrate that condition - if desagreeing on the means. :D

Fri, 2010-01-22 19:14

#35

RosaL

George Victor wrote:

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Ah, RosaL, I think you're making a mistake equating capitalism with the mom and pop business or independent book seller. It's easy to do, as many small business owners tend, also, to believe their interests lie with the forces that would erase them from this earth as easily as they would erase forests for parking lots.

But capitalism exists within the realm of industrialization and post-indusrialization. I would argue a book store owner selling radical political tomes among the literature and the magazines is no more a capitalist any more than you're a free marketeer when you purchase locally grown produce at the farmer's market.

Globalization has not only raped and pillaged the Earth victimizing indigenous peoples wherever they live above or among "economic resources", but it has also diminished our own sense of community, belonging, and economy reducing our own roles as neighbours, citizens, and active social and political participants to passive consumers of globalism's plunder.

FM very nicely explained the concept of "alienation", as described in Capital. New and Old Left understand that Marx was primarily concerned about this happening to people under the new relations forced upon people by Capitalism. He was no concerned about numbers, size of instttuions or simple economics, as some are making out here. Thinks social relations, and the human being in a truly free state - free to choose - the opening paragraphs of Capital. Anarchist and Marxist can celebrate that condition - if desagreeing on the means. :D

When I said small businesses were also capitalist and that I wasn't going to make significant sacrifices in support of small business, it was primarily alienation I had in mind. So I don't agree that I am "making a mistake". But I do appreciate your effort to find something we can agree on

Sat, 2010-01-23 10:11

#36

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

There are a number of different approaches here. First, employing someone does not make one a capitalist. I recently completed "Let them eat junk" by an avowed Marxist prof. who argued traditional family farming, while it was done for profit, and while it certainly employed people, was not capitalistic because what they produced did not lend easily to being commodified and, as well, their interests in farming went well beyond the short term profit demands of their owners/shareholders.

The same is true for small business owned by real people who live within the communities they serve.

But from another perspective, small businesses, without the global reach of large capitalist enterprises, are far less likely to be profiting from resource wars, forcing indigenous peoples off their lands, or engaged in exploiting the poor and oppressed. As well, small businesses contribute far more to the local economy and they are more susceptible to pressure. For example, my boycotting Chapters/Indigo has not caused the behemoth to stop supporting the racist and bordering-on-genocidal Zionist regime. The withholding of my patronage has not hurt them a bit. But if I told my local and independent book store I would no longer shop there, she (because I know who she is) would feel it (I'm a big reader).

Finally, there is no community, not progressive, not libertarian, not anarchist, nor even pot-smoking agrarian without an economy. And the smaller and more local the economy, the more sustainable and responsive to community needs.

Sat, 2010-01-23 12:16

#37

RosaL

Frustrated Mess wrote:

There are a number of different approaches here. First, employing someone does not make one a capitalist. I recently completed "Let them eat junk" by an avowed Marxist prof. who argued traditional family farming, while it was done for profit, and while it certainly employed people, was not capitalistic because what they produced did not lend easily to being commodified and, as well, their interests in farming went well beyond the short term profit demands of their owners/shareholders.

The same is true for small business owned by real people who live within the communities they serve.

I'm inclined to agree about the farming (with reservations, depending on various factors), and I think I've argued that on babble, but not about small business. From the point of view of people who work for small business, it is just as much capitalist as large business, if not worse. This seems to me to be an important point (and one no 'avowed marxist' can fail to consider). I do grant that a small business has less power and so does less damage overall than a large business - I suppose a gangster armed with a hammer is to be preferred to one with an arsenal of high powered weapons. But it's at least arguable that small business in the aggregate is just as destructive as big business.

I will also grant that there are probably a few businesses operated for the love of, for example, books, and a desire for a modest income, operated by what amounts to a community of family and, possibly, friends. But my experience is that that is an exceedingly rare anomaly. (I do know of one such instance. It's an anarchist bookstore. But the owner's aim - because he's consistent - is to turn it into a worker cooperative.)

And I am not arguing that we can get along without an economy!

(note: I didn't say that employing someone was a sufficient condition of being a capitalist.)

Wed, 2010-01-27 06:54

#38

E.P.Houle

Jaysus, I do hate emoticons. How can ya fence with that which has no words?