Paper book or Ebook?

[D_P]

I own a reader, it's nice to have in the pocket when you take public transports, and it allows me to read works in the public domain for free, but working in the software industry, I definitely don't trust anything that has to stay stored remotely, is controlled by some corporation, and depends on an electronic device with a specific standard to be read. It's ok for stuff I intend to forget immediately after, but what I want to keep, I buy a physical copy.

If you insist on calling paper "dead tree", you should call ebooks "fossil fuels, charcoal, uranium and non renewable resources books" or something like that.

i think we should call it your grave. :fencing: and, i guess i insisted in that particular post. jeez, EB, take a dram, bro :P

[TrackerNeil]

Whatever, if there is a chance that a seller will remove my access to a book I've already bought and paid for, then I'll take whatever measures necessary to prevent that from happening.

I don't understand the notion that when one purchases a piece of media, one has rights in all forms to the end of time. Back in the day, I had to replace my vinyl records with cassettes, and then eventually with CDs, and I wasn't the only one. You just did it. When I see a movie in a theatre, I know I'm paying for the rights to a one-time performance, and am not entitled to a DVD or a media file or whatever.

However, I'm starting to think that perhaps booksellers should offer two versions of every ebook: a copy-protected version, and a DRM-free version at a higher price. Those who want a guarantee to keep the book forever, and to be free to copy it, legally or not, should pay for the privilege.

[Bolivar]

I almost hate to admit it but I prefer Kindle right now. I can immediately define any unfamiliar words and the highlight/note system helps me keep track of all the names, places and events fantasy authors are constantly throwing at you from out of nowhere.

I will buy a physical copy though if I enjoyed it enough and want to reread or the author comes my way.

[naz]

The answer, as it always has been, is both. Both, both, both. Let me say it again, in case you didn't hear me right: BOTH.

You're not being asked to vote for President, you know.

[Anatúrinbor]

The thread is clearly asking for which medium people prefer. The fact that I prefer ebooks doesn't mean that I'll never read a paper book again.

I don't understand the notion that when one purchases a piece of media, one has rights in all forms to the end of time.

I was talking about the only form that I have bought - ebook. Not all forms. And when I buy a book then I should have it for the end of time. Unless it's clear that I'm buying a license to view the material for a period of time as in some academic courses.

[TrackerNeil]

The answer, as it always has been, is both. Both, both, both. Let me say it again, in case you didn't hear me right: BOTH.

You're not being asked to vote for President, you know.

Word.

I like my Kindle, but if it's a book I know I'll re-read then I go with paper. There is room for both in the universe.

[MisterOJ]

I don't understand the notion that when one purchases a piece of media, one has rights in all forms to the end of time. Back in the day, I had to replace my vinyl records with cassettes, and then eventually with CDs, and I wasn't the only one. You just did it. When I see a movie in a theatre, I know I'm paying for the rights to a one-time performance, and am not entitled to a DVD or a media file or whatever.

However, I'm starting to think that perhaps booksellers should offer two versions of every ebook: a copy-protected version, and a DRM-free version at a higher price. Those who want a guarantee to keep the book forever, and to be free to copy it, legally or not, should pay for the privilege.

I've bought both your books for my Nook through Barnes & Noble. Do you think I should only be able to read them for a limited amount of time? Or should I be able to read them as long as I have an ereader to open them with?

[TrackerNeil]

I've bought both your books for my Nook through Barnes & Noble. Do you think I should only be able to read them for a limited amount of time? Or should I be able to read them as long as I have an ereader to open them with?

Ideally, B&N should not be able to revoke the rights to a book they've already sold. I understand that they themselves may lose the rights, but there's got to be a better way.

Funny you should ask. My co-author and I are discussing going DRM-free on the next book. It's a hassle for honest readers (whom I suspect compose the majority), and it doesn't prevent thieves from stealing our work, as we have discovered when we found both books on six different torrent sites. Since anyone who wants to steal an ebook can do so, why bother trying to stop it? DRM was the default setting for both Amazon and B&N so we went with it, but as you live, you learn.

Still, the sense of entitlement from some of the dishonest people staggers me. One guy told us, unabashedly, that since he did not have enough money to pay for all the books he wanted to read, he was fine with stealing ours or anyone else's. I think his words were, "My intellectual and cultural growth is more important than your profit margin." I'll give him credit for not trying out a lame excuse, but, wow.

[grand old duke of stark]

Paper. As an ex-editor, proofreader and teacher, I'm just too invested (literally) in paper for reading. Unfortunately, we have scads of disorganised and mis-shelved books in the house. I've made a policy in recent years of not buying books except art books (which need good, clear, colourful illustrations), some oddball reference works with no likely equivalent in search engines or Wikipedia, and novels I'm likely to read several times (and want to mark up). What I do buy is almost always second-hand. Otherwise, I get books from the library. My first reads of all the ASoIF books were library copies. Now I own the five-set that came out several months ago.

However, I may moderate my opinion to some extent. I just read my first book on our iPad and found it convenient and easy. I was a bit frustrated with the mark-up and note process but could get accustomed to it. I doubt ebooks will ever totally replace their paper predecessors for me, but for certain niche uses they will come in very handy.

[LordStoneheart]

Paper. better for your eyes, I get less headaches. e-ink is just awful and lcd screens are better but not superb.

[Errant Bard]

No it's not. It's downloading a second (or third, or fourth) copy of the book.

[...]

That is a completely different and new file. I didn't touch the original copy. So, it has not been duplicated at all.

This is baffling, a download is a copy, as is any operation where you query a filesystem in a way or another, and replicate the sequence of bits from that filesystem in another place. Each copy is a "completely different and new file", your hard drive physical components don't teleport, the only thing that matter is the content; you copy twice from the same source, you have the exact same result than if you you copied once from the original source then copied that copy, that's how computers work.

You act as if those "original" and "new, different" copies were physical items... they are not, they are immaterial data, and you happen to own several copies of it, against explicit (though stupid in the same "a file is like a physical book" way) rules.

Sure, it's tolerated and some companies may even provides ways with which one can do it easily, but it's, at least in my country, at the same level as private copy: illegal, and very much something the big actors would want to get rid of.

I don't understand the notion that when one purchases a piece of media, one has rights in all forms to the end of time. Back in the day, I had to replace my vinyl records with cassettes, and then eventually with CDs, and I wasn't the only one. You just did it. When I see a movie in a theatre, I know I'm paying for the rights to a one-time performance, and am not entitled to a DVD or a media file or whatever.

That is incredibly flawed:, you did not have to abandon the rights to your vynils when you chose to buy cassettes, in fact if you were wise by then, you either still have those vynils to play whenever you feel like, or you got some money off selling them. That's what it means to purchase something.

You mention purchasing entrance to a live performance not entitling you to the cd or DVD, I say strawman: Nobody has been going to some writer live performance and expected to get out with a book, no: if they purchase a book, they want a book, not a limited license to read a book. Which does not mean there is not a place a for temporary access like that, but damn in that case it better not be marketed as a book, only on electronic paper.

Does not help that the limited access model is purely a money-grubbing and (alledgedly) dumb piracy-paranoia scheme, to resale the same stuff, remove it, amend it, censor it, or control it at will: it does not hurt anyone if the copy on my reader cannot be deleted, the same way it did not hurt anyone if nobody came to smash your vynils with a hammer when the cassettes were sold.

I still listen to vynils, by the way.

[The Wolves]

I prefer paper, but that's my nostalgic side speaking. I do have a kindle and am starting to read more and more on it.

I do buy books in paper tho if they're books that I love and are classics and I buy them on my Kindle also. I have tons and tons of books that I keep in storage and I have the same books on my Kindle so it's easier to read on my Kindle cause I have a ton of books just handy.

[TrackerNeil]

That is incredibly flawed:, you did not have to abandon the rights to your vynils when you chose to buy cassettes, in fact if you were wise by then, you either still have those vynils to play whenever you feel like, or you got some money off selling them.

When turntables went away, I may have technically had the rights to my vinyl records but I could still no longer play them, so I think that's a difference that makes no difference.

However, I do agree that there's something awkward about buying a book and then losing the rights to it. Perhaps Amazon and B&N need to switch to a Netflix model, in which a user rents access to the entire library of work. (I think Prime works this way.) That, of course, requires a change in expectations, which can happen.

In any case, it's not something I worry about much any more, which I couldn't say a year ago. Nowadays, I just accept that those few who feel entitled to steal will do so no matter what you do to prevent them. Better just to get your work out there and trust in the majority of readers who believe that good art is worth good money.

[aceluby]

Reading on my Nexus 7 is far more convenient, even though I do prefer paper books. They are convenient to buy, convenient to take along w/ me anywhere, don't need a light, fit HUGE books in my back pocket...

But when you drop your book in the tub you don't lose a book... you lose your library :P

[TrackerNeil]

But when you drop your book in the tub you don't lose a book... you lose your library :P

Word. Although I can read on my iPad, too, via the Kindle app, so I've got a backstop of sorts. Still, a paper book never crashes, and Amazon can't revoke it without coming to your house and taking it off the shelf.

[MisterOJ]

This is baffling, a download is a copy, as is any operation where you query a filesystem in a way or another, and replicate the sequence of bits from that filesystem in another place. Each copy is a "completely different and new file", your hard drive physical components don't teleport, the only thing that matter is the content; you copy twice from the same source, you have the exact same result than if you you copied once from the original source then copied that copy, that's how computers work.

You act as if those "original" and "new, different" copies were physical items... they are not, they are immaterial data, and you happen to own several copies of it, against explicit (though stupid in the same "a file is like a physical book" way) rules.

Sure, it's tolerated and some companies may even provides ways with which one can do it easily, but it's, at least in my country, at the same level as private copy: illegal, and very much something the big actors would want to get rid of.

The "rules" don't say you can't own multiple digital copies, though. They say you aren't allowed to make copies of the work. If I download one to my Nook through the B&N website and then download one to my desktop through the B&N website - I have not copied anything. B&N provided me with two copies, but I did not create either of them.

Now, if I took the copy on my desktop PC and dragged it onto a flash drive, then I have broken copyright law by making a copy. But it's not a violation if the bookseller provides more than one copy.

[Anatúrinbor]

Nowadays, I just accept that those few who feel entitled to steal will do so no matter what you do to prevent them. Better just to get your work out there and trust in the majority of readers who believe that good art is worth good money.

I hope you're not saying that people who buy an ebook and expect to keep it forever think that they are entitled to steal it. Pirating a books that you haven't bought is a different story.

[TrackerNeil]

I hope you're not saying that people who buy an ebook and expect to keep it forever think that they are entitled to steal it. Pirating a books that you haven't bought is a different story.

Oh, no, no! I don't mean to imply that anyone who bought a DRM-free book is stealing, or that they are would-be thieves and I hope I haven't come across that way.

Let me clear up any doubt I created: Anyone who legally buys a book owns it in whatever state it's in. Stealing an ebook, to me, is obtaining it from someone who has illegally copied the book and makes it available to others for free. Those who crack the DRM but don't thereafter distribute the work aren't doing anything wrong by me.

[john]

When Amazon or B&N finally bring their dastadly scheme to fruition and begin taking everybodys ebooks off them, are they supposed to be able to access users devices even if they're unconnected or switched off? Because otherwise, a simple fix would seem to be to just not connect your kindle/nook to the internet.

[TrackerNeil]

When Amazon or B&N finally bring their dastadly scheme to fruition and begin taking everybodys ebooks off them, are they supposed to be able to access users devices even if they're unconnected or switched off? Because otherwise, a simple fix would seem to be to just not connect your kindle/nook to the internet.

Yes, but then you can never reenable the device, which makes your Nook or Kindle a big, expensive paperweight.

I wonder, though, if either seller would ever mass-revoke books in that way. I guess they could, but to what end? If hundreds of thousands of Americans were asked to re-purchase books, I suspect we'd see a great deal of trouble for Amazon and Barnes& Noble, and a possible opening for a rival.