[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Win95 was atrocious. So were several of its followups. Plenty of people still want to buy WinXP, even though it's no longer supported.

Really? Have these people not heard of Vista and Windows 7? I cringe every day when I have to use XP at work.

No reliable system prevents the seller of a pbook from having a copy of that, either; it's just been the case that so far, those copies were lower-quality enough to be assumed to be a disincentive for copying and reselling for most people.

Not to mention that it's time consuming and costly to copy a paper book. It's simply not practical. What's worth more the $15 it costs to buy a book or several hours of my time and $5 in paper to copy it?

Insisting on different rules for digital purchases than physical ones will take, among other things, publishers & stores being willing to spell out the terms of the license, as opposed to sale. Sales are simple: you buy it, you own it; what you can do with it is defined by plenty of laws. Licenses are different for each license; there are no assumptions--and no limitations except as spelled out in the license itself.

Absolutely. I don't think we have a 'right' to buy and own a work of art. If the best way for the author and publisher to 'sell' their work is via a licence only, then I'm happy with that. Obviously consumers will vote with the wallet like they do with everything else.

As much as I'd like to advocate for a system like the B&N or Kindle's loaning feature that allows for complete transfer of ownership, I'm convinced that anything based on current DRM models is doomed to failure; there's just too much incentive to crack them just to retain access if you don't have an interest in transferring ownership.

I don't like DRM in principle. Personally the only DRM I actually use is Kindle DRM and that frankly doesn't inconvenience me in the slightest. I suppose if I one day buy a non-Kindle ereader I'll either lose my books or be forced to convert them, but I generally buy to read once.

The difference to a potential copyright infringer of DRM and non-DRM is negligible anyway.

Perhaps resale is not socially/economically feasible, but giving them away should be possible, because without the ability to share ebooks with friends, they're *never* going to become the dominant form of literature. Nobody got to love books by buying them full-price, or even only by reading them at libraries. Kids aren't going to become devoted ebook readers by limiting themselves to what their parents agree to put on their credit cards.

Good point. This is not just about the economics of ebooks but also the social aspect. I probably didn't pay for a book out of my own pocket until I was a late teenager. Until then books were gifts, borrowed from a library, or shared from friends and family. I probably would not be paying for books now if I wasn't exposed to those 'free' books in my youth.

This is a problem that *must* be solved. The current "solution" is "secondhand ebooks" (and music, and movies) "are on quasi-legal to illegal download sites," which, as much as it disturbs publishers, is likely a very stable arrangement.

It's a tough one to solve. Without the economics of supply and demand that comes with physical objects there is no solution that I can see yet. The only logical conclusion I can come to is that digital media will have no monetary value in the future. Artists and creators will have to find a way to fund their work and to profit from it that doesn't necessarily require a price to be placed directly on a copy of their digital work.

This is essentially how TV works - ads keep the content free. Same with radio.

I know that whenever ads are mentioned some people have a knee-jerk reaction and start rambling about the purity of books, but I really think ads will have to play a part in enabling authors to earn a living from their work in the digital age.

Unless authors and publishers can come up with a better idea that works.