Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
One of the key issues is that technologically unsophisticated consumers have shared books, music, games, and movies with each other for as long as we've had them. All of a sudden, they're told to change the way they deal with entertainment and education--that it's one-person-only, and it's *immoral* to want it to be otherwise.
What "losses?" My husband and I have never bought multiple copies of a book so we each can read it. My kids don't yet have the income to buy substantial numbers of books of their own. I have friends living on fixed income disability checks; they don't buy new books ever--but they recommend the books they like to their friends who do. But if they can't read used copies, those authors don't get promoted.
It's never before been a "loss" for a book to have more readers than buyers.
|
Er, you and I kniow that we aren't talking about husbands and wives sharing books or a someone lending a book to a co worker.
We would be talking about sharing ebooks with college buddies, Facebook friends, Twitter followers, listservs-in short , sharing ebooks the way we now share blog posts, jokes, emails, etc. and the way young people share music. You 've admitted more than once in earlier threads that this really would cost publishers a lot. Don't backtrack now.