|
 |
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:35:08 -0700, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> writes:
>
>> Yeah, but if they'd done that with a paper book, they'd not have come
>> into my home, taken it and left me the money. That's vaguely what they
>> did, though, with the eBook. They needed (IMHO) to make it right in a
>> similar fashion rather than taking advantage of the fact that they
>> *could* just "unsell" it electronically. Just because you can do
>> something, doesn't mean you should. It created a lot of uncertainty
>> about eBooks.
>
> To be honest, I find the analogy with physical books somewhat flawed.
> Electronic media /is/ different, and the notion of rights differs as
> well. In the long run, I'm sure people's views will change about such
> things, and it won't be perceived as a violation of rights.
Possibly, but from my point of view, I'm paying for the content, not the
delivery mechanism. If it was about the delivery mechanism, eBooks would
be priced significantly less than print counterparts - with B&N, it's
maybe a 10% difference in price.
But my usage is more for free eBooks anyways, so the pricing of the books
doesn't matter - Gutenberg has 25K books available for free in epub
format, and that's enough to keep me going for a while. :-)
> I don't like it either, which is why I still prefer a physical copy
> (mine or the library's). However, I can see a middle ground where for
> certain category of items an ebook reader may be preferred.
Yes, that's true.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
