> eBooks don't need printing, warehousing, distribution and retail shelving
But they do need editing, layout, design, marketing, etc, which are a significant part of the cost of a book. A book is never a solo endeavor by an author.
Presumably, though, those are also things that you'd need for a physical print book, and you could share some of that effort / cost between the two? Maybe this is a naive assumption, but I would assume that the total cost per unit of ebook is still a decent amount less than a print book, even when factoring for the publishing costs, purely due to the fact that you are dealing with a digital version compared with a print version that needs real materials and labor.
You put it well and presbyterian is right in that point, but eBooks don't have the financial risk of retail merchandise planning and merchandising, and that cost saving isn't differentiated.
Not really. The person I'm replying to wants to watch streaming services and their own files. Grab any streaming box that supports the services, and it almost certainly has a Jellyfin app or a compatible one. Problem solved.
> I would rather pay them than pay the publisher for them to only get a small cut.
Publishers aren't just stealing money that should go to authors. We can debate percentages and such, but buying a book also pays the editors (who any author will tell you are just as important to a book as they are), the typesetters, the designers, etc.
For academic books, which are after all a substantial part of Anna, the publishers aren’t usually paying the editors if the book is a collection of papers. The editors got paid by the grant funding for the project that produced the research.
Moreover, many respected academic publishers no longer provide proofreading or typesetting: they expect the authors or editors to commission their own proofreading, and the editors to just send in a PDF with camera-ready output.
For monographs, the “editor” that the publisher provides is only there to guide the author in producing their own camera-ready output, and does not actually do any work on the contents of the book. The publisher will hand off the manuscript to 1–2 peer reviewers, but those peer reviewers are unpaid.
Obviously publishers provide some amount of value, but for a subset of the media I consume they are not great.
In the more indie fantasy scene authors often pay for editing themselves out of pocket. Often the only "publisher" they can get is direct publishing through Kindle, which then locks them into exclusivity with Kindle/Amazon. It's frankly disgusting but it's a way to help them get paid. I'd rather kick these people $20-50 directly than do anything else.
I've used it for basically any text editing task. Quickly jotting stuff down for later, web development, writing articles, drafting emails, whatever. I've used VS Code a lot and have used Obsidian for notes/worldbuilding in TTRPGs, but neither really gave me anything I wasn't already getting in BBEdit for general-purpose coding and text editing, and neither come close to its ability to do elaborate text transformations.
These days I use emacs for most of that stuff, but I have such a fondness for BBEdit, and still drop into it for regex stuff enough, that I'm buying the update.
They do, but under a completely different system than the way that they do for print books. When a library buys a print book, they can keep it in circulation for as long as they want and it's physically durable, but for digital, they're paying either per circulation or for an amount of time. They never own anything, they pay for temporary licenses, just like you never own the digital media you purchase in most cases.
The point that the person you're replying to is making is that this totally breaks the way libraries have always worked, and that it takes a lot of power away from the buyers (whether that's you or your local library) and puts way more in the hand of the publishers.
>just like you never own the digital media you purchase in most cases.
Any digital asset that's on a hard drive I own, in my own home, is more owned than any most other kinds of properties that there are. The government may not protect my ownership of it, but the government doesn't even know about it... nor does anyone else.
People who are truly worried about this issue shouldn't sit around whining that they don't own their digital purchases, they should instead go out and own everything, whether they purchase it or not.
What made libraries not work is that you stopped wanting to own things. With no one wanting to own things, people and the governments stopped worrying about whether anyone could. And once they stopped doing that, libraries too found out they couldn't own anything either. Without meaning to, maybe, you all did this.
Is there really a meaningful distinction between how libraries treat digital book licenses and physical books when you actually hit reality? My knowledge of how libraries work is very shallow, but I've always understood that they treat physical books as essentially consumable and have fairly high standards for what a "lendable" copy of a book is.
A purely assumptive example, but if a library pays for a 2 year license to lend a digital book, and the average shelf-life of a physical book is ~2 years, what's the difference?
I think the practical difference is that the rates that publishers charge libraries for ebooks are significantly higher than what either consumers pay for the ebook or what a physical book costs. See https://archive.is/Ha3VQ for one example:
> To illustrate the economics of e-book lending, the N.Y.P.L. sent me its January, 2021, figures for “A Promised Land,” the memoir by Barack Obama that had been published a few months earlier by Penguin Random House. At that point, the library system had purchased three hundred and ten perpetual audiobook licenses at ninety-five dollars each, for a total of $29,450, and had bought six hundred and thirty-nine one- and two-year licenses for the e-book, for a total of $22,512. Taken together, these digital rights cost about as much as three thousand copies of the consumer e-book, which sells for about eighteen dollars per copy. As of August, 2021, the library has spent less than ten thousand dollars on two hundred and twenty-six copies of the hardcover edition, which has a list price of forty-five dollars but sells for $23.23 on Amazon. A few thousand people had checked out digital copies in the book’s first three months, and thousands more were on the waiting list. (Several librarians told me that they monitor hold requests, including for books that have not yet been released, to decide how many licenses to acquire.)
One complication with e-books and e-audiobooks (as opposed to on CD) is that since you do NOT have to go in to "get" the book there's really no penalty for putting yourself on the waiting list, and it's long, and I've "checked out" more than one e-book that I never read (it had to be "returned" before I could begin).
The difference is that the books value, even reprints, become lower over time. Until they hit a minimum margin for the construction of said book.
Digital books/content requires little to no cost to replicate, unlike printing new books. But we have seen that the price of that content follows the "physical goods" model. Why should a 30-40 year old movie cost you $20 to steam?
> Is there really a meaningful distinction between how libraries treat digital book licenses and physical books when you actually hit reality?
The main difference I see is the centralisation of censorship vectors. Pulling physical books off library shelves is visible and rightfully prompts a shitshow. Bullying a publisher into not renewing lending licenses strikes me as way easier to pull off.
My library was recently asking for donations and they said the reason is more people are loaning out digital books which are significantly more expensive. I don't recall the details on the flyer though.
They sell them at the end of their life, sometimes, so you recoup a bit of the cost there. And you can also get books donated which reduces the up front cost.
I don't see a good way to do that for digital copies, and of course the expiry would be wholly artificial scarcity for them even if it was only a little bit more expensive than physical.
Yup. I forget the exact name of the campaign - it was something like "twelve pillars" - but decades ago the religious right realized that they were losing everything in court and their candidates were wildly unpopular in elections. So they shifted to just infiltrating banking and forcing their moral superiority complex on everyone else that way.
That's why porn stars can't have checking accounts (and then become targets of property theft and violent crime - because the criminals know they are unbankable, so they have piles of cash around.)
Fun fact: the most "Christian" religious states have the highest rates of teen pregnancy, rape, divorce, murder, property crime, etc. Plus christian religious leaders seem to be attracted to child sexual abuse like Elmo is to piles of cocaine.
I feel like maybe one should focus on cleaning up one's own moral house and lead by example before screeching to everyone else that they're going to hell for jerking off to a picture of a naked man or woman on the interwebs.
"there is no lock-in" is a thing that's said a lot about Obsidian and, as an Obsidian fan, I feel like isn't totally true. Yes, Obsidian just stores markdown files, but it has unique syntaxes, especially if you're using plugins, that aren't transferable. So while I can get my files out, I still have to go through the annoying process of fixing them and getting it working in whatever new system I switch to when I leave. It's still far better than a lot of other proprietary tools, absolutely, but it's also not trivial to drop Obsidian if/when you stop using it
Doesn't seem remotely fair to consider lock-in caused by plugins to be an Obsidian lock-in. If the plugin is storing data in such a way that it's not usable in a tool other than Obsidian, that's 100% the plugin's fault, not Obsidian's no matter which way you look at it.
Also, more generally, any software that has unique features will require "the annoying process of fixing them and getting it working in whatever new system I switch to when I leave", whether it's open source or not. So you're not actually looking for open source, you're just looking for something with perfect feature parity to another program.
> that's 100% the plugin's fault, not Obsidian's no matter which way you look at it
It doesn't really matter to me whose fault it is. Basically no one is using Obsidian without plugins, and the impact plugins have on your portability is something to consider when choosing to use Obsidian.
Obsidian doesn't collect any telemetry data but my estimate is that less than 10% of Obsidian users use plugins (might be closer to 1%). Most people don't even activate any of the built-in core plugins that are off by default.
You're right that it's not totally true, because it's not a universal Markdown flavor, but at the same time their additions are well-documented in their docs (they have to be for people to use them), so migration tools can just keep up with that.
But they do need editing, layout, design, marketing, etc, which are a significant part of the cost of a book. A book is never a solo endeavor by an author.
reply