David Dyer-Bennet wrote: > >So the end-user price could be considerably lower. There are > no pulped/returned copies, no paper costs, no binding costs. And no > local bookstores. (There's still editorial, art, design, promotion, > and a number of other costs of course.) So I don't *know* what's > feasible, but it may well be that an author could get the same income > on fewer electronic sales. Or even a higher income. If the mass > readership were prepared to read electronic copies, which they're not > yet. > Books have good UI :-) Basically E-Books haven't penertrated the market and probably will not until you can curl up on the couch with one and not have to worry about it falling on the floor. Its odd, but printed books are still better technology. On other things, while it may and probably is true that CDs are overpriced, this doesn't in any way justify piracy. Sure the RIAA is on a crusade to maintain its monopoly on the distribution of music, and has behaved badly IMHO, but thats capitalism[1] for you. There are many costs associated with any kind of artistic promotion. If we look at say the movie industry, not every film will make money ( can anyone say waterworld ), so the films that DO make money have to subsidise those that don't. And this will be factored into prices. And interestingly enough piracy is almost certainly a price affecting factor in itself, in the same way that shoplifting is. If more people bought CD rather than trading on the internet, in theory the prices should come down, though this is unlikely due to the fact that the music industry is an Oligarchy and probably lacks true compition. Andrew. [1] Unless you subscribe to the view put forward by John Ralston Saul that modern corperations aren't actully run by capitalists:)