Used bookstores, harbors of piracy?

[nogle]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

So you agree that I and everyone else should be able to read whatever they wish to?

No.

You should read only those books that I specify that you read. I will appoint a series of deputies who will also be allowed to direct your reading.

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

No, I'm not. I'm saying that the price should be what the reader is willing to pay, rather than what some committee thinks a book is "worth". I might think a book is crap, but just because I wouldn't pay for the book doesn't mean that the book should be cheap. The price of the book should reflect them demand. Having some third party dictating price takes away the readers power to assign their own value to a book.

I assume that you are speaking about an average reader. I suspect that publishers would start with a high price for the first adopters, and then discount appropriately in such a fashion as to maximize profits.

Sadly in many instances there is no free market in the capitalist sense. Student's are required to purchase specific textbooks, which 'conveniently' have new editions every year or two.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

No, I'm not. I'm saying that the price should be what the reader is willing to pay, rather than what some committee thinks a book is "worth". I might think a book is crap, but just because I wouldn't pay for the book doesn't mean that the book should be cheap. The price of the book should reflect them demand. Having some third party dictating price takes away the readers power to assign their own value to a book.

What? Somebody have to set the price. And it will not be the reader that actually decide what is thought to be the price that maximizes profit (a books "worth").

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tompe

What? Somebody have to set the price. And it will not be the reader that actually decide what is thought to be the price that maximizes profit (a books "worth").

The person who sets the price guesses what will maximize profits. The reader looks at the book and decides if it is worth the money. If it is worth it to them, they buy the book. It really isn't that complicated. The price that will maximize profits is based on what the reader is willing to pay. Whether the price actually gets set at that value is another matter.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by petrucci

I assume that you are speaking about an average reader. I suspect that publishers would start with a high price for the first adopters, and then discount appropriately in such a fashion as to maximize profits.

Sadly in many instances there is no free market in the capitalist sense. Student's are required to purchase specific textbooks, which 'conveniently' have new editions every year or two.

I was responding to your idea:

Although it may be possible to construct a more 'just' system, it may not be practical to implement one. A person with exceptional memory could memorize a book and then sell it. It would seem fair that such a person should pay more for the book, as they would be able to retain possession of its content after selling it, and also benefit monetarily from selling the book. Along similar lines, it would seem fair that an exceptional person who is able to apply the information from a book to get rich should be charged more for that book than someone who is not able to make such an application. Implementing such pricing models is not practical.

[Giggleton]

It is quite obvious that the only logical solution to the problem of universal access is for the author to set a suggested donation level when the book is uploaded...

It is also quite obvious that our society generally does not act in a logical fashion, or even a rational one.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

It is also quite obvious that our society generally does not act in a logical fashion, or even a rational one.

How big is this society? Does it include just US citizens? Undocumented people? Canadians? European nobility, or just commoners like my daughter the Brit? The hungry? Bill Gates? Prisoners? People in India? People in Tibet?

I lately get most of what I read via free download from amazon.com, having been sent there by an Overdrive public library link. Do I have to start payiing? Hopefully I am in the society of less affluent people who can continue to pay for books through taxes AKA freeload

P.S. Why should the author set the price? A large proportion of the books I read have acknowledgements indicating the book was a group project, with crucial contributions from editors, agents and many others. It may not take a village to raise a child, but it does take what amounts to a village to produce a well-documented book on an ongoing war, or even a truly realistic police procedural. Then there's that perhaps most underpaid group of all, translators.

P.P.S. To state my post more positively, an economy based on money may be fairer than one based on donations. Donations would work best, if they work at all, where the book is the product of a single mind.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

P.P.S. To state my post more positively, an economy based on money may be fairer than one based on donations. Donations would work best, if they work at all, where the book is the product of a single mind.

What is fair?? Buying an ereader for 75 dollars that is manufactured by someone who was paid 1 dollar for its manufacture? No, I don't think that is fair. The executives and all those along the chain must be compensated of course... Should all wages be levelled? Is not the internet the great leveller?

YES

Perhaps some do not realize yet.

I have been reading whatever I wish to for over a year now, and have compensated a very low percentage of creators. But how can I stop reading??

Do you believe in Karma?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I have been reading whatever I wish to for over a year now, and have compensated a very low percentage of creators. But how can I stop reading??

Do you believe in Karma?

You could try working, so that you have some money on hand to compensate the creators, lol. A radical idea for you, I understand.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You could try working, so that you have some money on hand to compensate the creators, lol. A radical idea for you, I understand.

The radical idea here is "compensate the creator". Seems to me a bit like that you have to pay for all work event if it is useless because all creators must be compensated. You get payed not by the value of what you produce but for the effort you spend.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by tompe

The radical idea here is "compensate the creator". Seems to me a bit like that you have to pay for all work event if it is useless because all creators must be compensated. You get payed not by the value of what you produce but for the effort you spend.

Now that definitely wasn't what I meant to say. But if you WANT to read useless stuff and the creator wants to be compensated for it, then you should pay. May I suggest just not reading it?

That creators should be compensated out of public fund, now that was another one of Giggleton's suggestions here.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

The radical idea here is "compensate the creator". Seems to me a bit like that you have to pay for all work event if it is useless because all creators must be compensated. You get payed not by the value of what you produce but for the effort you spend.

No, not pay for what's created, but pay for what's consumed - that's a fundamental difference. There are 10,000 trashy novels out there whose authors aren't going to get a penny from me because I won't read them, but the books that I do read, I pay for. (Unless they're in the public domain, etc etc,)

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

When was the last time you saw a Swiss movie? Or read a Swiss book?

It seems successful artists don't seem to have too much of a problem with Swiss legislation -- though that might have to do with the tax regime

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by Rylon

"But!" I hear someone say, "What about copyright?" Good question. There is a reason all books contain a copyright notice, so that readers are notified that their purchase of the book is subject to the restriction on copying the book. It's a contract. The reader agrees to buy the book on the condition that he or she won't make duplicates. It works like any other restriction on transferring property. The reader is, of course, welcome to negotiate with the copyright holder a different arrangement, but that's the way most books are sold.

With regards to the contract issue -- as far as I have understood, my (still) somewhat liberal Swiss legislation does not acknowledge these type of contracts if both parties do not agree to them upfront (whether that's in writing or orally does not matter). I have bought probably over a thousand books in my life-time, and never has a bookstore owner, or any one else, mentioned the contract to me.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Soldim

With regards to the contract issue -- as far as I have understood, my (still) somewhat liberal Swiss legislation does not acknowledge these type of contracts if both parties do not agree to them upfront (whether that's in writing or orally does not matter). I have bought probably over a thousand books in my life-time, and never has a bookstore owner, or any one else, mentioned the contract to me.

Yes, all contracts are meaningless unless all parties agree to all terms. It seems to me that if everyone just read whatever they felt like reading and paid who they can what they could, everything would be fine.

Why are people against this idea?? Which is just a manifestation of freedom?