Quote:
Originally Posted by akiburis
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.
|
Why? The value of a book is in no way related to its fabrication process - a bunch of paper is not worth 20$, a book on the other side is. Wether it is an arrangement of bits and bytes or an arrangement of paper doesn't change the valuable part - the content.
So - the method of delivery varies, not the book in itself. Just like there is no big difference between a fax and an email - though the method of delivery is very different and the quality of the email higher.
I guess this is a difference in our world-view. I dont see a difference in reading a p-book and an e-book on an e-reader - e-reader are a bit more comfortable (weight, etc) with some discomfort (e.g. battery) attached. In fact - this is why I like e-reader.
Quote:
|
"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
|
They have every right. And I have every right NOT going to buy their books.
But they really should think about the following: The market will change. E.g. Books are available via the darknet - wether they are sold as ebooks or not. More and more publishers will sell books as e-books - and more and more people will start switching to e-books. You have seen this with music and video, and you will see the same with e-books.
So the only question that occurs is: Does a publisher (and an author) want a share of that market or not. If they dont its fine by me - but they better should not be moarning afterwards.
Quote:
|
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?"
|
When have e.g. I ever doubted the right of an author to live of its work? Or he right of an publisher to earn its share?
Perhaps the point could be illustrated like follows:
a) I can buy a p-book - it will keep over the years, I can lend it, read it as often (and in every environment I like), I can even sell it. I dont need to restrict myself to a given device or seller.
b) I can buy an e-book - it is much cheaper to produce, thus has a greatly increased profit margin. I cannot lend it to other people, I will only be able to read it under given circumstances, etc - but it costs the same.
Now ... Why should I buy that e-book? See what I mean?
All I am asking is a fair deal - like a p-book is a fair deal. Give me the same amount of accessability (whatever dealer I want, whatever device I want) and give me a fair price (much less to produce but the same price? Still I would pay that price - if no DRM or similar is enforced - though it would really be unfair). They can earn more with an e-book than with a p-book, it's okay. I get more comfort, they get more money - everyone is lucky.
Enforce DRM (or similar crap), or charge a price too high - and one side looses, the whole market gets killed.
Steal the books - and one side looses, the whole market gets killed.
Its a symbioses - and publishers and authors should start seeing it like that.
Quote:
|
"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.
|
Yeah. Same for publishers and authors.
"I dont want the darknet to exist", "I dont want e-books to evolve", etc wont change drek. Really, it wont.
Not wanting to see changes in the market wont stop them. "I cant see you, you cant see me" is a popular game for childs - grown-ups should know that it doesnot work.
@booksForABuck: I agree. Not in all details, but in general.
Noone asks you to "give away your books for free". Both sides want a fair deal. No DRM, fair prices, etc - and everyone is lucky.