Another grossly overpriced ebook.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by SensualPoet

There is certainly lively debate here at MR on many aspects of ebooks and ereading.

But anecdotally -- asking friends and acquaintances who have acquired ereaders over the past year -- my impression is that customer satisfaction is, in fact very high. There must be a very small number of people who honestly tried an ereader, read at least a couple of books, and then decided it wasn't for them as a category. On the contrary, anyone I know (myself included) would not want to "go back" to paper exclusively.

The customer satisfaction is high for the price or the ereaders in general?

Anecdotally, from friends and acquaintances I would agree that customer satisfaction is high with the ereaders overall but not with the ebook pricing, availability or quality. The people that I find that rave about ereaders the most are getting books from the library, from public domain, free samples or are buying cheap romance or science fiction books.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Or publishers will serve that market *and*people will get content from the darknet. Like music. Exactly like music.

So what? People also steal paper books. Never heard that as an argument against selling books. As a publisher you will either make some money selling ebooks while some people will download pirated books - or you will make no money at all from ebooks because you don't sell them and people will get pirated stuff all the same.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Maybe. If publishers made no, say, German-language e-books available, I doubt that they would lose any noticeable amount of business simply due to the complexity of scanning and uploading books. It's much easier to just strip DRM from an already existing e-book.

You keep repeating yourself. The very fact that there are huge numbers of books available that were never published as ebooks flatly contradicts your assertion.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

1. It has been *asserted* that the growth of the ebook market does not compare favorably to the increase in sales. It has not been demonstrated at all. Show me the evidence that more than 3 times as many people own e-book readers now than did one year ago. Keep in mind that many people own multiple devices capable of reading e-books (I do), and that most people who buy an iPad don't use it to read books.

2. At some point, of course, e-book sales will level off, and the sales-per-reader number may decline. I haven't seen any evidence that this has happened yet, and I'm not even sure how meaningful this number is: there's certainly no reason to assume that people with e-book readers will all buy the same number of books.

Kindly do your own swot work. I fail to see any hard data that supports your assertions.

[OtterBooks]

The value, both perceived and real is smaller, and the same is true for the cost of production. A "just" price (i.e. one that is accepted by the buying population at large) will need to reflect that.

Can you really assess value by comparing cost of production between goods and services? Ebooks are not goods. When you buy an ebook, you're purchasing limited manufacturing and distribution rights, and the service of communicating the information required to utilize them. This is why referencing "resale value" regarding ebooks is pointless: You can't resell a "used" service.

In most cases you're also purchasing that continued service. If you think an ebook is just a paper book with lower materials cost, try this: Buy paper book. Take book home. Put book on bookshelf. Burn down house. Return to retailer and ask for another.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

You wish. You can, obviously, decide not to release a book at all, but once you do you might as well release a legal ebook as well. If you don't, do you really think there won't be an electronic version? There will be, but since you're not selling it there's no way to make money that way. Stupid move.

If I was a publisher who was wary of e-books, I'd much prefer to take my chances that my 300-page book wasn't going to be scanned page by page than I would to release an e-book and do all that work for the people trying to screw me and my author.

The vast majority of paper books only get into electronic format if the publisher decides to release an e-book or if Project Gutenberg copies it (which means it's out of copyright). If I was a publisher who hated the idea of the e-book, I'd be quite happy to take my chances that my particular book wouldn't get scanned. The odds would be heavily in my favor. Not only that, but the financial damage to me would be negligible, since said e-book would be deep underground, and the vast majority of readers would not even know where or how to get it.

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

They are cheaper to produce, and less valuable (no resale value, e.g.)

The cost of production is only one part of a book, and not the main part. It's certainly true that there's no resale value, and that should be taken into account, but there are many benefits to e-books that can be weighed against that. Whether a person does value those things more is certainly an open question, but that's a decision any person has to make when deciding what format to buy. Once you've bought an e-book, you've made that choice. You should no more expect to get money from the resale from an e-book than you would expect to get a jacket cover or a leather bookmark.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

Can you really assess value by comparing cost of production between goods and services? Ebooks are not goods.

That's open to debate. What about software? I don't see any fundamental differences to ebooks.

This is why referencing "resale value" regarding ebooks is pointless: You can't resell a "used" service.

I don't think it's a service. I can resell software, e.g., and I certainly can resell a physical book. If that's not the case for an ebook then, yes, that needs to be taken into consideration for the price of purchase.

If you think an ebook is just a paper book with lower materials cost, try this: Buy paper book. Take book home. Put book on bookshelf. Burn down house. Return to retailer and ask for another.

Keeping backups is easier with digital files, yes. What's your point?

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

If I was a publisher who was wary of e-books, I'd much prefer to take my chances that my 300-page book wasn't going to be scanned page by page than I would to release an e-book and do all that work for the people trying to screw me and my author.

Well, good luck. It's a gamble you have an increasingly large chance of losing. Not giving customers what they want is always a bad idea, of course.

... the financial damage to me would be negligible, since said e-book would be deep underground, and the vast majority of readers would not even know where or how to get it.

That doesn't make sense. Either you are afraid of illicit copies, or not. How can the source (publisher's ebook vs. scan) possibly matter?

The cost of production is only one part of a book, and not the main part.

No argument there. Many things are exactly the same (author's cut, wages, editing, advertising ...)

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Well, good luck. It's a gamble you have an increasingly large chance of losing. Not giving customers what they want is always a bad idea, of course.

Not giving customers what they want is a good way of losing sales, obviously. I won't dispute that. But the chance of a paper book being pirated isn't increasing in the foreseeable future, because the technology hasn't advanced that much. when it's affordable for an individual of modest means to have a scanner that can take a 300-page book and scan it in a few minutes, then it's time for publishers to worry about paper books being pirated. I haven't heard of any such scanner, and I don't see it on the horizon. Scanning a book two pages (at most) at a time is still a very laborious process, and most people are going to have better things to do with their time -- such as watching paint dry.

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

That doesn't make sense. Either you are afraid of illicit copies, or not. How can the source (publisher's ebook vs. scan) possibly matter?

Because the easier I make it to get my book in electronic form, the more people are going to be able to copy it. If it's only in paper form, the barrier to entry (in terms of labor) remains relatively high, and there will be fewer people willing to do that. Thus, there will be fewer seed copies out there. Fewer seed copies mean that my book is more protected.

Look at it this way: How many e-books can you strip DRM off of through programmatic means in the time it takes you to scan one paper book?

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by bhartman36

But the chance of a paper book being pirated isn't increasing in the foreseeable future, because the technology hasn't advanced that much. when it's affordable for an individual of modest means to have a scanner that can take a 300-page book and scan it in a few minutes, then it's time for publishers to worry about paper books being pirated. I haven't heard of any such scanner, and I don't see it on the horizon. Scanning a book two pages (at most) at a time is still a very laborious process, and most people are going to have better things to do with their time -- such as watching paint dry.

How do you believe the books that are being uploaded here are being turned into ebooks? How many ebook versions of The Lord of the Rings are out there in the net - and that's a book that isn't being scanned in an afternoon? If a book doesn't get scanned it's because it sells badly and doesn't generate any interest, not because the people don't want to spend the time to scan and to proofread.

[bhartman36]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

How do you believe the books that are being uploaded here are being turned into ebooks? How many ebook versions of The Lord of the Rings are out there in the net - and that's a book that isn't being scanned in an afternoon? If a book doesn't get scanned it's because it sells badly and doesn't generate any interest, not because the people don't want to spend the time to scan and to proofread.

That's kind of making my point. I fully expect many popular books will get scanned. Clearly, it's in someone's interest to scan them. My point is that for the vast majority of books, that kind of interest won't exist, and it's not an outrageous assumption that the particular book that I'm releasing, as a publisher, will be one of those non-scanned books. How many Lord of the Rings-caliber books do you think get released every year? Most books (especially in the current reading climate) simply don't generate that kind of attention. So in the vast majority of cases, if it's harder to copy, people won't bother, whereas if I didn't think much of the book, but hey, I've already got the file available, I'm much more likely to take the 5 seconds or so to strip the DRM and upload it via P2P, because hey, why not, right?

If you want to put the issue in perspective, look at it this way: How long has the written word been around? Even if you only go as far back as the printing press, that's around 500 years. Now, go look at Project Gutenberg. These are people dedicated to making ebooks out of paper books, and they've just scratched the surface of what's been available up to the copyright expiration limit.

There's absolutely no contest. The far better way to ensure that a book doesn't get pirated is to make sure it remains in print only, and doesn't go electronic. As long as you don't release it electronically, the odds are very much against it ever getting digitized.

[OtterBooks]

That's open to debate. What about software? I don't see any fundamental differences to ebooks.

I don't think it's a service. I can resell software, e.g., and I certainly can resell a physical book. If that's not the case for an ebook then, yes, that needs to be taken into consideration for the price of purchase.

You can't purchase software via download, burn it on to a disc and sell it. Nor can you sell it to someone via email. You can resell a physical book, but you can not copy the text in that book, then run it off on a printing press and sell it. When you purchase an ebook, you do not get a physical item. You get a service, and that service is the communication of instructions to your own little version of an electronic printing press that writes the information on physical media that you own. That purchase includes limited rights that facilitate personal use.

If you feel that service is less valuable than a physical book, fine. Heck, I'm even inclined to agree in some cases. If I have a less expensive option in the form of a physical book I want (and I DO), I buy that. But the value of a service is largely measured by your desire for it, even more so than the demand value of material items. In fact unlike a paper book, your ebook literally does not even exist until you pay for the transaction (like any service), and when it does, its physical form is manufactured by you.

If you email that ebook to someone, you did not give them your ebook. You provided the same distribution service you contracted from a retailer, allowing that person to manufacture their own. The limited rights are similar to the limited rights you have with a paper book; the difference, and the concern of publishers, is that the means of re-manufacture are more easily available to you.

Keeping backups is easier with digital files, yes. What's your point?

The retailer will also not give you a "backup" of your lost book, charging only the cost difference between storing a physical book and electronic data, so the ease of backup is irrelevant. The point is the two purchases are dissimilar beyond material measurement.

[Fayth]

The only thing that bothers me is formatting. When I payed 15 dollars for Way of Kings, only to find that all the pictures were low resolution and I could not make out the writing on them, I was very disappointed. I would not have had a problem with the price if it were the same content that is available on the hardcover at the time.

Also, I've been reading some other books that I bought for 7 dollars each, which is cheaper than the paperback version locally. However, I'm not very pleased to find a lot of spelling errors and spacing issues.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't mind if the prices are on par with physical books, I just wish the quality was as well.

[Anthem]

rogue_librarian, you actually changed what I wrote in your quote and I'm very uncomfortable with this devaluation of what was actually written. Yours reads:

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian quoting Anthem

... and I am unable to see how a digital means of distribution will change that.

You truncated the sentence introducing an artificial stop and removed my immensely important qualifier on the rest of the sentence. The qualification is so important that reading the sentence without it is painful because it does not say what I wish to say.

I'm new here, and I get that, but I'm going to kindly request that you do not do this in the future.



We can still be friends.

(The quote should read:

Originally Posted by Anthem

...and I am unable to see how a digital means of distribution will change that despite being able to in theory...

Feel free to lead in and out with "..." as that will satisfy me just as well as a full quote most of the time. Oh, sweet fickleness!)

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

The value, both perceived and real is smaller, and the same is true for the cost of production.

As far as your opinions are concerned I am obviously obligated to differ with you when you claim that the "perceived" value has been decreased ("smaller"). I disagree with this because I believe it to be the opposite: the electronic text is greatly to be preferred and has many advantages over the printed text that are distinctly worth paying for.

So, we are destined to disagree at the very core of our arguments: at the point of value!

[OtterBooks]

I totally forgot what this thread was about.

oh yeah. if you want to read a book and there are different options, and one of them is priced higher than the others, and you don't think it's worth it to you, buy one of the cheaper ones.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

You can't purchase software via download, burn it on to a disc and sell it.

Provided I don't keep a copy for myself, actually, I can. I am legally entitled to resell my software. That may or may not be the case in your jurisdiction.

Nor can you sell it to someone via email.

Why ever not?

You can resell a physical book, but you can not copy the text in that book, then run it off on a printing press and sell it.

Well, no, but that's because that'd be in violation of copyright and a copy of the book only exists in paper form. Where this is not the case, however, such as with (download-only) software, there's no corresponding obligation.

You get a service, and that service is the communication of instructions to your own little version of an electronic printing press that writes the information on physical media that you own.

That is a very narrow view that heavily favors publishers' rights. I have not seen a legal scholar take up that position so far (they all seem to think it's software), and of course it's not been tested in court yet. And I agree with that assessment, it's obviously "software" for all intents and purposes: a set of instructions that displays certain results on your device based on user input.

If you feel that service is less valuable than a physical book, fine.

I think it's software, not a service, but yes, less valuable (and less expensive to produce) than a physical book. Consequently I am not prepared to pay the same price for it.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Anthem

rogue_librarian, you actually changed what I wrote in your quote

I don't think I did. You made a flat-out statement and then went on about not seeing how that was going to change despite etc etc. If you write "black is white and I don't see how anybody could think otherwise" you'll have to accept people responding to (and quoting) the first half of that sentence alone.

The qualification is so important that reading the sentence without it is painful because it does not say what I wish to say.

That's good, but that's how I understood it. Consider my reply merely asking for clarification, if you will.

I disagree with this because I believe it to be the opposite ...

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, then, yes.