eBook Gold Rush

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

AKA Business as usual. Along with what I previously mentioned, I would like all revenue from this or any other book distribution site to be distributed equally among all those who have uploaded a book to the site (as long as the book passes review of course). That would be business unusual in case you were wondering.

And who gets to review the books? You? My Mom? A board of "independent" reviewers? Nice try, but it doesn't work in the Real World™

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

And who gets to review the books? You? My Mom? A board of "independent" reviewers? Nice try, but it doesn't work in the Real World™

Everyone who wants to can opt into a pool to be randomly selected as a reviewer, ATM I'm thinking 10% of total users. This does leave the problem of what to do about books that are rejected, but we're working on it.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Actually, "gold rush" is probably a good analogy-- a tiny minority will get filthy rich, a few more will manage to make a decent income, and the large majority who dropped everything thinking it was a way to get rich quick will become bitter drunks, holding one-sided conversations with their pack mules.

Well, to use that analogy, maybe the people who will get rich off the the ebook gold-rush will be fee-based editors and cover artists.

I wish people would start ignoring giggleton. Half this thread has been ambushed by his trolling.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

Well, to use that analogy, maybe the people who will get rich off the the ebook gold-rush will be fee-based editors and cover artists.

I wish people would start ignoring giggleton. Half this thread has been ambushed by his trolling.

What is this thread about then? Continuation of garbage system? We are seeking the new way. We have been technologically capable of supporting all at a high standard of living for almost a century now, the fact that we aren't is almost irredeemable. Certainly copyright is a hindrance, in that allowing the free flow of texts will enrich the public consciousness with the idea that everything is possible for all. What part of this do you not understand? Why are you still holding onto outdated thought models? All that is required to advance is abandoning these thought models, nothing more, nothing less.

Of course there are greedy people out there, but they will soon be dead.

[DiapDealer]

Of course there are greedy people out there, but they will soon be dead.

Except they're leaving 2.5 little greedy people behind as presents. Any system that relies on greed disappearing from the human race is doomed to failure. What part of this do you not understand?

[CazMar]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Actually, "gold rush" is probably a good analogy-- a tiny minority will get filthy rich, a few more will manage to make a decent income, and the large majority who dropped everything thinking it was a way to get rich quick will become bitter drunks, holding one-sided conversations with their pack mules.

Sounds like the entertainment industry! And don't bet on the most talented rising to the top either - it will be the ones who can manipulate the media.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Except they're leaving 2.5 little greedy people behind as presents. Any system that relies on greed disappearing from the human race is doomed to failure. What part of this do you not understand?

Lots of things have disappeared from humanity throughout our evolution. We expect greed, being detrimental to our survival, to disappear eventually.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Lots of things have disappeared from humanity throughout our evolution. We expect greed, being detrimental to our survival, to disappear eventually.

Do we also expect a rainbow to shoot out of my dog's behind?

Two things need to be defined in your statement: "we" and "eventually".

[elcreative]

Don't bother, giggles has long had delusions of grandeur, either represented by the "Royal we" or the delusion that he can claim to represent everybody...

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

Two things need to be defined in your statement: "we" and "eventually".

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Don't bother, giggles has long had delusions of grandeur, either represented by the "Royal we" or the delusion that he can claim to represent everybody...

By we I mean me of course, grammar aside.

The internet/virtual space/new reality breeds these delusions, not that there's anything wrong with that.

I don't speak for everybody, but neither does anyone else. So we speak for noone/everyone.

If we/me view greed as non-beneficial, then why does it exist? We can ask why does intelligence exist? To further human progress?

What is progress?

eventually=now

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

By we I mean me of course, grammar aside.

The internet/virtual space/new reality breeds these delusions, not that there's anything wrong with that.

I don't speak for everybody, but neither does anyone else. So we speak for noone/everyone.

If we/me view greed as non-beneficial, then why does it exist? We can ask why does intelligence exist? To further human progress?

What is progress?

eventually=now

Well, how about you start working on getting rid of your greed --- you said you object having to pay for books, that is greed. You want something for nothing (of course, we all do sometimes, that is human nature). The essence of greed. That is why society has developed mechanisms like property rights and copyrights -- to keep the greed in check and protect the rights of those who work for the benefit of society.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Well, how about you start working on getting rid of your greed --- you said you object having to pay for books, that is greed. You want something for nothing (of course, we all do sometimes, that is human nature). The essence of greed. That is why society has developed mechanisms like property rights and copyrights -- to keep the greed in check and protect the rights of those who work for the benefit of society.

But what if those mechanisms don't work? Should we continue to use them? If I had to pay monies for all the books I read, I probably wouldn't be able to pay for my internet connection or I'd have to cut back on food or something.

Do you think the ISP's are greedy? Would you be in favor of an internet tax? and distribution of this tax to those creators whose work is most popular?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

But what if those mechanisms don't work? Should we continue to use them? If I had to pay monies for all the books I read, I probably wouldn't be able to pay for my internet connection or I'd have to cut back on food or something.

Or you could go to a library as they have books and internet. Or you could look for a job that pays more.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Or you could look for a job that pays more.

Job?? Jobs aren't need in the new digital age, silly.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Job?? Jobs aren't need in the new digital age, silly.

Maybe it is the jobs that promote greed. I mean everybody wants to be payed more for their work.