I think five minutes on amazon would show you that you are incorrect, but not if you only use it to cherry pick examples to prove your point while ignoring counter-evidence. I'm not talking about used books I'm talking about brand new copies. A new copy that has been marked down is still a new copy. (And, in any case, the entire used market does in fact invalidate your argument -- unless you think the content of a book mysteriously changes once someone else has purchased it?) Publishers often print way too many copies of a popular book, and then bookstores have to get rid of those copies. And they print copies in multiple editions, paperback, etc., which they sell at different prices. Content has nothing to do with this. And the high price of textbooks is absolutely not about the content -- a good textbook can be cheaper than a shitty one. It's about the fact that there's a specialized market for the book and that smaller market means higher production and distribution costs, especially if it's not a textbook used in many classes. Good textbook, bad textbook, that's the student's and professor's problem, not the publisher's (and it's the editor's problem until the book is published, but that won't have much impact on pricing).
Anyway I don't think we're disagreeing all that much on the substance of things here; this is really a minor point....
A hardcover volume filled with blank pages is going to sell for substantially less than the same volume with a popular novel inside it, let alone a textbook of the type the original post talks about.
This just isn't true at all. Many popular novels can be had for a penny or so; and there are "blank books" you can spend a hundred dollars on. I'm not saying the content is meaningless, just that it does not determine value, certainly not on its own. You're focused more on what motivates someone to want the book rather than what determines its economic value.
And bestsellers in hardcover are going to sell for more than unpopular books in hardcover. Compare the price of Stephen King novels in a given format to those of other suspense writers in the same format. (A simple search on Amazon will do the trick.)
and a simple search on amazon will find many popular books that can be had for pennies. You can't infer a rule from a few examples you pick and choose, especially when it's so damn easy to find counter examples that upset such a rule.
What I'm fighting against is the insane idea that when you buy a book, you're paying mostly for its format. You're not. You're paying for the content of the book. Without the content, there'd be no reason to buy it. Does the physical makeup of a paper book have value? Yes, it has some. But without the content, all you're buying is a notebook, and that's worth substantially less.
Again, you're right but you're confusing things. The content is what makes you want the book but it is simply not the sole determinant (or even the most significant determinant) of the book's value. To offer an extreme example, this very popular book can be had brand new for four bucks whereas this book which you've probably never heard of will set you back about a thousand dollars, even used.
there was a medieval book called "SaintRoulette" that had this feature but it didn't work out too well. The Saint materialized, but all he did was hold up a sign that said "tits or gtfo"
Two issues here: the economic value of the book and your personal reason for purchasing the book. Of course you generally (but not always) want to read the book for its content, but its content is not what determines its value. Your claim that popular books can be more expensive is nonsense -- they can also be much cheaper, and in fact since publishers often produce so many more of a popular book, they quite often are much cheaper. In fact, the same content is sold in different price points, such as when a book is published in hardback, paperback, and ebook versions. And, according to your argument, used books would be roughly the same cost as new books since the content has usually not degraded after the book's use.
I was disputing that claim in your post, "whether you want to admit it or not."
Yes, you're right of course, copyright violation comes into play too - I didn't intend to say differently. The point is that this is not the same as a "sharing music" situation. Copyright violation may come into play in both situations but they are very different -- plagiarism aside, this is not a file on bittorrent; it's offered up for sale.
Umm, no. We didn't hear that argument, at least not the argument written by the troll above. And no, ebook piracy isn't the least bit similar. This is plagiarism pure and simple -- the guy took a whole fucking book written by someone else and put his name on it and then sold it for money. It's not the least bit analogous to copying music, and it is well covered by currently existing laws.
That is a really weird part of the Judge's opinion -- he makes it very clear that he does not think Weiner is a pedophile but that he wants people to wrongly think he is a pedophile in order to justify mistreating him, his wife, and his children. If I was Weiner's lawyer I would think I'd have a strong case for appeal.
Slashdot Mirror
You're assuming Gen. McChrystal did this by mistake.
Exactly. Just like General McChrystal talking smack to Rolling Stone. These people are not idiots, folks.
you know what else isn't new? The posts telling us this isn't new! =P
First published on slashdot in June of 1983
"You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."
They actually got that one right; though they probably shouldve mentioned the salmonella risks...
Evian.
I think five minutes on amazon would show you that you are incorrect, but not if you only use it to cherry pick examples to prove your point while ignoring counter-evidence. I'm not talking about used books I'm talking about brand new copies. A new copy that has been marked down is still a new copy. (And, in any case, the entire used market does in fact invalidate your argument -- unless you think the content of a book mysteriously changes once someone else has purchased it?) Publishers often print way too many copies of a popular book, and then bookstores have to get rid of those copies. And they print copies in multiple editions, paperback, etc., which they sell at different prices. Content has nothing to do with this. And the high price of textbooks is absolutely not about the content -- a good textbook can be cheaper than a shitty one. It's about the fact that there's a specialized market for the book and that smaller market means higher production and distribution costs, especially if it's not a textbook used in many classes. Good textbook, bad textbook, that's the student's and professor's problem, not the publisher's (and it's the editor's problem until the book is published, but that won't have much impact on pricing).
Anyway I don't think we're disagreeing all that much on the substance of things here; this is really a minor point....
A hardcover volume filled with blank pages is going to sell for substantially less than the same volume with a popular novel inside it, let alone a textbook of the type the original post talks about.
This just isn't true at all. Many popular novels can be had for a penny or so; and there are "blank books" you can spend a hundred dollars on. I'm not saying the content is meaningless, just that it does not determine value, certainly not on its own. You're focused more on what motivates someone to want the book rather than what determines its economic value.
And bestsellers in hardcover are going to sell for more than unpopular books in hardcover. Compare the price of Stephen King novels in a given format to those of other suspense writers in the same format. (A simple search on Amazon will do the trick.)
and a simple search on amazon will find many popular books that can be had for pennies. You can't infer a rule from a few examples you pick and choose, especially when it's so damn easy to find counter examples that upset such a rule.
What I'm fighting against is the insane idea that when you buy a book, you're paying mostly for its format. You're not. You're paying for the content of the book. Without the content, there'd be no reason to buy it. Does the physical makeup of a paper book have value? Yes, it has some. But without the content, all you're buying is a notebook, and that's worth substantially less.
Again, you're right but you're confusing things. The content is what makes you want the book but it is simply not the sole determinant (or even the most significant determinant) of the book's value. To offer an extreme example, this very popular book can be had brand new for four bucks whereas this book which you've probably never heard of will set you back about a thousand dollars, even used.
there was a medieval book called "SaintRoulette" that had this feature but it didn't work out too well. The Saint materialized, but all he did was hold up a sign that said "tits or gtfo"
Two issues here: the economic value of the book and your personal reason for purchasing the book. Of course you generally (but not always) want to read the book for its content, but its content is not what determines its value. Your claim that popular books can be more expensive is nonsense -- they can also be much cheaper, and in fact since publishers often produce so many more of a popular book, they quite often are much cheaper. In fact, the same content is sold in different price points, such as when a book is published in hardback, paperback, and ebook versions. And, according to your argument, used books would be roughly the same cost as new books since the content has usually not degraded after the book's use.
I was disputing that claim in your post, "whether you want to admit it or not."
Yes, you're right of course, copyright violation comes into play too - I didn't intend to say differently. The point is that this is not the same as a "sharing music" situation. Copyright violation may come into play in both situations but they are very different -- plagiarism aside, this is not a file on bittorrent; it's offered up for sale.
Being paid a salary is actually quite different from working for free.
"on staff" doesn't mean they work for free. If you know attorneys who work for free, please send their number.
it was a dupe
The price of a book has nothing to do with scarcity. It's the value of the ideas in the book that create the value.
Ahh, that explains why books with really good ideas are so much more expensive than books with bad ideas.
Umm, no. We didn't hear that argument, at least not the argument written by the troll above. And no, ebook piracy isn't the least bit similar. This is plagiarism pure and simple -- the guy took a whole fucking book written by someone else and put his name on it and then sold it for money. It's not the least bit analogous to copying music, and it is well covered by currently existing laws.
just sarcasm.
then you won't have to know how to spell them
previous argument was a ridiculous strawman.
It's not all, "bork bork bork"?
of course that's because that's the only Swedish tabloid I'd ever heard of.
It WAS and IS unjustified media fear mongering. They had everyone expecting another Spanish flu at least
NO ONE expects the Spanish flu!!!
...how long before we see fetish sites devoted to girls popping these huge glowing balloons?
That is a really weird part of the Judge's opinion -- he makes it very clear that he does not think Weiner is a pedophile but that he wants people to wrongly think he is a pedophile in order to justify mistreating him, his wife, and his children. If I was Weiner's lawyer I would think I'd have a strong case for appeal.
What happened to 1. collect underwear?? WTF am I supposed to do with all this underwear now?!