[SpiderMatt]

NOTE: Sorry if this isn't where this post belongs, but it didn't really belong in any of the other categories.

After seeing the movie Juno twice (it's quite a good movie and I recommend you see it if you enjoy quirky humor and unique stories) I decided to get a closer look at Diablo Cody's story-telling ability by picking up her book Candy Girl: A Year in the Life of an Unlikely Stripper. Right now I'm deployed to the Middle East with the navy and the only access I have to the internet is on a government computer. The base network blocks tons of sites and doesn't allow me to install any software. So it's difficult for me to purchase any ebook that I can ultimately reformat for my Sony Reader. As a result, I decided to check out Amazon and found a hardcover copy listed as “new” on Amazon Marketplace for only $5.89. After the $3.99 I paid for shipping, my total cost came to $9.88. Interested in what the Kindle copy was going for, I clicked on the Kindle link and found it listed for the “bestseller” price of $9.99. So I got the physical, hardcover copy for 11 cents cheaper than Amazon's digital copy. I also paid $1.32 less than the Connect store price and $2.02 cheaper than the Fictionwise price. This begs the question: what is the role of ebooks?

I see ebooks as having three major advantages to physical copies: price (they're cheaper to produce, thus they should be cheaper to purchase), expediency (get the book in “under a minute” as Amazon likes to advertise for the Kindle), and convenience (carry tons of books on a single device, a device that may even be lighter than the p-book—think Harry Potter). Now, were I not deployed right now, I would probably have procured myself a free digital copy of the book seeing as how I've already purchased it and it's not illegal for me to have a backup of something I own on my computer. So which of these three ebook advantages are actually relevant? I'd argue that price is not only the most important, but possibly the only relevant advantage to digital books.

If I can legally have a digital copy of the book I own, why would I only want the digital copy unless I could get it at the fraction of the price I pay for the physical book? I like having physical books because I like having a nice, physical collection that I will one day turn into a personal library. I don't always like carrying the books around with me, though. I like having tons of books a single device that is easy to bring with me anywhere, versus a large hardcover book (which is good to have with me here since I can't bring personal electronics into classified spaces—but that is the only reason to have a p-book on hand and only applies to me for as long as I'm in the military). So I get the expediency and convenience from a free digital backup* (unless you find it amoral to get the digital copy before your physical copy has arrived in the mail, in which case you still have the convenience).

Secondhand books will always be around and will usually be cheap. I'm willing to spend a buck to two more for a physical copy, as well. I'm not shunning the ebook market, though. I desperately desire a more competitive ebook market, but so far the only advantage they seem to have for someone like me is that brand new books will probably be cheaper until the secondhanders procure enough copies themselves. I realize I've raised some moral questions here because some people may not think they should download digital copies on the “darknet” to accompany their physical editions. Regardless, I have come to see ebooks as a counterpart to p-books. Some of you might not see any reason to have p-books at all, but personally, I love ‘em. Do any of you think publishers should treat ebooks not only as their own market, but as accompanying products to physical books? I can't even count all the times I have used digital editions of p-books I own for school work, other research, quote-finding, etc. I have found them to be quite useful and they would be a great resource, especially for students. I wish publishing companies weren't so paranoid and would supply digital copies with my p-books. It would be so easy with today's technology to tack in a tiny chip at the end of the book. Or maybe scan the barcode into the computer (which could be too easy to steal) or have a code on receipts. Even if it was only available for books ordered over the Internet, it would still be better than offering no digital copies at all with any p-book.

I guess I should sum up my view of the role of ebooks. I think ebooks should mostly be digital accompaniments to physical books. The ebook market should consist of cheap digital copies of books for anyone who is interested in making a quick read of a book but isn't too interested in keeping it for years to come (much like the dime novel industry of old). So what do you think? Chime in.

As a side note, how many of you would be interested in a subscription service for books similar to Napster or Real Rhapsody? You could read all the books you want so long as you keep up your subscription. It would be like a library that you paid to use. Why should this only work for movies (see Netflix and Blockbuster, which are the same idea except with physical copies) and music?


*I find little difference between scanning the book yourself and using other means (why waste my time if someone else has done the work).