According to this article, the problem is oligopolistic markets: only 5 major book publishers exist, and they have no interest in competing.
The article also doesn't examine the consequences: are consumers getting as many books as they want? Is society better off with fewer books available? What about the effects on authors?
Oddly, neither phrase "copyright" or "intellectual property" appear in this article. That's the legal construct that underpins the oligopoly, though.
This article is pretty shallow. It barely scratches the surface of the issue(s).
> That's the legal construct that underpins the oligopoly, though.
The durations of copyright protection in the US are too long and that's probably the fault of big corporations, predominantly Disney.
The goal of the copyright policy should be to balance incentivizing creativity (by providing rights and protections) and having a rich public domain. And every time we extend copyright duration, we starve the public domain and we should stop doing that.
But copyright as a construct is very democratic. If anyone creates anything original that can be reduced to a medium, they have rights over that thing for as long as they live (and then some). Those rights include the ability to sell it to others, including big corporations, I guess, but the rights begin with the creators, and that's very democratic.
It came, seemed to be defeated, then seedboxes rescued it. Never bought an e-book or mp3book (read out loud) since.
Everything gets scanned or read. Publishers gave themselves head shots based on greed...
I was going to say the same! E-books have been wonderful for me, my friends and family. They make travelling so much easier, and have definitely made me read more.
A sincere thank you to all who make E-books more accessible, like Project Gutenberg, Calibri, IRC servers, Libgen etc.
Agreed, with the exceptions being technical books or informational nonfiction. I've found that anything that requires taking notes is much easier with a physical book, as I can write in the book; taking notes and highlighting in my kindle just doesn't feel as good.
For me the reason is simple. I read most books only once. So it doesn't really make much sense to buy books. I instead borrow most books from a local library. I know it is possible to borrow eBooks, but they often come with restrictions and DRM software and maybe even books that phone home to report my reading progress. I don't want these at all. Borrowing paper books doesn't have any of these issues. And you can't beat the price of $0.
Library e-books also have artificial limits on carry, like a maximum of 2 of a kind per city, and these are then "checked out" and unavailable to other users. It's pants-on-head stupid.
Maybe the revolution hasn't come for the publishers, based on ebook sales numbers, but the people I know who regularly use ereaders download most of their ebooks for free.
I have a kindle that I think I've read 5-6 books on since buying it in 2016. It's great for longer trips where bringing multiple books is inconvenient, but otherwise I prefer not having to worry about charging or losing yet another device.
For me the pro/cons of physical vs ebook just about equal out and with ebooks being more expensive that tips me towards physical still.
Doesn't fit my experience at all. My wife and i read ebooks all the time from our local library. Way easier than making time to go during the day and no need to worry about due dates
I tried a Kindle and iPad for reading and I just didn't enjoy what I was reading as much. One of the joys of reading to me is disconnecting - full stop - I don't get that feeling when I pick up a Kindle or iPad to read and subsequently don't enjoy what I'm reading as much. I'm a sucker for the used books on Amazon lol.
Physical books will always reign supreme in my eyes apart from textbooks or technical books where I actually prefer a pdf or ebook that I can easily search for terms, keywords, etc.
For some, it's comparing 'holding a physical book and turning the pages' to the more active, not taking readers.
I don't think the leaders in the ebook industry really understood what the target market was when they took on the endeavor.
For me, ebooks made a lot more sense. Using exclusively the kindle app, I can keep track of my progress across multiple books, score and rate them, make notes (which are preserved and easy to access), and share insightful quotes from my favorite books. If you're a social reader there's really nothing like it.
If you're more of the page turner type, or someone who enjoys the catharsis of reading a book, nothing is going to compare to the feeling of turning a physical page, sipping on some tea in just the right amount of lighting, etc.
I think ebooks set out to capture the first market, and they did it, but people expected it to dominate the book market, which it hasn't and won't.
19 comments
[ 5.6 ms ] story [ 50.9 ms ] threadThe article also doesn't examine the consequences: are consumers getting as many books as they want? Is society better off with fewer books available? What about the effects on authors?
Oddly, neither phrase "copyright" or "intellectual property" appear in this article. That's the legal construct that underpins the oligopoly, though.
This article is pretty shallow. It barely scratches the surface of the issue(s).
The durations of copyright protection in the US are too long and that's probably the fault of big corporations, predominantly Disney.
The goal of the copyright policy should be to balance incentivizing creativity (by providing rights and protections) and having a rich public domain. And every time we extend copyright duration, we starve the public domain and we should stop doing that.
But copyright as a construct is very democratic. If anyone creates anything original that can be reduced to a medium, they have rights over that thing for as long as they live (and then some). Those rights include the ability to sell it to others, including big corporations, I guess, but the rights begin with the creators, and that's very democratic.
A sincere thank you to all who make E-books more accessible, like Project Gutenberg, Calibri, IRC servers, Libgen etc.
I once owned a Kindle. I no longer use it.
For me the pro/cons of physical vs ebook just about equal out and with ebooks being more expensive that tips me towards physical still.
Physical books will always reign supreme in my eyes apart from textbooks or technical books where I actually prefer a pdf or ebook that I can easily search for terms, keywords, etc.
For some, it's comparing 'holding a physical book and turning the pages' to the more active, not taking readers.
I don't think the leaders in the ebook industry really understood what the target market was when they took on the endeavor.
For me, ebooks made a lot more sense. Using exclusively the kindle app, I can keep track of my progress across multiple books, score and rate them, make notes (which are preserved and easy to access), and share insightful quotes from my favorite books. If you're a social reader there's really nothing like it.
If you're more of the page turner type, or someone who enjoys the catharsis of reading a book, nothing is going to compare to the feeling of turning a physical page, sipping on some tea in just the right amount of lighting, etc.
I think ebooks set out to capture the first market, and they did it, but people expected it to dominate the book market, which it hasn't and won't.