Andrew Bailey wrote: > 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. Just-in-time publishing. I suspect that's the way things are going to go. Paper costs, yes, and binding costs. Local bookstores, people _like_ bookstores, but they'll have almost no stock; their real stock will be electronic, with just a paper copy or two of each book for browsing. You buy one, it's printed and bound while you wait. > Books have good UI :-) This is exactly the point. Until we get real "paperlike" displays (and the organic polymer LED technology seems to be heading that way), ebooks won't catch on. > Its odd, but printed books are still better technology. Nothing odd about it. A printed book is an easy interface for a human to use. An ebook has too many limitations. > 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. This, on the other hand, is BS. I consider the electronic piracy (a la Napster) of music in particular to be evolution (of a sort) in action. The big music distribution companies are dead, they just don't know it yet and they're fighting to hold on to their cartel. As long as that was The Way to distribute music from maker to fan, they had a good business. It's no longer The Way, though. In fact, although it's good for the middlemen, it's terrible for both the music maker and the fan. > 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. I find this argument suspect, as well. Did you know that there is _yet_ to be a Hollywood production that has "made money" on paper? It's a game the accountants play. Settle for a "percentage of net profit" of a film like, say, _Titanic_, and you'll never see a dime. Personally, I think that in the case of both music and movies, make them downloadable for a reasonable fee, "reasonable" being "the highest price most people will cheerfully pay," and you'll virtually eliminate Napster- type "piracy" overnight. > And interestingly enough piracy is almost certainly a price affecting > factor in itself, in the same way that shoplifting is. Piffle. Shoplifting is plain theft of an item that has been paid for. It truly costs the shopkeeper money, in the price he paid for the item. Music and movie piracy, on the other hand, just means that CDs or DVDs that _might_ have sold, don't. For some percentage of the pirates. No money is lost as a direct result of the piracy, it's all extremely indirect and depends on how much weight you give the arguments of the RIAA and the MPAA. > If more people bought CD rather than trading on the internet, in theory > the prices should come down, *heh* You believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, too, don't you? :-) > though this is unlikely due to the fact > that the music industry is an Oligarchy and probably lacks true compition. Not an oligarchy, a cartel. And there's no "probably" about it. -- Frank Mayhar frank at exit.com http://www.exit.com/ Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/