The used pbook conundrum

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

What to do with all those used copies of Harry Potter? To get back to the OP...

The big six would have us burn them.

This is nonsense and you know it. Does Toyota want you to wreck your old vehicle? No, they support the second hand market. Because a strong second hand market indirectly supports the market for new goods. Those who don't have much money buy second hand and thus put money back into the pockets of the original buyers who will go out and spend it again.

Your way, everyone loses. In the long run even you, but you haven't quite figured that out yet (you apparently haven't figured out how to see past your own pocketbook yet, you know contributing to society). You and others like you have fewer chances to get decent jobs and fewer new works will be created.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

This is nonsense and you know it.

Maybe it's nonsense, but I doubt that he knows it.

I'm sure that some of what I post is nonsense, but with respect to any particular point or passage -- I don't know it

You and others like you have fewer chances to get decent jobs and fewer new works will be created.

I agree with you about the decent jobs. But fewer works? Now -- and remember that I really like you and agree with most of what you post -- that's a perfect example of nonsense. Low levels of copyright enforcement will force authors to churn out more and more. Historically, it happenned to Sir Walter Scott, back before copyrights were international, and it is happenning again as indicated in this distressing publisher-written post (and in the starting article for that thread):

three to six books done or nearly done in any given year is not at all unreasonable

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Maybe it's nonsense, but I doubt that he knows it.

I'm sure that some of what I post is nonsense, but with respect to any particular point or passage -- I don't know it



I agree with you about the decent jobs. But fewer works? Now -- and remember that I really like you and agree with most of what you post -- that's a perfect example of nonsense. Low levels of copyright enforcement will force authors to churn out more and more. Historically, it happenned to Sir Walter Scott, back before copyrights were international, and it is happenning again as indicated in this distressing publisher-written post (and in the starting article for that thread):

three to six books done or nearly done in any given year is not at all unreasonable

Fewer works overall, that is nonsense. I should have made it clear that fewer works from the big 6 were what I was talking about (that seems to be most of what he is reading, from what we can tell from his numerous previous posts, he has no interest in reading free or cheap books).

But let me ask you this, if Giggleton's visions came true, and nobody paid for books ever again, do you really think there would not be fewer books? And especially fewer carefully written, researched and edited books?

[HansTWN]

And, of course, Giggleton knows it is nonsense. He is not stupid. But he is in the unenviable position of having to pull such fake arguments out of his nose to try to justify the unjustifiable.

[petrucci]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

This is nonsense and you know it. Does Toyota want you to wreck your old vehicle?

Well, in the USA, the Government paid 3 billion dollars to destroy perfectly functional used vehicles. This was done in the name of environmentalism. (I do not know how destroying tons of used cars and sending them to the scrap heap is environmentally sound.) I can't help but think that the auto manufacturers supported the program, as it reduced the used car market.

[plib]

Originally Posted by petrucci

Well, in the USA, the Government paid 3 billion dollars to destroy perfectly functional used vehicles. This was done in the name of environmentalism. (I do not know how destroying tons of used cars and sending them to the scrap heap is environmentally sound.) I can't help but think that the auto manufacturers supported the program, as it reduced the used car market.

In the UK they use speed bumps for the same purpose. I'm sure that has the support of the auto companies also.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

This is nonsense and you know it. Does Toyota want you to wreck your old vehicle? No, they support the second hand market. Because a strong second hand market indirectly supports the market for new goods. Those who don't have much money buy second hand and thus put money back into the pockets of the original buyers who will go out and spend it again.

Your way, everyone loses. In the long run even you, but you haven't quite figured that out yet (you apparently haven't figured out how to see past your own pocketbook yet, you know contributing to society). You and others like you have fewer chances to get decent jobs and fewer new works will be created.

I am not so sure that it is nonsense. What is DRM but an effort to enforce the pay per read scheme? and put an end to the used book market????

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT CARS

We are discussing the spread of ideas.

What is a decent job? You make me laugh.

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

What to do with all those used copies of Harry Potter? To get back to the OP...

The big six would have us burn them.

i don't think thats such a crazy notion. they've proven time and again, whether its ebooks, movies or video games, that they want us to buy and rebuy the same material over and over again. the video game industry, for example, is on an absolute crusade to drive stores like gamestop under. then theres things things like drm, they make no money if you 'own' your books. they want you to buy it and keep buying it.

they want control of the material every second of its existence so if they wanted us to burn our used paperbacks it wouldn't exactly shock me. if they could get away with it, every material goods supplier on earth would kill off the secondary market.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

they want control of the material every second of its existence . . . if they could get away with it, every material goods supplier on earth would kill off the secondary market

Who is this "they?"

In even a small industry, there are hundreds of executives and directors. Among them, there are undoubtedly people who have mistaken economic ideas. So what? Ad hominen attacks, especially against anonymous individuals, do not advance your cause.

Suppose there are two small bookstores in town selling new books. One is owned by a curmudgeon who complains about a third bookstore, the one that sells used books. The other new book store is owned by a more enlightened soul who sends his customers to the used shop when what they want is out of print. Now, let's say all three have a tiny side business selling eBooks. I'd say it is equally wrong to redistribute the eBooks, regardless of which store you bought it from.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT CARS

I have somewhat similar feelings when people analogize book piracy to music piracy -- quite different, because almost all musicians were live performers before getting into recordings, while virtually no authors can realistically charge for live readings. However, book and music piracy aren't totally different.

As for used cars, I think the economic rules applicable there have similarities to used paper books, and there has been a lot more used car research. I'd agree, however, that used cars are a lot different from eBooks, because the latter either work or don't work, with no intermediate phases.

If someone could invent an unbreakable DRM that automatically gained typos each time it was transferred, then a used eBook would really be like a used car. It's unfortunate for authors (and editors, agents, translators, etc.) that this is technically unfeasible.