[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by akiburis

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.

all right then, i disagree with you . i actually used that expression because someone had just used it a few posts before mine, and it amused me to repeat it (but i admit i'm easily amused).

concerning ebooks vs. paperbooks, Trenian really did put it succinctly and clearly only 4 posts up,

Originally Posted by Trenien

You know, that's wanting to have things both ways: as far as pricing and attitude goes ("download is thief"), they want ebook to be pretty much the same as pbooks, but as for the consumer rights: they have the right to shut up and fork over the money again and again.

but if you want to pursue it, perhaps we should be more nuanced in our statements. i accept as true that :
- the content of an ebook can be the same as a paper book.
- the artistic value of an ebook can be the same as a paper book.
- the material form of an ebook is not the same as a paper book.

when i buy a book, it is the *content* i am interested in, obviously, since if i want to buy a book by Dorothy Sayers, i won't be interested in a paper and ink object which is superficially identical, and the same price, but contains, say, the listings of the telephone directory of the city of Rouen. if we are talking about a paper book, since the content (the text) and the container (the actual paper and ink, in the form of a book) are indissociable, many questions do not arise (such as, whether i own the book or am merely renting it, whether i can lend it to a friend, read it in any chair i like and using any lightbulb, for how long, how many times, can i sell it to a used bookshop if i don't want to keep it...).

an ebook is fundamentally different from a paper book in that the content is dissociated from the container, and it can be delivered via a computer, a dedicated device, a telephone, etc. HOWEVER with few exceptions (and there i mean things like art books) the container is secondary or even irrelevant, yet paradoxically a significant source of costs to the publisher which are then passed along to the consumer.

i see no reason not to pay for the content. i want to support the authors i read, and thank them for their hard work, and encourage them to continue. i do NOT want to continue to pay for the costs inherent in the production model of paper books but irrelevant to the production of ebooks, such as the paper and ink itself, the cost of transport, the cost of stocking the books in a warehouse, and all the associated costs of selling them in a physical shop.

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?"

i have never put forth that argument, or anything like it. i advocate *fair* pricing of ebooks, taking into account some of the factors i've mentioned above, (and discussed at length previously...), based on actual costs, and the publisher passing along the savings of this new production model to the consumer.

this has nothing to do with the inherent value of the *content* which i am not questioning, and please do not ascribe this sort of faulty reasoning to me. it's true that i consider pricing an ebook like a paper book abusive, but this is based on material costs, not any perceived value of the content. it costs less for the publisher to produce, it should cost less for me to buy.

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.

"this is unacceptable" or "not really satisfactory to me" is a perfectly coherent way of expressing my opinion. as for my arguments, perhaps i was too concise previously but since this is a recurring discussion sometimes i forget what i have already said in which thread. to be honest i find this whole subject really tiresome and wish i hadn't gotten involved, so perhaps i also am not very motivated to be completely exhaustive.