Quote:
i think here is where i must agree to disagree with you , since this attitude on the part of the publishers seems to be fundamentally incoherent (and unacceptable, to me). either i pay a reasonable price for a book (which still should be significatly less than a paper book, but that's a different topic altogether), which i then own ; *or* i pay a fraction of the price of a paper book to rent the ebook, for a limited, arbitrarily decided by the publisher, time (and when i say a fraction, i mean maybe 10%, not 90%). even at a drastically reduced price, this second possibility is not really satisfactory to me, since as i have mentioned, if i don't want to keep a book i will get it from my library (for free). also, someone (Harry ?) recently mentioned somewhere that the president of one of the largest ebook stores considers that he sells *books*, not licences.
the argument of whether ebooks are the same as paper books seems to be highly versatile, as depending on the context people seem to maintain alternately that they *are* and also that they are *not*, with equal vigor.
|
First, please don't "agree to disagree" with me. Just disagree. As long as disagreement is expressed civilly, there's no need for prefatory apologies, I think.
That ebooks are a different thing from paper books is in the first place simply a fact to be recognized, I'd say, not an argument. Of course, the arguments based on that fact are versatile--and almost always incoherent, and unacceptable to someone. I myself see nothing coherent in saying, as many seem to me to do, "Ebooks are so much more valuable to me than paper books that authors and publishers have no right not to make their books available to me as ebooks--at a much lower price than paper books, of course, because--well, why should I pay much for something that is actually worth so little (and I could so easily get it for free!), although I want it so much that you have no right not to provide it, and why should I care about your wicked desire to make a living from your work?"
Perhaps I should apologize for saying this: "This is unacceptable" or "not really satisfactory to me" is not a coherent argument or an argument at all. "I want it so" was never a sufficient reason for anything in this vile (wild?) world. Digital technology, wondrous as it may be, hasn't changed that.