I don't think I should have to pay for my e-Books

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by tompe

I read reviews mostly to base my purchasing decisions if I do not know the about author beforehand.

The points is that if your goal is to make money you should not try to be an author. There are much easier ways to make money. And more easier ways to make money writing then being a fiction author.

I expect people that tries top be a fiction author to have other goals and motivatons then earn money since that will most probably lead to better books. And I do not want to waste my time on mediocre books.

You seem to have some entitlement thinking here. Just because people make some effort to be a fiction author you seem to say that they deserve to earn money on it. This is totally absurd.

I do think that if people write books that other people read that they deserve to make money from them. Whether a book has literary merit is often debateable. Not for me to judge which is probably a good thing.

I think that most fixtion authors write with a hope to entertain their readers and receive payment like any other entertainmet professional.

I think the entitlement shoe may be on the feet of those who expect authors to produce a great lterary masterpiece, for the sheer joy of knowing that it might become a classic in years to come.

Writing is, as you say, a hard way to make a living. takes a lot of courage IMO to even put yourself out there. The average author probably makes less than a good waiter or cab driver, and if their books don't sell, they make nothing.

Why do you think most authors would write with no hope for payment unless they truly have nothing better to do? Some do of course. I kmow there is a lot of free current fiction available, but I am not so sure it is a treasure trove of great literature.

As an aside, I know a man who picks up trash of the streets because he likes to see things looking tidy, but few street cleaners work for nothing. It would possibly be a better world if they did

Helen

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

Sort of like "eat your spinach - it is good for you?

Well, no. I have read a lot of books that I think are very good books but they just do not work for my personal taste. And the "are not good for me".

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

They say that the Bible is the best selling book of all time. You are claiming that it is not "the Good Book" at all?

OK, I agree with you, it is a bad book.

Using your logic, those books on Amazon that only sell a handful of copies are better books than those that sell millions. Hmmmm. I have a truck load of very, very, very good book that I can sell you. Interested?

Bad logic. Just because a book does not sell does not imply it is good.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

Picture - if you can - my tongue quite firmly planted in my cheek as I wrote that.

As for books that I have purchased, I read all of them. If I buy them, I have established that I will like them. I have on occasion looked at free eBooks, and there I will discontinue reading if they do not appeal to me. I have also been "gifted" books that I did not finish reading, but not once have I purchased one and not read it.

So there is a line above free but below "a lot" of money where you feel the book needs to be read because of the investment? Sometimes I buy a lot of books for 50 cents each and I must confess to not getting to all of them, although unread books will stay on my shelf for awhile and I usually get around to at least glancing at them.

With enough time I would be expected to read every book, am I meant to also pay for every book?

Perhaps great literature cannot be written if the author is concerned with compensation, we just don't know.

[DreamWriter]

Originally Posted by Randeep

I think there could be some alternatives that bookstores might be comfortable with, like selling both as a package deal, an RFID chip in the spine of a regular book to give access to the digital one, etc. Of course as long as people continue to buy copies of both formats this will probably never happen.

Personally, I have never felt the need to have both a physical and digital copy of a book, but I realize that some people do. For those readers, I think it'd be great if there were a discounted bundle option. I wish Amazon and other booksellers offered that.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Perhaps great literature cannot be written if the author is concerned with compensation, we just don't know.

Shakespeare and Dickens both wrote entirely for money. Dickens was obsessed with money, from his childhood experiences of the debt problems suffered by his father. I think most people would accept that both Shakespeare and Dickens were pretty good writers, despite their perverse desires to make a living from their writing.

[QuantumIguana]

Just imagine how filthy our streets would be if the only people who cleaned the streets were those who cleaned out of the love of cleaning their street, without thought of getting paid.

Of course, a clean street is a clean street, I don't care much about the motives of the person who is paid to clean the streets. I think that if a person's only motive for writing was to make money, I probably wouldn't like their books. But regardless of the person's motives for writing, all that matters is whether or not I like the book. Trust doesn't enter into it.

Yes, there are easier ways to make a living than writing, so if someone writes only to make money, it's probably not the wisest decision in the world. But regardless of the motive, people have to eat. We don't have to choose between people only writing for a buck, and those who write only for the love of writing.

While selling a lot of books doesn't mean that a book is going to be a classic, most classics sold well. A great book that no one wants to read isn't quite an oxymoron, but not too far off. But if you want to read books by people who didn't care about being paid for them, you're in luck! You can get any number of books that the authors offer for free. Read those, and you never need worry about reading a book from someone who expected to get paid.

[HomeInMyShoes]

^I'll have to disagree with the selling point. Most classics sold well may have been due to the fact that the competition within the book market was less. The number of writers actually getting a book published in the 1850s was probably about a thousandth the number getting a book published today.

I picked up several pieces of garbage off my street the other day. I didn't get paid.

One of my favourite books I read this year only has 80 ratings on GoodReads. A great book is different to everyone. Trying to argue aesthetics and the cost of something is generally a waste of time. I can appreciate some classics even when I did't enjoy reading them and then there are some classics I loved reading and appreciate as well.

I think this is enough off-topic from the original intent of the thread of why we have to pay for the electronic copy of a book we have in paper form. I'll answer that as, why do I have to pay for an mp3 of a song I have on vinyl? The answer is because money makes companies work. No one is forcing anyone to pay for another version of the book. There were costs in converting to electronic format should I get that conversion for free? I don't think so. Should I get a discount? Maybe. Will I buy a book in e-format that I have in paper format? No.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

^I'll have to disagree with the selling point. Most classics sold well may have been due to the fact that the competition within the book market was less. The number of writers actually getting a book published in the 1850s was probably about a thousandth the number getting a book published today.

Yes, there were less published authors, but it doesn't matter. Some books sold well, but faded away. Other books sold well, and continued to sell and be read for decades. Some books, didn't sell, no one wanted to read them, so they disappeared, barely leaving a ripple. But great books that didn't sell, that's uncommon. That a book sells is by no means an indication that it is a bad book.

I picked up several pieces of garbage off my street the other day. I didn't get paid.

Sure, but the streets would be filthy if they were only cleaned by volunteers.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

I think this is enough off-topic from the original intent of the thread of why we have to pay for the electronic copy of a book we have in paper form. I'll answer that as, why do I have to pay for an mp3 of a song I have on vinyl? The answer is because money makes companies work. No one is forcing anyone to pay for another version of the book. There were costs in converting to electronic format should I get that conversion for free? I don't think so. Should I get a discount? Maybe. Will I buy a book in e-format that I have in paper format? No.

But you don't have to pay for an mp3 of a song you have on vinyl. It's easy to make a digital copy; even easier if you are copying from a CD.

When I buy a CD, in effect I'm getting both the CD and the mp3 files. But with a book, I have to make two separate purchases.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by tompe

People usually distinguish between book that are very fun to read and books that are very good. For most people this is not the same.

"Fun to read" is subjective. Your definition is meaningless to anyone else. Completely, utterly meaningless.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by taustin

"Fun to read" is subjective. Your definition is meaningless to anyone else. Completely, utterly meaningless.

What? I did not give any definition. Your comments are as usual totally meaningless or comments something that was not said.

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by tompe

What? I have not said anything like this. I have said that if yout goal is only to make money it is not rational to try to be a fiction author.

People do a lot of thing without being paid for it. So I really do not see your point. Do you want to call everything somebody do for working and demand that they shouyld get paid?

There's nothing wrong with writing as a hobby and with the internet there's even some simple methods of sharing that work with an audience.

When you make any purchase it really comes down to the fact that you're paying for time. Writers have to eat, too....and it's in the readers' interest for a writer to have the time to write as much as we can read.

Hal Clement, for example, wrote a dozen books in a 50+ year writing career....how many more would he have written if he hadn't needed to work as a science teacher? (Although he considered writing his hobby....he may not have been interested in doing it as a full time job.) Ideally, as a reader, I'd like to see the authors I enjoy have the freedom to write more good books for me to enjoy, but maybe not enough to become complacent (Piers Anthony comes to mind...). Income from writing provides that freedom.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by GlennD

When you make any purchase it really comes down to the fact that you're paying for time. Writers have to eat, too....and it's in the readers' interest for a writer to have the time to write as much as we can read.

Definitely not. I am paying for the book. I will not pay more if it take longer time to write a book. So that shows pretty conclusive that I am not paying for the time.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Catlady

But you don't have to pay for an mp3 of a song you have on vinyl. It's easy to make a digital copy; even easier if you are copying from a CD.

When I buy a CD, in effect I'm getting both the CD and the mp3 files. But with a book, I have to make two separate purchases.

Only if you don't want to do the conversion work yourself.

To get the mp3 files off the CD, you need specialized hardware and software. Today, most people already have the hardware (a computer) and the software might come bundled with that, or it's easily downloadable for free. But you *do* need those things, which are not included in the price of the CD, and you need to know how to use them to get MP3s.

To get an ebook out of a book, you need a scanner and computer... and, if you want it formatted differently from the book, an OCR program and some kind of ebook/text editor. It's a lot more complicated than converting a CD, and a lot more time consuming (sort of? There's a lot more content in the book). But the process of conversion has the same kinds of steps: must apply hardware & software to get a functional digital copy; may need extra hardware or software if you're picky about the type of digital copy.

It only gets strange when someone says "I already have a copy of that; how 'bout I give it to you and save you the hassle of work I've already done?" Currently, that's not legal.

Copyright law requires that each person wanting a converted copy either buy it from the publisher, or convert it themselves. This is wasted work, duplication of effort with no purpose other than pushing money at the publisher. (I am presuming that "just pay for the legit copy" is not an option, either due to finances or regional restrictions or some other reason.)

This may be a reasonable goal, but those of us who grew up knowing there's never enough hands to get all the work done, whatever work that might be, are understandably dismayed at the idea that the "right" thing to do is pointless drudgery. It feels both wasteful and selfish.