Textbook Torrents says final goodbye

[nekokami]

Although many of these arguments (e.g. scarcity) are repeated over and over here at Mobileread, there are a few interesting aspects specific to textbooks that have turned up here.

Originally Posted by Dumas

On a side note, is it really your position that the size of the customer base determines the price of textbooks? I would be interested to hear from other forum members where they have found that the price of their textbooks was directly related to their relative class size. I have not found that to be the case in my personal experience whatsoever.

I'm not sure what your experience in textbook publishing is, but to the best of my knowledge, HarryT is spot on that the market for most textbooks is limited. Not by local class size, but by usage across the potential market. The scarcity is one of customers.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because you can probably find lots of good and free information on the web about, say, economics or business. I don't think you'd find it so easy to find such information about electromagnetism or quantum mechanics. You can find good individual articles, yes, but putting it together in such a way that it teaches the subject from start to finish would be very difficult.

I disagree; I'm in the business of curriculum design, and I do this all the time. In fact, many professors I know end up assigning more than one textbook for a class not because they want the students to read all of each of the books, but because they want students to read part of one and part of another. I think this is one of the main causes of new textbooks being written, especially in the "hard sciences." If it were easier for a professor to select specific chapters of books for a custom textbook, fewer new textbooks would need to be written. Also, often textbook changes are confined to the insertion of a new chapter or two. Why should students have to pay for a whole new print run just to get those chapters? The content of the rest of the book hasn't changed, so the technical editors don't need to review that part. This is clearly a system that could be streamlined.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I'm not sure it's possible for it to exist outside of a capitalistic framework. People will create the content, and need to be compensated, and others will manufacture and distribute it, and need to be compensated. Where does the money come from, and how does it get distributed?

I'd expected more imagination from you, Dennis. Anything can exist outside of a capitalistic framework. Certainly textbook publishing could. It already does. See http://www.wikibooks.org/ for just one example.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

And "community authorship" leads you into the morass that Wikipedia sometimes becomes. I'll use Wikipedia (and do daily), but with distinct reservations and grains of salt, depending upon the topic, because I don't assume that the view most commonly held is correct, nor that facts can be determined by committee.

I think the science-related pages suffer much less from problems in this area than some of the more sensitive contemporary topics. Most pages on Wikipedia tend to be pretty self-policing, and checking the Talk tab and revision history gives you a good idea of problems that may exist with the content there, which is more than you can say for most other sources (including print sources).

Originally Posted by Danny Fekete

The answer, in practise, is peer-review, and is the same principle which bolsters confidence in the truth content of academic publications (where each individual reader isn't in a position to test proposed, new information for him or herself). This leads to consensus about what's true and what isn't; this is truth by committee, and it drives a great deal of what we consider to be knowledge. It's the basis of Connexion's "Lenses," which help educators sort through the available content when designing the open-content textbooks I've been talking about.

Interestingly, what Wikipedia and its related projects are doing is a form of peer-review. And also interestingly, the process of journal peer-review is how most groundbreaking research (the kind that could lead to a new textbook revision) is validated... and journal article authors are not paid anything like textbook authors... and reviewers usually are not paid at all. And my access to electronic copies of journal articles is included with my graduate tuition.

If some enterprising organization were to make an easy-to-use way for faculty members to select chapters of existing books plus journal articles and save the results so that students could be assigned a POD or ebook version of the compilation, for a price competitive with existing textbooks, I think it would change the market entirely (and for the better). These compilations could combine open textbooks (e.g. Wikibooks), paid chapters from publishers, journal articles as subscribed to by the university in question, and even content authored by the faculty member. If desired, a department could set the content via a curriculum committee, and faculty members could be given the option (or not) to make changes to the list, working from the "master" collection. I think that would serve the interests of faculty members, students, and authors of truly valuable original content, while covering the real costs to publishers and opening up the market to fair competition.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by Dumas

Actually, one of Merriam Webster’s definitions for value is the monetary worth of something and I believe I used it correctly in that context.

I thought you were using the term as cost is the price that the manufacturer has in producing the product and the value is what someone is willing to pay. That is the context of my comment. Cost is the R&D, QA, production, advertising and other associate costs of doing business but you seem to think that if it is available for download the cost is practically zero (approaching zero) which means its value is the same.

You have chosen to use another definition of value, that of relative worth, utility, or importance. Hence, your usage and references are no longer economic, but of a philosophic nature.

It is certainly economic since people do pay for software despite GNU. There is a commodity item that is driven by supply and demand like bread, gas, etc. Here the price of something is supply and demand oriented although the bottom price is based on overhead for the business. However there are plenty of unique items that are not based on supply and demand. Supply and demand assume that the one you can get down the street is just as good as the one that is priced higher. For software and eBooks that only applies to the dealer price which is their cost plus their markup. The dealer price is determined by the value of the product, that is the price the person or company sets on the product.

Value is the price a user who wants or needs a product is willing to pay for the product. Worth is what the owner of the product whether believes its value is.

Perhaps in a philosophic sense, but not in the context of economics and the definition I have posted under.

There are clearly two definitions of economics. One for commodities and one for unique items.

This could be the eureka moment for you (and hopefully everyone else.)

1 – You have correctly asserted that a computer is worthless without software,

2 – Yet we can agree that computers are a scarce resource (an apparent economic contradiction),

3 – Hence, the reason computers have any value at all is because of software, a digital good in unlimited, non-infringing supply (of the Open Source variety.)

This is where we disagree. The computers have value not because of free software. Computers have value because there is software that people can buy that will solve a problem or help them in some way. A source of free software can enhance the value of the hardware but is not necessary except for some who don't need the computer in the first place but want one for fun. Companies seldom use free software as they can't depend on it.

The worth of software does not come from in and of itself or the discs and tapes it may reside on, but in its transformative ability to turn a scarce resource of little value into one of great value.

Dumas

That is true. If there is nothing to run the software on then it has no value at all. Same with an eBook.

Dale

[tompe]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I'd expected more imagination from you, Dennis. Anything can exist outside of a capitalistic framework. Certainly textbook publishing could. It already does. See http://www.wikibooks.org/ for just one example.

In Sweden people do not get paid to write a text books usually. Or the money they get is very small compared to the effort. Text books are usually written as part of a persons academic employment and is usually a development of course material that have been used in courses many years. The motivation to write text books is partly to get academic credits. It is nearly never the case that you get properly compensated for the time and effort in terms of money. So I am surprised that people here claim that text book writers have to be compensated by selling the text book.

[Patricia]

Clearly, things vary. I got more money for a chapter in a textbook than my partner did for an entire book that took five years to write, and involved a lot of expensive trips to French archives.
On the other hand, my latest chapter in a textbook hardly paid anything at all (£37.50 so far).

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

This is where we disagree. The computers have value not because of free software. Computers have value because there is software that people can buy that will solve a problem or help them in some way. A source of free software can enhance the value of the hardware but is not necessary except for some who don't need the computer in the first place but want one for fun. Companies seldom use free software as they can't depend on it.

On the contrary, quite a few companies use and depend on MySQL and the Apache web server, for example, even though those are free. There are also companies that use OpenOffice, rather than paying for MS Word, etc. These free applications increase the value of the hardware.

I'm not trying to say that free/open-source software has completely replaced commercial software; clearly, it has not. But in some areas it competes well, or even supersedes commercial software.

Regarding the term "value," there are so many definitions floating around that I think it is necessary to state a definition when using this term, and to understand that not everyone may be using the definition one has chosen. This seems to be one of those areas where the argument has centered more around which definition of the term to use, rather than centering around the actual premises.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

It is certainly economic since people do pay for software despite GNU. There is a commodity item that is driven by supply and demand like bread, gas, etc. Here the price of something is supply and demand oriented although the bottom price is based on overhead for the business. However there are plenty of unique items that are not based on supply and demand. Supply and demand assume that the one you can get down the street is just as good as the one that is priced higher. For software and eBooks that only applies to the dealer price which is their cost plus their markup. The dealer price is determined by the value of the product, that is the price the person or company sets on the product.

No, supply and demand does not assume that. You are making the assumption that supply and demand applies only to "commodity" products, and that's not the case. Supply and demand describes the relationship between the two factors, and is valid regardless of the size of either.

Value is the price a user who wants or needs a product is willing to pay for the product. Worth is what the owner of the product whether believes its value is.

That's a unique definition I haven't heard before. "Value" is relative. In monetary terms, a product or service is "worth" what a customer is willing to pay for it. If you can't get any takers for your product or service at your proposed price, it's hard to realistically argue that your price is what it's "worth". Worth is what you can get for it, not what you might like to get.

There are clearly two definitions of economics. One for commodities and one for unique items.

Hardly, as there is the vast range between. Not everything is "commodity" or "unique".

Commodities are generic, available from multiple sources in equivalent forms, and have price as the dominant factor in customer choice. There are other things that are not unique, but are also not commodities. For instance, SPSS and SAS both make statistical analysis packages. They are comparable but not equivalent. You can't simply replace one with the other if it turns up with a better price. But they aren't "unique", because there are choices in statistical analysis packages. A unique product would be the only one of its kind.

This is where we disagree. The computers have value not because of free software. Computers have value because there is software that people can buy that will solve a problem or help them in some way. A source of free software can enhance the value of the hardware but is not necessary except for some who don't need the computer in the first place but want one for fun. Companies seldom use free software as they can't depend on it.

Sorry, but the last bit is simply untrue. I think you'll find that majority of websites run on Linux, with web access handled by Apache, and very likely MySQL as a back-end database. Those are all "free software", and the aggregate value of the web business they power is many billions of dollars.

Free software is far less used on the desktop, though that is slowly changing, as things like Open Office mature to be viable alternatives.

The first question a corporate exec is likely to ask about "free software" is "Who do we call if it breaks?" They like the security of support contracts as prompt access to assistance and fixes. This is increasingly available for free software. Red Hat will be delighted to sell you a support contract for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. MySQL will be happy to sell you a support contract for MySQL (at a rather exorbitant price...).

Note that on the desktop, in a corporate setting, "support" will likely be provided by the company IT staff, not the software vendor. The company will likely have a support contract with the vendor, and escalate questions to them that their own staff can't answer.

People buy computers to do work, and that work requires software. It's fair to say that a computer without software is worthless, as it can't be used. The value comes from the combination of hardware and software. It largely muddies the waters at this level to distinguish between free and commercial software when talking about it.
______
Dennis

[DaleDe]

Just because a site runs on Linux does not mean it was free. RedHat is very popular but not free. Service is important to business users and free typically has no support.

I know I was simplify the commodity vs unique but that was just to make a point. Certainly I meant unique in the since of different from something else not in the sense that it was the only solution available. Even commodity products attempt to make their products unique by branding and advertising that they are better than the competition and this actually works to some degree. There is brand loyalty and some people will pay a little more for a certain brand but if it is a lot more expensive then they give up. My point is not every things price is based on availability or cost of manufacture. Almost no software is based on cost of manufacturer and every eBook is unique to the author who wrote it. My point is those items are not worthless (approaching zero value) just because they can be copied freely.

Dale

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Just because a site runs on Linux does not mean it was free. RedHat is very popular but not free. Service is important to business users and free typically has no support.

RedHat is very popular and free. If you don't care about support, you run CentOS, which is the open source version of Red Hat Enterprise. It is identical to Red Hat Enterprise Linux except for the branding. If you ever decide you need actual Red Hat support, there is an RPM you can install that changes the branding. It will announce itself as Red Hat and have Red Hat graphics. You call Red Hat and say "Hi! I'm running RHEL, and I'd like to purchase a support contract!"

The software itself is free. Support has a cost.

Contrast that with Windows, where you buy a license to run the software, and you pay for support.

I know I was simplify the commodity vs unique but that was just to make a point. Certainly I meant unique in the since of different from something else not in the sense that it was the only solution available.

Unique means"one of a kind", so it was the wrong word to use to make your point. "Different" != "unique"

Even commodity products attempt to make their products unique by branding and advertising that they are better than the competition and this actually works to some degree.

To a fairly large degree, actually. Consider bottled water.

There is brand loyalty and some people will pay a little more for a certain brand but if it is a lot more expensive then they give up.

Sometimes, and sometimes not. A lot of "luxury" goods are status items - people buy it in part because it is expensive, and having it is a way of announcing "Look how well I'm doing! I can afford to pay what this cost!"

My point is not every things price is based on availability or cost of manufacture. Almost no software is based on cost of manufacturer

It will depend on the software, in the case of commercial products you must purchase a license for.

I go back to the days when PCs were first becoming popular, and office suites didn't exist. You purchased Word Perfect or Lotus 1,2,3 seperately, for what you now pay for a suite including word porcessing, spreadsheet, presentation graphics, email, and database. The fact that things became commodities imposed combination and commodity pricing. But one requirement for something to become a "commodity" is wide demand. IT';s a commodity because it's something everybody uses.

Other software doesn't work the same way. Specialized packages can have high development costs and a smaller market, and will have correspondingly higher prices. The customers need it badly enough that the price is less of a determining factor.

and every eBook is unique to the author who wrote it. My point is those items are not worthless (approaching zero value) just because they can be copied freely.

Agreed. The "value" comes from intangibles. But remember that revenue comes from outside of the organization, and "value" is likewise externally assigned. As mentioned earlier, a thing is "worth" what someone else is willing to pay for it.

This holds true for literary value as well as financial value. A book is a conversation with the reader, and what the reader gets from a title may be something vastly different from what the author thought she was writing.
______
Dennis

[b0rsuk]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As a (former) textbook author myself, I am well aware of the economics of their publication. Believe me, you are NEVER going to see $10 textbooks.

Plain wrong.

http://www.greenteapress.com/thinkpy...inkpython.html

http://diveintopython.org/

http://wazniak.mimuw.edu.pl/index.ph...C5%82%C3%B3wna

[power100]

The Price of College text books and scientific books is too expensive to let normal people
to learn late science and technology.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by b0rsuk

Plain wrong.

http://www.greenteapress.com/thinkpy...inkpython.html

http://diveintopython.org/

http://wazniak.mimuw.edu.pl/index.ph...C5%82%C3%B3wna

Not plain wrong.

Mark Pilgrim (Dive in Python, Dive Into Greasemonkey, and others) makes his living doing other things, and isn't trying to write textbooks.

Think Python is being offered as a PDF, but care to guess what the actual hardcover from Cambridge University will cost? Nowhere close to $10, I assure you. And I question whether it will be marketed as a textbook when it is.

There are various universities putting course material on line, but that isn't the same thing as textbooks.

Textbooks are specifically written to be instructional materials used in assigned course work in a school or college class. The are published in hardcover, and have far higher production costs and smaller markets than other books. The economics won't permit a $10 publication.

As course work moves increasingly on-line, and as publishing of textbooks moves (islowly) to electronic form, the economics will change, but still not that dramatically.

Meanwhile, you can't hold computer books or electronic syllabuses up as examples of why HarryT is wrong, because neither are textbooks as we use the term.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by power100

The Price of College text books and scientific books is too expensive to let normal people to learn late science and technology.

If you are taking college courses toward a degree in a subject, the textbooks are likely a tiny fraction of your total costs.

If you attempting to learn the subjects outside of a college classroom, there are plenty of references you can consult that aren't textbooks.
______
Dennis

[GingerTez]

I've read the first 3 pages of this thread and jumped to the end... I'm not sure if this has been posted elsewhere and it's a bit facetious but....

There have been a few posts which mentioned photocopying a textbook from the library - so why not just borrow it from the library?

Also, from my experience in academia, many "new" editions of textbooks may be formatted differently but still contain the same information so speak to your tutor and ask if the previous edition is acceptable. I currently work in IT and there is a need for IT textbooks to be continuously updated as new versions of the programming software and frameworks are released but to be honest I usually use the internet (i.e. websites and blogs not digital copies of books) to supplement my knowledge beyond an "old" textbook when necessary (and if a new version is really needed then my employer pays for it).

As for the pricing - I think that's been covered in quite a lot of depth already and won't ever change until large screen electronic readers become available which can handle the large page format required by many textbooks.

Cheers,
Terry.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by GingerTez

There have been a few posts which mentioned photocopying a textbook from the library - so why not just borrow it from the library?

You can't take reference books out of most libraries. However, it was just a scenerio... not that anyone would do it. Change to... check a book out of a library and copy it. Hows that?

BOb

[jaffab]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Wow, you are nice. Perhaps I didn't inconvenience you but I benefited from your property without making any contribution to you/it at all. Do you feel that I should contribute something to you in exchange for the benefit that I derive?

Please let me know the next time you go on holiday. Do you live in a nice place to visit?

EDIT: Yes, I've only been to Toronto once. I wouldn't mind visting again since it was a work trip an the only site seeing I did was a trip to Niagara Falls.

BOb

Bob, can I jump into this conversation (a little late, as I am new to eBooks).

What say you about these scenarios:

1) You go to a party and take a CD, and 20 people dance to the music. Yet none of them have purchased the CD
2) You read a (p)book, and its good, so you lend it to your wife, she reads it, and likes it, so lends it to a friend.
3) You buy a DVD and a friend comes over for the evening, and you watch the DVD together – but only you have paid for the DVD.

The point being is that all of these are normal activities in which copyright is broken, and people enjoy an item without the needs to purchase their own copy. So where, legally, is the line drawn.

For my own 2cents, I so far have a 20/80 split from purchased books to dark books. I would purchase more, but the rip off culture of too expensive e-books, hard to get hold of e-books makes it seem less worth while. Also, a lot of the dark books are electronic copies of books I already own in paper format – so should I have to buy the book twice.

Finally, the main reason I get dark ebooks is because with purchased books, the DRM in current ebooks means you cant do anything with them, and the formats generally are awful to use (PDFs with bad flows), bad fonts, headers and footers in the text, etc. If they put some effort into the books rather than treating them as a cash-cow, I may change the split by purchasing more legit books.