How long before we see a LIMIT on the number of reads we are "allowed"

[HarryT]

Not at all. I just don't see the point in panicking about an imaginary situation that (IMHO) is vanishingly unlikely to occur. If you have some evidence to support this supposition, then it would be a different situation .

[wyndslash]

Originally Posted by HarryT

.

it's the first time i've seen you smile

[carld]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is all pure paranoia, IMHO. Nobody is suggesting, and nor is there the slightest evidence to suggest that anyone is even THINKING of suggesting, that such a restriction be imposed.

I have to disagree. I'm pretty sure the big publishers are indeed thinking about this. They know it's not something they can implement right now, but I have no doubt at all that some restriction of this sort has come up in strategy sessions, no doubt at all.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by carld

I have to disagree. I'm pretty sure the big publishers are indeed thinking about this. They know it's not something they can implement right now, but I have no doubt at all that some restriction of this sort has come up in strategy sessions, no doubt at all.

Your evidence for this is.... ? Sorry, but without evidence, this is nothing but unfounded speculation.

[snipenekkid]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Your evidence for this is.... ? Sorry, but without evidence, this is nothing but unfounded speculation.

what "evidence" existed prior to the HC move?

Re-read my OP for the motivation on the speculation in this general discussion topic. I was unaware there needed to be evidence to entertain a topic for discussion, especially those of a speculative nature. Apparently there indeed are thought-police.

[carld]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Your evidence for this is.... ? Sorry, but without evidence, this is nothing but unfounded speculation.

Of course I don't have any evidence, which is why I said "I'm pretty sure" and "I have no doubt." I wasn't offering anything other than my opinion. I thought that was pretty obvious.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Haven't we got enough things to talk about with "the real world", rather than panicking about imaginary "wrongs"?

In a word, NO!

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What proportion of your books do you read more than once? With me, the figure is very low. I have a few old favourites, that I read over and over, but the overwhelming majority of books I'll never read again.

Oh, me too... but *I* pick the ones I re-read. Part of what I'm paying for is the option to decide that this book is a favorite, that I want to study every paragraph deeply and get my kids to read it, that I want to write fanfic to show a given conversation from the other character's point of view, that I want to analyze its assumptions and describe in detail how they support or fail to support some particular ideology.

If I want to memorize all the poetry in a given book, or act out one of its passages for my kids & their friends every other weekend, or compare its character development with other books in the same series, I'm buying the right to do those as well as just reading the book.

I don't care to do that with every book. Most books are 2-3 hours of entertainment (if I'm lucky... I read fast), and that's all; I never read or care to read them again. But which ones are more than that, is my choice as a reader. I won't put up with publishers or authors deciding which books are going to be important enough to me that I want a re-readable copy available forever.

Books with a reading limit go off my potential buying list. I don't currently download anything with DRM, much less pay for it; new ways to limit readers' ability to enjoy books are of no interest to me. I will not pay to be told how I must relate to a given work of art.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

Re-read my OP for the motivation on the speculation in this general discussion topic. I was unaware there needed to be evidence to entertain a topic for discussion, especially those of a speculative nature. Apparently there indeed are thought-police.

Not at all. You are perfectly entitled to state that you consider this a possibility, just as I am equally free to express my view that it's paranoia. Time will be the judge of which one of us was right .

[OtterBooks]

My guess is never. You have the issue of developing a new DRM system that could manage that limit, which would be a nightmare especially in deciding how to measure a full reading. People who only read a book once would likely still be scared off by it.

[FF2]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What proportion of your books do you read more than once? With me, the figure is very low. I have a few old favourites, that I read over and over, but the overwhelming majority of books I'll never read again.

That was just going to be my response. I rarely re-read books but do keep favorites on the shelf just in case. And those are also books I'm willing to loan to others. That loaning process has been all but eliminated with ebooks. When I do re-read, I've had this quirky tendency to re-read almost immediately as I cannot let go of the feeling that that book just instilled in me.

I have a feeling the comment above your regarding the "darknet" will become more compelling if there's really a move to limit ownership to ONE read or ONE year or one whatever.

[FF2]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is all pure paranoia, IMHO. Nobody is suggesting, and nor is there the slightest evidence to suggest that anyone is even THINKING of suggesting, that such a restriction be imposed.

The Overdrive library limits are a completely different situation, and cannot sensibly be used to infer that any additional restrictions are on their way for commercially-sold eBooks.

Haven't we got enough things to talk about with "the real world", rather than panicking about imaginary "wrongs"?

Well, how often were soldiers quartered in private homes? How often do many of us use our freedom of assembly?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

It's all part of the current business models of ever accelerating revenue growth rates. Making a steady profit is no longer good enough after all. Profit growth rate must be forever accelerating with steady growth being considered a failure today.

That never made any sense to me either. You see spokespersons for big corporations wailing about only increasing profits by 10% or whatever as if they're going bankrupt or something.

Continuously increasing profits isn't sustainable in any business. There might be new consumers being born every day, but there is also old consumers dying at more or less the same rate. So the only way to increase profit is by poaching profit from other similar businesses.

That's how you end up with Walmart / Tesco type situations where they move in and wipe out all the indiginous smaller businesses, but even when Walmart / Tesco are the ony place in town they still can't increase their profits every year indefinitely.

As for your ebook idea, I think a rental system would be more likely. It would achieve the same aims, but be a lot more palatable to consumers. It would only really work with one of the big retailers with their own dedicated readers, and I would guess that it would be something the publishers had forced on them rather than something they could actively chase themselves.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What proportion of your books do you read more than once?

Over time? Many. I am currently rereading some books I read more than twenty years ago.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

Good points about darknet. I would imagine the publishers will use that as just a way to justify further price increases. Basically they will spin it all in any way possible to restrict and increase prices further.

The bigger entertainment industries just make big donations to political parties and lobby for new laws that they think will protect themselves from these nasty pirates. You always know a new one is on the way when the news media starts filling up with stories about how the economy is losing $10billion per day through piracy. And then, when the new law fails to add an extra $10billion per day to the economy they need to make a new one.