Will the Amazon Kindle cost US$50?

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

If the seller cannot do so, then I am not "buying" the eBook. I am leasing it and I will not accept a purchase price for a leased object. The value of a leased object is far less than the value of a purchased object.

Yes, that's my point. An online "library access service" is something that I would be willing to pay for. I'm under no illusions that I'd be buying the books. If I wanted to buy the book, I'd probably buy the paper version.

I'm not saying this should be the only model for eBooks, or that anyone else should be satisfied with this model. I'm saying that *I* might be satisfied with this model-- if the price was right, i.e., the quantity of books I would read per month would reduce the cost per book to a reasonable rate for a lease.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I'm not saying this should be the only model for eBooks, or that anyone else should be satisfied with this model. I'm saying that *I* might be satisfied with this model-- if the price was right, i.e., the quantity of books I would read per month would reduce the cost per book to a reasonable rate for a lease.

There's also the issue of who owns culture. If all books were effectively free, but locked up by corporations forever, the corporations end up owning culture.

Here's an example:
Edgar Rice Burroughs died in 1950. But only about 32 of his books have fallen into the public domain. You can get them on Project Gutenberg.

The rest of the books are sitting somewhere. Now, whether it's his estate or his publisher's fault I don't know, but none of the rest of his books are being republished. Not that you can't get these other books. You can get them usually through a used book store.

But what would happen in the eBook world? There are no used book stores because you can't "sell" your eBook. So if a publisher decides to no longer lease an eBook, you have no alternate way of getting a copy.

The publisher effectively controls what people can/cannot read.

With DRM it gets even worse, because a publisher can revoke your right to read the eBook you just acquired.

[Tom Swift]

That is what I find frustrating. The publishers are sitting on tons of older material, still under copyright but not being published. If they sold it in electronic format, they could make some money from their back catalogue instead of making no money from it just sitting there. The Burroughs estate gets nothing from the books not being published. If they released the books in paper format, the profit would not be massive because most of the fans of his work have the books already (I know I used to). An electronic release would not cost them much and would result in more profit for the family. And the publishers.

You know, why do we even need publishers anymore? You could have editor groups that would choose books and edit them and guarantee that the books are of a higher standard. Then the author could do with them as they will. Sell them to a printer, or a print on demand or a electronic company. Or there could be companies that would do this for him for a cut. This is probably why the publishers don't want to go with electronic books. They know their business is obsolete in the future.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

There's also the issue of who owns culture. If all books were effectively free, but locked up by corporations forever, the corporations end up owning culture.

It's a valid point (and a good example). Perhaps I'm relying too much on the darknet to keep the books available regardless of what the publishers want.

But I'm not sure this is as radically different from the situation we have today as you are saying. Yes, one can resell paper books (and the publishers and some authors hate this, btw). But many people don't resell them, they get pulped or burned, and valuable works are lost as a result. Did you know A. A. Milne was an accomplished playwright? Fewer than half of his plays are still preserved in sources such as Project Gutenberg, though. They weren't considered interesting enough (compared to his tremendously popular children's books) to save.

I'm not saying I think the scheme I've outlined above would preserve books any better -- I don't think it would be even as good as the paper system currently in use. But I think it's a matter more of degree than kind.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by nekokami

It's a valid point (and a good example). Perhaps I'm relying too much on the darknet to keep the books available regardless of what the publishers want.

The problem with relying on the darknet is that it breeds a lack of respect for the law (which isn't that respectful today, but still...). Having a free, open market is usually the best way to ensure access to works.

Originally Posted by nekokami

But I'm not sure this is as radically different from the situation we have today as you are saying. Yes, one can resell paper books (and the publishers and some authors hate this, btw). But many people don't resell them, they get pulped or burned, and valuable works are lost as a result. Did you know A. A. Milne was an accomplished playwright? Fewer than half of his plays are still preserved in sources such as Project Gutenberg, though. They weren't considered interesting enough (compared to his tremendously popular children's books) to save.

Yes, that problem happens. Some other famous authors come to mind as well.

But what is worse? Knowing that a work used to exist, but doesn't due to human short-sightedness? Or knowing that a work exists, but the company that held the keys to unlocking it is gone - along with the keys?

[THJahar]

I wonder has the kindle been resubmitted to the FCC yet? That would give us an indication of the release date of the device.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by Tom Swift

That is what I find frustrating. The publishers are sitting on tons of older material, still under copyright but not being published. If they sold it in electronic format, they could make some money from their back catalogue instead of making no money from it just sitting there. The Burroughs estate gets nothing from the books not being published. If they released the books in paper format, the profit would not be massive because most of the fans of his work have the books already (I know I used to).

A (frightening)thought here. How many classic book would not be published today because they don't fit in the marketing tastes and plans now in favor?

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by Tom Swift

You know, why do we even need publishers anymore? You could have editor groups that would choose books and edit them and guarantee that the books are of a higher standard. Then the author could do with them as they will. Sell them to a printer, or a print on demand or a electronic company. Or there could be companies that would do this for him for a cut. This is probably why the publishers don't want to go with electronic books. They know their business is obsolete in the future.

I've been saying that for quite some time now.

Today, in the pBook world, publishers have value in that they make printing books cost effective. Remember from history class, before the printing press, if you wanted a copy of a book, you paid someone to copy it by hand.

But in the eBook world, the cost of "printing" an eBook is almost zero. What value does a publisher bring an eBook? I can't see any.

I do see the value that a publisher may bring an author, but as a reader, why do I care? For the author, that's a cost of doing business and it's not a reason for me to pay more for an eBook.

My view of the eBook publishing industry is that the author writes the eBook on his word processor, saves it into a standard file format (like ODF) which he sends to a place like Fictionwise to handle the transactions with the readers.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

I do see the value that a publisher may bring an author, but as a reader, why do I care? For the author, that's a cost of doing business and it's not a reason for me to pay more for an eBook.

"Cost of doing business" is traditionally passed on to the customer in one form or another, rather like a retail business's taxes, the customer really pays them. There ain't no tax fairy, and there ain't no 'cost of doing business' fairy.

If there is a benefit to the author, then it translates to a better product (at least better than it would have been ). If product X is better for my purposes than product Y, but costs more, then I have to decide whether to pay more, or make do with less.

Of course, there is a limit to how much cost can be passed on, but if the business person can't pass enough cost on to his customers that he can still put food on his table ... well, then the business closes and nobody's really served by that.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

I do see the value that a publisher may bring an author, but as a reader, why do I care?

Leaving out the obvious benefit to the reader of having a book proofread before one reads it, some publishers develop habits of purchase that help to indicate what their books are like, which can be useful in deciding whether to purchase -- or even spend time reading -- a book, especially by an unknown author. For example, Baen books has a certain "style" of sf. I like some of their stuff, but not being much into military stories, I don't like all of it. However, I know more or less what to expect from a Baen book. Other publishers similarly can have certain trends in their books.

A good review service could potentially replace this, and I'd like to see more of those. I don't mean just Amazon style popularity contests, but reviews by critical readers whose opinions I trust. But what is the benefit to someone reading through the "slush pile" of self-published eBooks and rating them or writing reviews? Web page ads just don't generate that much. Some reviewers might be paid by magizines (including webzines), but that in itself might not be enough compensation if one has to read 100 eBooks to find one worth recommending. Perhaps if there were a way of providing reviewers with a commission on sales, it could be worthwhile for people who have critical reading and writing skills to take on this task. (And if you think this would be a conflict of interest, it's no more so than traditional publishers already have.) But in any case, I think some alternate model will need to be developed to compensate for this function of publishers before they can be eliminated from the process.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

But what is worse? Knowing that a work used to exist, but doesn't due to human short-sightedness? Or knowing that a work exists, but the company that held the keys to unlocking it is gone - along with the keys?

To me these two situations are pretty much the same thing. My hope is that at least with an encrypted file, there's a chance that someone will be able to unencrypt it later (in some happy, more enlightened time). Then again, perhaps no one would even save a copy, just as no one saved copies of some of Milne's plays.

Don't get me wrong, I think DRM is a bad idea, and I'd prefer that Amazon offer a service for a monthly fee with no DRM.

Maybe every US publisher should have to provide one unencrypted copy of each book published to the Library of Congress. (Isn't something like that being done in the UK?)

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by NatCh

"Cost of doing business" is traditionally passed on to the customer in one form or another, rather like a retail business's taxes, the customer really pays them. There ain't no tax fairy, and there ain't no 'cost of doing business' fairy.

But when you buy a car, there isn't a line item on the receipt saying 'fee for the dealer's mortgage'. Yes, you end up paying for it - but not 100% of the cost. The dealer only passes on part of the cost to keep competitive.

This kind of stuff is what I call a "fuzzy cost". The consumer ends up paying for it (at least partially), but it's not explicit (like sales tax) and it's not 100% passed on.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by nekokami

A good review service could potentially replace this, and I'd like to see more of those. I don't mean just Amazon style popularity contests, but reviews by critical readers whose opinions I trust.

These already exist on the web in various forms.

We don't need a commercial entity to review books - as a matter of fact, I would not trust such an entity to provide accurate reviews. The only good reviews come from other readers.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Maybe every US publisher should have to provide one unencrypted copy of each book published to the Library of Congress. (Isn't something like that being done in the UK?)

But now you have the gov't controlling culture - which may be a bad thing as well (especially in light of the U.S. gov't using security clearances to censor newspapers ).

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Yes, you end up paying for it - but not 100% of the cost. The dealer only passes on part of the cost to keep competitive.
<snip>
The consumer ends up paying for it (at least partially), but it's not explicit (like sales tax) and it's not 100% passed on.

I respectfully disagree, rlauzon. For a business, 100% of the revenue comes from the customers, therefore, 100% of the costs have to be paid with money that comes from the customers -- that includes the owner's 'salary.'

If the business cannot bring in enough money above and beyond the costs for the owner to make a living, then he stops doing that business and goes on to something else. The pressure to stay competitive, has to be balanced against the pressure to eat.

Of course, most businesses lose money in the beginning, and you're quite right that the owner might accept a lower 'salary' than he'd consider ideal, but if it drops too low, he can't afford to keep at it, precisely because he does have to pay that mortgage, and buy milk and eggs, and put gas in his car....