Used bookstores, harbors of piracy?

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

But we don't need to copy books anymore... We just need to be able to access them.

It seems to me that buying an ereader and "legally" purchasing a number of books and then selling the reader with those legally purchased books on it, will be legal. No different than paper as far as I can see. The author is not compensated of course, which is the whole reason for copyright??

Glad to see you back and attempting to play the devil's advocate. Thought you were going straight arrow for a moment and that tomorrow the world would end

Helen

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Glad to see you back and attempting to play the devil's advocate. Thought you were going straight arrow for a moment and that tomorrow the world would end

Helen

When people are being thrown into prison for reading, the world has already ended.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

When people are being thrown into prison for reading, the world has already ended.

Wow, turning things upside down again! Or as the Chinese saying goes: "Your words turn black into white".

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Glad to see you back and attempting to play the devil's advocate.

Helen

Do you really think that is his intention??

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Wow, turning things upside down again! Or as the Chinese saying goes: "Your words turn black into white".

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

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

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

Nobody ever disputed it. Of course you should also pay, if the author and/or publisher demands it.

A society in which those who do physical labor get rewarded and those who have the misfortune that their work can be digitally duplicated get the boot cannot thrive for long. You sweep the streets and you get paid, you write books and you get a pat on the back? Doesn't make sense to me.

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

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

If you are willing to pay what the author or copyright holder requests, then yes, you should be allowed to read what you want.

[petrucci]

For those of you who are coming to the thread late, like I am, and were wondering if there were posts that offered dissenting opinions to the OP read post 50 by TCCPhreak and 72 by Rylon.

The topic of the business models that are used to compensate authors for their work is an interesting one.

Traditionally authors are compensated for each book that is produced. The books are priced in such a fashion that the author and publisher are compensated for their work. I assume that the used market and book lending are taken account into the initial pricing equation.

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.

[QuantumIguana]

The only model that makes any sense is for an author to set a price, and readers determine whether that price is acceptable. If the reader finds the price acceptable, they buy the book. If not, they don't buy it, and move on. People decide for themselves what the right price for a book should be. We don't need someone else to fix prices for us.

[Venus]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The only model that makes any sense is for an author to set a price, and readers determine whether that price is acceptable. If the reader finds the price acceptable, they buy the book. If not, they don't buy it, and move on. People decide for themselves what the right price for a book should be. We don't need someone else to fix prices for us.

Exactly....

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The only model that makes any sense is for an author to set a price, and readers determine whether that price is acceptable. If the reader finds the price acceptable, they buy the book. If not, they don't buy it, and move on. People decide for themselves what the right price for a book should be. We don't need someone else to fix prices for us.

The only model that makes any sense is for the author to set the wholesale price they want to get from a retailer, and let the retails and readers negotiate over what retail price they are willing to pay. Authors are not retail experts, and why should they care what the final retail price is, as long as they get paid the same either way?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The only model that makes any sense is for the author to set the wholesale price they want to get from a retailer, and let the retails and readers negotiate over what retail price they are willing to pay. Authors are not retail experts, and why should they care what the final retail price is, as long as they get paid the same either way?

Fine, the author can hire someone to set the price on the book. That's pretty much the same thing. If the reader thinks the price for that book is acceptable, they will buy the book. If not, they won't. If the author or the author's representatives overprice the book, they are free to reduce it if they wish. The point is that it is a bad idea to have a third party meddling inbetween the author/publisher/seller and the reader. The author, publisher and seller determine price, the reader determines value.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The only model that makes any sense is for an author to set a price, and readers determine whether that price is acceptable. If the reader finds the price acceptable, they buy the book. If not, they don't buy it, and move on. People decide for themselves what the right price for a book should be. We don't need someone else to fix prices for us.

What you're describing is an agency pricing model, where the retailers have no control over price. Are you really in favour of that?

[John F]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In what way did "the music industry learn"? Last time I looked, it still wasn't legal to re-sell music downloaded from iTunes.

Saw this in the news a while back:

"Selling used iTunes tracks? ReDigi insists it's legal"

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...ere-almost.ars

and:

"Judge Refuses to Shut Down Online Market for Used MP3s"

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...sic-lawsuit-2/

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What you're describing is an agency pricing model, where the retailers have no control over price. Are you really in favour of that?

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.