The Sword and Laser discussion

I don’t pretend to understand all the legalities of this, but some authors I respect have claimed that Audible is not acting in good faith.

https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/s...

Like most things in life, I believe there is probably a compromise to be had that is neither all of one, or all the other. While not a current Audible member, I was for several years in the past, and don’t believe I ever tried to return a book. Same with kindle. But I have appreciated Amazons general consumer friendliness for physical products in the past, and I’m sure that could have upset vendors from time to time. Is it too easy to game the system with Audible, probably. But I don’t think the only alternative is to clamp down completely. Could they add a limit to the number of times a month this could be done, or limit it to only books that are say less then 60% complete? Considering there is no legal secondary market for consumers of digital books/ audiobooks (at least that I’m aware of), I think it is even more important to make sure the customer is satisfied with their choice. But, some roadblocks should be put in place to stop abuse would be a good idea. But remember that the past has shown us that if you make the system too consumer unfriendly, it doesn’t tend to work out for the system, but those who try and find other ways around it, right or wrong. I can totally see why Amazon didn’t care much that this was happening, because for the most part they already got their cut on the subscription, but I’m not convinced it was intentionally screwing the publishers and authors, as much just ignorance. The release of that data, may help combat that. Anyway that’s my take.

The problem with their return policy is several-fold:

1) It lets listeners have their cake and eat it too.

2) It counts any return against the author, even if they listener 'read' it all the way through. If Audible wants to give the listener a credit that's fine but at some point a return should be their issue, not the author's. Put another way, if they want to be insanely customer friendly, bear the costs of that, don't impose them on authors who can't control the policy.

3) they hide returns by simply doing the math internally and showing net sales (Sales - returns) so an author doesnt know if they are getting lots of sales AND returns, etc.

Authors have zero leverage though - where else are you going to sell your audiobooks that will give you any volume at all? Oh wait... https://www.chirpbooks.com keep s popping up... but I don't know if they're a viable outlet.

PS: The reason the last point is important is this:

You're a small author. Your statement shows 20 sales for last month. Because these are net sales, you can't know if you had a) 20 sales and zero returns or 120 sales and 100 returns. If it's the former, the return policy isn't hurting you. But if it's the latter, you've been dinged for *100* returns. That's a lot of revenue for an author of this size.

To be completely honest, I take customer friendliness over author friendliness in this case.

I have a huge Audible library and i haven't read like 50% of them due to it being a subscription thing. I am buying books because I know I can return them if I don't get to them.

Why shouldn't I be able to return something I won't ever finish for something new?

Take for example The Parable of the Sower. I bought it for Sword & Laser but after some time I just couldn't bring myself to continue anymore. I am very glad that I could return that book without much hassle, without any red tape because I read more than 50% (because I jumped ahead to see if it would get "more bearable".

Jan wrote: "Why shouldn't I be able to return something I won't ever finish for something new? "

If everyone did that then authors couldn’t afford to do that job.

I do put dead authors in a different category; they aren’t impacted by these kinds of shenanigans, and neither corporations nor grandchildren leaching off the estate are my concern.

I think Audible owes the authors at least the transparency that was demanded in that letter.

Jan wrote: "To be completely honest, I take customer friendliness over author friendliness in this case.

I have a huge Audible library and i haven't read like 50% of them due to it being a subscription thing..."

Do you send half eaten meals back to the kitchen of restaurants and demand not to be charged?

Return food that you've eaten some of to the grocery store and expect a refund?

Drive a car for a few months, then wheel into the dealership and ask for your money back?

Here's a thought - don't buy things you don't intend to 'read' and don't expect others to pay for your mistakes. We all buy books that other people liked, that sounded interesting and when we get into them... nah. But it's the height of entitlement to expect to be able to listen to a good chunk of a book and then return it.

Audible has a Samples feature. This is WHY. Use it.

It doesn't seem right to get too down on Jan for simply taking advantage of a feature Amazon offers. Why is it more valid to use one feature (a free sample) than another (a free return)? I think there are certainly problems with the model, but they stem mostly from Amazon having such a large market-share that authors have little alternative, and that Amazon prefers to hide all their data.

The fact that something is allowed doesn't exempt people from using their sense of right and wrong when using it.

But I don't really mean my post above as only about Jan, but about the entire attitude that I see out there and which can be summarized as "If something helps me it's ok, no matter who else is hurt", especially when backed up by reasoning that assumes external restraint should be the only thing that prevents one from doing a thing, vs a functioning sense of ethics.

Rick wrote: "Drive a car for a few months, then wheel into the dealership and ask for your money back?"
a) False equivalency
b) If they said I could? Why not? You know, there are "money back if you not satisfied" policies in the real world!
c) If I buy non-sealed goods like physical books online, the European Union gives me the right to return the books within 14 days, even if I read them. Amazon is more generous than that, but the principle exists.

Rick wrote: "Here's a thought - don't buy things you don't intend to 'read' and don't expect others to pay for your mistakes. "
I didn't make a mistake. I behaved in a way i wouldn't have if Amazon had a different policy. I wouldn't have bought those books to begin with if I hadn't had the chance to return them.

And I am not saying it has to be this way but that I prefer it this way.

And regarding it hurting authors: It's the same argument as with the piracy discussion. The authors base their argument on the false assumption people would have bought their work if this system wasn't in place which is just not a reasonable assumption. ...

I don't wish to pile on Jan, because I can understand the perspective of "I wouldn't have bought it otherwise", but I tend to agree with Rick.

It is very similar to a services rendered argument. The service rendered was not only the book's partial consumption but also the material you were then able to contribute to the book's discussion/participation in the group. Regardless of wether you would have purchased it without the return policy, you have admitted to receiving the service that the book provided. I chose not to purchase the book, because I had other books in my queue, but I have certainly purchased expensive audiobooks that I didn't end up liking. Yet, I have never returned a single one of them. For me, it would be like going to the moving theater and demanding a refund halfway through the movie. People do it, but it would feel wrong to me for some reason. Regardless, I would not conflate this situation with piracy, as you were well within your rights to return the book.

Again, I do not wish to offend Jan or seem disrespectful of your opinions, but I must kindly disagreed.

I think the point missing is that Jan is not buying a book with the thought of listening to it and returning it... they are buying it with the intent of enjoying it and finding out they do not. At the end of the day, Amazon is placing customer satisfaction OVER the satisfaction of authors. Amazon needs to provide the appropriate data points so the author understand what is happening with their work.

I think a more comparable example would be Libby/Overdrive loans. I can loan an ebook onto my kindle and turn off the access to wifi/data. I can keep that book indefinitely without anyone knowing - I could never read it, read it once, or read it 75 times. The author is still only seeing one checkout from that book. I don't think it's the consumers fault for doing this to finish a book if they are not able to in the two week loan. But I do think the consumer would be wrong to finish the book but not delete it off of their device.

In both situations, the author is not being compensated as accurately as possible.

Kayla wrote: "I don't wish to pile on Jan
No, worries, I can take it.

And I do agree that more transparency for the authors would be good (although I don't get why they would need to know through which Audible channel people bought their books).

On a slight tangent, I just found a neat list of items that amazon doesn't accept returns for. The most comparable items on the list are:

* Downloadable software products
* Online subscriptions after they have been accessed
* Open software
(The funniest item on the list is "live insects")

https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...

It is interesting that I could create an app for purchase with like 100 lines of code, and it would be non-refundable. But, an ebook with 100,000+ words is returnable. I suppose software is a less oversaturated market in their business model, and the number of software consumers on their platform would be far less than that of the book market.

I also want to be clear that I’m not blaming Jan for taking advantage of a broken system, I just don’t like the system.

It’s like that scene in Real Genius where Laszlo enters the Frito-Lay sweepstakes one million six hundred thousand times and calculates he’ll win something like 32.6% of the prizes.

Chris: “Doesn’t that kinda take the fun out of it?”
Laszlo: “They made the rules, and lately I’ve come to realize I have certain materialistic needs.”

I think a reasonable limit or compromise is in order.
I think I've only returned 1 audible book. I did not finish it & was not enjoying it.

Yeah, even I who has decided to act according to the system, have returned only four(I checked, it was three) books over the years. Personally, I think the authors are overestimating the effect this has.

Weighing in as I have recently returned several Audible books (including Parable of the Sower):
Audiobooks are pretty expensive, and Audible provides an affordable and convenient way to enjoy them, with a wide selection available to purchase, which you can keep forever and also link up with the Kindle editions via Whispersync. The no-fuss returns policy is one of the main attractions of the service for me as it means I can just buy a book whenever and start listening immediately, without worrying about what happens if I don’t like it. As pointed out elsewhere, there isn’t really any resale market for non-physical audiobooks so I don’t want to risk spending money on something that I don’t want.
That said, I personally think that the returns policy leans too heavily in favour of the consumer, to the detriment of authors. If I log into my Audible account and look at my purchase history, I can see a “Return Title” button next to all the books I’ve bought over the last twelve months - including those I’ve 100% listened to already. I don’t know if I could actually get away with returning all of them or if my account would get suspended for abuse of the policy, but on the face of it, there’s nothing to stop me. And I’ve certainly heard of people treating Audible as a lending library, hitting the “return” button as soon as they’ve finished a book.
I think applying a rule that you can only return the book if you’ve listened to less than a certain percentage of it would prevent abuse of the system and make things much better for authors, without seriously inconveniencing listeners. After all, as a keen reader I want to get good value for books, but I also want to support authors.

You all bring up good points. It definitely seems that most people would dislike the removal of the return feature, and I agree that complete removal would be overkill.

It would be cool if they had a AudibleUnlimited version like they do for KindleUnlimited. That way the readers and the writers get what they want without either feeling like they got a raw deal.

Regardless, this is an interesting discussion.

Trike wrote: "...It’s like that scene in Real Genius where Laszlo enters the Frito-Lay sweepstakes one million six hundred thousand times and calculates he’ll win something like 32.6% of the prizes.

Chris: “Doesn’t that kinda take the fun out of it?”
Laszlo: “They made the rules, and lately I’ve come to realize I have certain materialistic needs.”"

Let's face it: Real Genius is vastly underrated. "Rue the day?" Who talks like that?

My main preference is that Audible start reporting the returns to the authors. More data helps them make better decisions.

The only time I've returned a book to Audible wasn't because *I* didn't like it (which I feel is on me, as others have said) but because the audio production was such poor quality, it was the equivalent of returning a book that I bought new but was missing pages or something like that. One time it was a Robert J. Sawyer book with such varying levels I couldn't even hear it in parts, another was a very long classic - The Golden Notebook - that they had clearly not edited. The narrator would correct herself and I'd hear pieces twice.

The issue I have with Audible's policy in both of these situations is neither is the author's fault....

But if I bite off more than I can chew, like when I only got halfway through a super depressing apocalypse novel or only 2 hours into a 31 hour Tudor historical novel (which is too long no matter how many awards) I chalk that up to my bad judgment.

Apparently making an audiobook is expensive (a couple of thousand dollars or so) so if a publisher doesn’t see any sort of profit because of all the returns, for whatever reason, they might stop making audiobooks.

I bet though that in that case audible will gladly license the rights to get a quasi monopoly.

Ruth - we agree overall (as evidenced by the end of you post) but you make several points that I've seen from others justify this policy entirely, so I'm going to reply to those. This isn't really @ you more @ the points themselves.

Ruth wrote: "...
Audiobooks are pretty expensive,

Irrelevant. No one forced people to buy them. Other things are expensive (hardbacks, for one). Listeners know what they're getting into when they choose audiobooks. Aside from folks who can't read (vision issues, etc), all of you who listen can read, too. Ebooks often go on sale for stupidly cheap and you can very likely check them our for free from the library.

PS: You can check out audiobooks too, so even if you really want to or have to listen, you can avoid paying.

The no-fuss returns policy is one of the main attractions of the service for me as it means I can just buy a book whenever and start listening immediately, without worrying about what happens if I don’t like it.

There's no disagreement that this is great for listeners. The issue is that it's blatantly unfair to authors because you can listen to the entire thing and then return it. This would be much less of an issue if it was a "return if you've listened to less than 10% of the book" policy. (NOTE: this is where Ruth and I agree)

And again, books have a sample you can listen to.

As pointed out elsewhere, there isn’t really any resale market for non-physical audiobooks so I don’t want to risk spending money on something that I don’t want.

There's no resale for ebooks either but I can't read mine and return them. Anytime you buy a book you take some risk that you might not like it. Listen to the sample. Read reviews. Use the library.


... I’ve certainly heard of people treating Audible as a lending library, hitting the “return” button as soon as they’ve finished a book.
I think applying a rule that you can only return the book if you’ve listened to less than a certain percentage of it would prevent abuse of the system and make things much better for authors, without seriously inconveniencing listeners. After all, as a keen reader I want to get good value for books, but I also want to support authors.."

And here's where we come together! :) Although people could just listen to the sample, I get that some sizable percentage likely don't do this. Keeping this at "This book is returnable if you've only read X%" would be fair as long as X isn't silly like 5% or 50%.

I would still argue the policy can't hurt authors as the people who use the return policy this way wouldn't have bought the books in the first place. It's essentially the old "lost sales" fallacy regarding piracy.

I mean one could argue just as well that considering that audible is the biggest audiobook platform and most audible sales are supposed to be going through subscriptions it's just as likely that there wouldn't be a market for audio books at its current market size if the prices weren't greatly reduced by the subscription and the return policy and the increase in market size overcompensates the effects of reduced prices and larger returns.

Saying that "people who use the return policy this way" would not have purchased the book otherwise is more of an anecdotal proof that someone thinks the policy won't hurt authors. That is presumption at its best and cannot be validated unless there is a study with a sample size disproving this counter assertion.

Most returns may be unread or minimally-read books, but it is my understanding that amazon is rather tight lipped on the subject. So, who's to say?

It is lovely to think that people would never abuse a system, but the fact of the matter is that people can abuse it. We do not know if they would or would not have purchased it beyond anecdotal evidence, and therefore, I think it would be more constructive to focus on 1) abuse can occur and 2) we all seem to agree that an X% limit for returns is a possible compromise.

We cannot conceivably confirm or deny loss for authors without comprehensive data supporting the assertion.

This is going off on a bit of a tangent, but I too think the lack of a legitimate secondary market for digital works of art in many forms is going to need to change at some point. I think for preservation alone it is something that needs to be addressed. Personally I’d like to see some sort of system like a crypto currency, where each instance of a digital piece of art was tagged with a unique identifier, and after the initial purchase the purchaser would indeed own that instance, and do what they want with it, including selling it. Otherwise I just don’t see much current digital media lasting past the lifetime of both those that created it, or paid to use it. I think software and video games could have a tougher time of this then other types of media, but many of them may suffer the same fate.

But maybe that’s too long term a thought for the short term return on investment companies that handle most of these media. But I would hope the artists themselves would eventually realize this as well, not from a profit standpoint but from a longevity standpoint.

Jan wrote: "I would still argue the policy can't hurt authors as the people who use the return policy this way wouldn't have bought the books in the first place...."

Ah yes, this argument. If someone wants to listen to a book without paying for it... USE THE LIBRARY. But justifying stealing (you're getting to read the book and not paying for it) is, to me, over a line.

Also, this:
Kayla wrote: "Saying that "people who use the return policy this way" would not have purchased the book otherwise is more of an anecdotal proof that someone thinks the policy won't hurt authors. That is presumpt..."

Sorry but this really is going back to "I'm entitled to do what I want and I don't care who's hurt by it. The rules don't prohibit it!" which begs the question... what about personal ethics?

John (Nevets) wrote: "This is going off on a bit of a tangent, but I too think the lack of a legitimate secondary market for digital works of art in many forms is going to need to change at some point. I think for prese..."

Why? I don't know about other markets, but here if I sell back a perfect condition $10 paperback I *might* get $2. I'm sure some people get more and others do sell even at this rate but it's not like anyone is going to make significant money reselling books. Yes, you have the theoretical right to, but in practice I doubt that many books are resold as a percentage of books sold (though Half Price and others might make me wrong there).

As for reselling digital goods... that wouldn't be hard but would require DRM. If I can sell a book to you and what we really do is transfer the right to download the book (so you download a copy) AND if the book gets removed from my reader, we're fine.

Probably all of us here are old enough to remember when buying used books was a cheap and easy way to get reading material. Well, it still is, but less so.

In my youth, any new books were purchased by the parents. The kids (two of us) would see them lying around as they were read and put in dibs. (Cousins got involved in the line for "Inherit the Stars, man did we fight over that book.) As we got older we found getting used books a way to obtain stuff we were personally interested in rather than what the adults read and left laying around. I know the overwhelming majority of my collection came that way. So I was a "fan," but did I help authors? Only in the sense that the first purchasers anticipated the secondary market, which is dim at best. Likely the casual SF reading person with decent job buying new was a better market for publishers than a more dedicated reader like myself.

So we come to today. How to learn about authors if it isn't your parents' bookshelf? More likely to be online sources, recommendations on bookselling sites, or social media groups. Heck, this place is one of them.

The market changes, distribution channels change, even the source markets change. There is a lot more niche material published now and authors don't have to go through gatekeeping publishers. I know two authors who self-pub that make over 100K a year on writing, and one of them is into the NFL salary range. (The lower end, but still.) There really isn't a "used" market like there used to be, but books are fairly cheap, libraries lend mass market stuff, and indies generally price less than a Starbucks latte. Reading is more affordable and more accessible than it has ever been. Enjoy what technology has brought. Yep, it's different from what we knew as youngsters, but there's nothing worth lamenting here.

Rick wrote: "Ah yes, this argument. If someone wants to listen to a book without paying for it... USE THE LIBRARY. But justifying stealing (you're getting to read the book and not paying for it) is, to me, over a line."

Come on. There is no need for that sort of language.

You may not agree with Audible's over-generous return policy and people using it, but Jan is legally entitled to use it. As is any other person.

I, personally, think that Audible shouldn't allow returns after a certain point (perhaps 25% read) or if Audible want to continue accepting returns after that point then Audible should still pay the authors and take the hit themselves.

As for the secondhand eBooks. I don't really care about reselling, but I wish there was an easier and legal way to lend or give them to someone else.

Amazon does have a lend option, but it is limited to very few books and is also not available in most non-US markets (like Australia)

John (Taloni) wrote: "Probably all of us here are old enough to remember when buying used books was a cheap and easy way to get reading material. Well, it still is, but less so.

In my youth, any new books were purchase..."

Very eloquently put.

While having the right to resell, was part of my point, the main one was to try and keep these works in circulation. Thus allowing readers to find these books and other media decades+ in the future. I would think for many creators the idea of there works living on would be an important part of the creation, as apposed to the works dying when the purchaser or publisher does.

Like others have stated here scanning the used book stores was how I acquired many of my books, including my PKD books (before they were republished) and my dune books, as well as less well known works.

What we are dealing with a Monopsony where a single buyer controls the market so that sellers only have one place to sell. It is the flip side of a Monopoly where the person buying a product gets overcharged, in this case the seller does not get a reasonable return.

In this case a writer (or publisher) cannot afford not too be on Amazon.

This is the situation that often occurs to Milk producers who have limited options of where they can sell. Or force producers into BOGOF deals that attract customers to supermarkets but cut into the profits of producers.

In the last 50 years Governments have been too concerned with minimising prices as the goal when looking at Monopolies ignoring the plight of producers in Monopsonies. Bothy are bad for the overall economy... (In the long run if it is not profitable to write we get less books).

I think part of the problem is that the way Audible works is a slightly odd hybrid between a subscription service and a “normal” online retailer. The books all have individual prices, but I suspect most Audible users, most of the time, pay for their books with credits. And because you get usually those credits on a monthly or annual subscription plan, it feels a bit like a subscription service like Netflix, Spotify Premium, or Kindle Unlimited. So it’s not really that surprising that some users end up treating it as an unlimited supply of audiobooks in exchange for a recurring fee. And the generous returns policy facilitates that behaviour.
We as readers can’t make Audible change that policy. All we can do is decide for ourselves - as readers who want to support writers - what we’re morally comfortable with. For me, that’s only returning a book if I give up on it before approximately the 25% mark. For others, that might be only returning books which are completely unlistenable because of technical issues. And for some that might be staying out of the Audible/Amazon ecosystem altogether.

I don't know what Audible's true goals are with the return policy, but I have received an email from them in the past after I rated a book very poorly suggesting I could/should return it. I'd clearly read enough (all) of it to give it some form of rating/review.

Iain wrote: "What we are dealing with a Monopsony where a single buyer controls the market so that sellers only have one place to sell. It is the flip side of a Monopoly where the person buying a product gets o..."

I agree with this completely. This is the dark side of an unregulated free market economy, where large corporations are allowed to bully smaller players. This is the reason government intervention and oversight is needed for the big players especially.

Tassie Dave wrote: "You may not agree with Audible's over-generous return policy and people using it, but Jan is legally entitled to use it. ..."

First off, these comments aren't specifically directed to Jan - I already noted that.

That said, I have zero sympathy for the "but I'm allowed to!" argument. I expect people to be better than that and to consider the effects of their actions, not to simply be as greedy as they're allowed to be.

An admittedly over the top analogy SEE BELOW. The state of Florida has a Stand Your Ground law that lets people shoot at others if they feel they're in danger. George Zimmerman is a free man after killing Trayvon Martin because of that law. He was 'allowed' to. But was it moral? Ethical?

Before someone jumps on me for that.... I'm in no way equating the actions here. I am saying that simply because something is allowed does not make it right nor does it excuse the person taking the action from using their own judgement. Rather obviously the consequences of the actions are vastly different.

Ruth wrote: "I think part of the problem is that the way Audible works is a slightly odd hybrid between a subscription service and a “normal” online retailer. The books all have individual prices, but I suspect..."

Probably but it's NOT a subscription service ala Spotify or Netflix. It's prepaying for the right to get N books per month. While I get what you're saying, at some point we need to stop excusing people because they can't or won't understand things.

PS: The equivalent of Spotify or Netflix? It's called... the library.

PPS: There are 2 issues here, also and we (myself most of all) have downplayed the second. One is the unlimited return policy. The other is the opacity of the reporting given to authors. An author simply can't tell if their audiobook is not selling or if it's selling nicely but getting a lot of returns. From a business standpoint there's a real difference between "We sold 1000 copies and had 900 returned" and "We sold 100 copies with no returns."

A high return rate signals dissatisfaction for some reason and you'd want to correct that if possible. A lower sales rate but with few or no returns would mean that you might want to spend some money promoting the audiobook to get more sales.

Rick wrote: "Tassie Dave wrote: "You may not agree with Audible's over-generous return policy and people using it, but Jan is legally entitled to use it. ..."

First off, these comments aren't specifically directed to Jan - I already noted that."

I acknowledge that it wasn't directed at any single person, but it is guilt by association.

I would have worded it differently. Consumers aren't stealing if they are abiding by the sellers terms and conditions.

For me, Audible is the one doing the stealing from authors, by having an overly generous policy that can be abused.

There should be a returns policy for recently purchased books that has had a low read %. I think 20 to 25% is reasonable.

I also think it should be limited (2 to 3 books a year) and as you said, should be transparent to the authors and publishers as to the true figures bought and returned.

A compromise might be to have a more generous sample size. Say 20% of the book. Which should be more than enough to decide if you like it. Then if you purchase the book "Caveat Emptor" and no returns.

Jenny (Reading Envy) wrote: "...The narrator would correct herself and I'd hear pieces twice...."

I notice this very frequently with audiobooks. I suspect that there is very little proof listening being done or they don't care enough to edit out these things. I've learned to live with it.

Another thing is when they splice in a replacement of a word or line & it sounds so different that it's jarring. I have learned to live with this as well.

I think that if Audible only allowed 1 return per month even with a high percent completed, it would curb abuse. Perhaps they could also pay a percentage of the royalty (or whatever you call the cut the author & others should get from a sale) according to the percent read/listened to before returning.

I don't like how Audible is treating authors here, but they did popularize the format. Before them it was books on tape or CD. So the market is bigger due to their efforts. They then turned around and abused their market position. Markets eventually clear, so perhaps there will be another entrant. Competition hasn't hurt Amazon though. Audible's market position is likely to persist for some time. Authors are hurt by this action, yes, but otherwise benefit from a larger market size than would otherwise exist.

Rick, I think your use of the word "stealing" in relation to audible returns is a bit hyperbolic. Is there potential for abuse of this? Yes. Is there a significant amount of abuse? *shrugs* I'd sure like Audible to be a bit more transparent about that.

Your tone has an edge of moral outrage that I don't think is really doing much to help the discussion. You seem to assume every Audible return is done with full knowledge of the problems we're discussing here and some intent to "game the system" or screw over the author to satisfy their own greed. I think it's more likely that most Audible users have no knowledge of this issue at all. We can't treat these people like shooters when they probably have no ill intent, almost negligible impact and no awareness of the impact of their actions (either as individuals or as part of a larger collective).

I am perfectly aware I am the villain here, saying I prefer the policy of a multi-billion dollar company because it's good for the customer.

But - let's be honest - anyone who buys from Audible in the first place is already getting so many points deducted in the afterlife due to supporting the exploitative Amazon business empire that using this legal return policy is pretty much negligible in comparison morality-wise.

Jan wrote: "I am perfectly aware I am the villain here, saying I prefer the policy of a multi-billion dollar company because it's good for the customer.

But - let's be honest - anyone who buys from Audible i..."

John (Taloni) wrote: "I don't like how Audible is treating authors here, but they did popularize the format. Before them it was books on tape or CD. So the market is bigger due to their efforts. They then turned around ..."


Herein lies the rub: rarely are people, corporations or institutions purely good or bad. For every person who is injured by someone or something, there is another person helped.

In America, gerrymandering is viewed as bad because political parties have abused the system. But by the same token, minority groups in the US would have almost no representation if gerrymandering didn’t exist.

Unions have a bad reputation because they, too, abused their power, driving up costs and placing impediments in the way of innovation, but without unions we wouldn’t have any of the protections and benefits that most of us today consider basic rights, such as workplace safety and the 40-hour workweek.

I think there is always room for improvement and we need to be tireless in seeking out ways to balance out benefits for the most people. The pendulum swings from one extreme to another before settling in to the median compromise, and we can influence that with our behavior and by speaking out on issues. This stuff with Audible is likely to be one such instance of that.

Jan wrote: "But - let's be honest - anyone who buys from Audible in the first place is already getting so many points deducted in the afterlife due to supporting the exploitative Amazon business empire that using this legal return policy is pretty much negligible in comparison morality-wise"

Totally agree with you here. I feel a pang of guilt every time I use amazon. I also love my Alexa and my Fire TV stick and the convenience of Kindle and Audible and the great service Amazon provides me as a customer. I wish I could bring myself to boycott the company, and I hate the pressure it puts on sellers (keep customers happy at all costs, even when they are in the wrong, because too many complaints from entitled idiots will get you booted off the platform without an investigation, and so many companies rely on Amazon for sales) but I love what I get from the company too much. In this respect, I’m pretty much as Rick suggest - someone getting what she wants because she can, even though she knows it’s wrong.
I suppose there isn’t really much difference between using Amazon, and taking advantage of their returns policy. But doing something wrong doesn’t mean we should do something else wrong because we’re already halfway there either.

I do agree with Rick. It seems wrong to return an audiobook for any reason other than the ones Jenny mentioned which are to do with quality and not preference.

I had a conversation about this policy with a friend quite a while back. There was a Dresden book that James Marsters was not available to record at the time, so someone else did the audio for that one. My friend and I bought it. It was fine, well-narrated, but an odd listening experience since none of the characters sounded like themselves. I still enjoyed the audiobook. Later, the book was recorded again with James and that version was available for sale. My friend returned the original audio book, even though he had listened to and enjoyed it long ago, and got the new recording instead. To me, that was and is an outrageous abuse of the system, and it made me angry that he suggested that I do the same. There was nothing at all wrong with the original version, preference aside, and I felt that buying an extra copy of the book with the narrator I liked was the best way to show gratitude for the trouble that had been taken to do another recording. Why else would they bother, after all?

In the example above, you can’t say the book wouldn’t have been purchased in the first place, since there had been no guarantee at the time that another version would have been released. We might have chosen to wait and see, but we didn’t. To me, it does feel like stealing, in that you have got something you wanted, that ought to cost money, and not paid for it. It feels like sneaking back in to a restaurant months after eating a meal there, and snatching the money you paid out of the till. If you didn’t complain until months after the meal was eaten, you don’t deserve a refund.

Well I almost stuck my foot in my moth, badly. But, I took a second to confirm what I though, and found out I was completely wrong (not the first time, won't be the last). I could have sworn that Audible was swapping out books from your library when they were rerecorded, but as I look at my library for both Ghost Story and The Martian I see the original narrators listed in my library, and if I look at the books in the general section it gives me the option to buy them, where books I own don't.

To be honest I look at this as a positive, as I thought the original narrations were lost for good. And while I agree with Ruth that John Glover's narration sounded a bit off after listing to Masters for the 12 previous books. It also sort of made sense for that particular story. And as discussed somewhere else on this forum recently the original recordings of The Martian were great, even if you like Will as a narrator.

Anyway, here's to double checking yourself before making an ass of yourself. Cheers!

Regarding the pros and cons of Amazon services. I feel like there is a net positive to be seen, even with some policies not benefiting authors and small buisnesses.

A) We have access to Millions of titles and products, and many of the products are made from indie authors and/or small businesses that may never have seen the light of day without the platform.

B) People all across the world have access to purchase these items. Without the platform, the reach of these small distributers would be hampered without selling significant shares of their business to a larger entity with that power.

C) I choose to look at the positive side of things, and see this situation as one of those growing pains of technological progression. How these issues are resolved in the future will dictate whether this positive outlook is silly or not. :)

Ruth (tilltab) ...There was a Dresden book that James Marsters was not available to record at the time, so someone else did the audio for that one...."

Was it Ghost Story Narrated by John Glover?
He played Lionel Luthor on Smallville!
I just borrowed that one from Libby & It took some getting used to a different voice, but I thought he did great! It's good to hear that James Marsters continued narrating Dresden audiobooks though.

Yes, Ian, and I agree he did great! :)