Quote:
Originally Posted by tubemonkey
Offset by by the ability to loan or sell your books, being able to read your books without having to buy an ereader, being able to read your books when the battery is drained on your ereader, etc.
|
I'm glad you mentioned that, because I wanted to argue with the person who brought it up the AvH thread, but I don't feel like posting there any more.
So:
Bull! The choice to by an reader has nothing to do with authors or publishers, and they do not have to adjust their price accordingly.
1. An reader is not required. At all. You can read on a PC or on a phone or on a tablet. All of which you purchase rightfully for your own reasons with it's own value proposition, and with no influence on the price of content.
2. Even if a reader was REQUIRED, unless there was some direct deal between the reader sale and the content sale, it's not reasonable to count the reader in the cost. For example, you might have case for associating the price of Amazon Instant video with the price of Fire, but you have no case for associating the price of a Kindle with the price of a book from Baen.
Similarly, movie studios need not care what you paid for your DVD player.
3. We don't even a tax or license fee on readers like the UK does on TVs for paying for content production.
On the contrary, the benefits you say you "paid for" in the cost of the reader are worthless if the publishers do not publish content, so unless you also want to spend time and effort OCRing and formatting your paper books, which would add a heck of a lot more in cost unless your time and equipment was worthless, there is still every reason in the world to pay for that value in ebooks.