"Are Books Dead?"

[Johannes]

The sensual aspect of reading a book is something I love too: The feeling of it, the sound of the pages turning, the printed word on pages ... I'd be very sad, should it be gone forever and there'd be just the screen left.

Still, that won't happen. Books and Ebooks will be coexisting, maybe not always peacefully, but you will be able to choose, I think. Piracy will be able and very easy, it already is. Even more so than ripping up or downloading music files.

 

[mjp]

Mostly I read older books, so it's not like there's any market impact from diehards like me refusing to get on board with ebooks.

It's not the impact on the market that's important though, it's the impact on you.

I don't have a Kindle or any other book reader (I just surrendered and bought a smart phone though, and you can read books on them I suppose), and I will print things out rather than reading long texts online too. I don't like the experience of reading from a screen.

Having said that, and speaking of old, rare or otherwise scarce books in particular, the computer and electronic reader are exactly what will save those old books. How much rare Bukowski material have you had a chance to read because someone went to the trouble of making an electronic file? The answer for me is, 'quite a bit.'

People laughed at Google when they said they wanted to scan all of the world's books (and started a class action suit to prevent them from doing so), but imagine that - an online library of every book that's in the public domain. What a resource. It would make the Library of Alexandria look like a backwoods bookmobile.

 

[Rekrab]

That's true. I've downloaded PDFs of a few rare titles in public domain that I have no chance of otherwise seeing. I read only the short sections I was interested in. If I wanted to read the whole book, I'd try to buy it as a POD reprint.

 

[Hosh]

I agree that length of the text has a lot to do with how viable it will be in an electronic form. I don't like reading more than a few thousand words in a sitting words on a screen...but do like reading much more from a physical book...sitting for an hour or two just devouring a book.

And new life for all kinds of little books we'd never ever be able to read is a pretty good thing. That's why the small press should be running wild and embracing eBooks. It should be scrambling to reprint their favorite writer's backlists -- all these books that came out in 30 copies which have been sold out for years. But that hasn't been the case. Instead small press folks (myself included) are slow to embrace eReaders, and bemoaning the death of actual books. In truth, what might be happening is the death of mass-produced, poorly made books!

Or maybe I'm just dreaming...

 

[Rekrab]

Oh crap. I just discovered that a book I really really want to read, that is long out of print and sells for $500, is available in an ebook for Nooks. For $1.99. I am so losing this argument ... er, discussion.

I don't own a Nook, so I can only hope it shows up in a Print On Demand edition. By the way, the book is still under copyright, apparently, but the publisher believes it's in the public domain.

 

[mjp]

the publisher believes it's in the public domain.

A more likely scenario, unfortunately, is that the "publisher" knows full well it isn't public domain, but it's not the product of a large publisher (with large lawyers), or it's not a well-known book that's on anybody's radar, so they just don't give a shit.

Am I close? ;)

 

[justine]

i think some of you need to actually take a look at some e-readers in person - it's NOT a mini computer and the screen is very different. they don't emit a light the way computer screens do.

 

[Rekrab]

A more likely scenario, unfortunately, is that the "publisher" knows full well it isn't public domain, but it's not the product of a large publisher (with large lawyers), or it's not a well-known book that's on anybody's radar, so they just don't give a shit.

Am I close? ;)

The original edition was from a big publisher, and it's now a well known book -- just made the 100 most in demand titles list. The book is House Without Windows by Barbara Newhall Follett. Published in 1927, the author disappeared in 1939, so maybe they assume the copyright wasn't renewed, but it was (probably by the publisher) in 1955 (all dates are approximate).

i think some of you need to actually take a look at some e-readers in person - it's NOT a mini computer and the screen is very different. they don't emit a light the way computer screens do.

I tried a Kindle for about 10 minutes. Did not like how it navigates. The screen seemed okay.

 

[bospress.net]

Here is what I found. I believe it to be correct, but it is based on the info from the Library of Congress records and my own theories...

That book was published January 21, 1927. By law, it had to be renewed in the 28th year after it was published, which would be anytime in the year 1955. It was renewed on December 10, 1954. That would seem to mean that the copyright was registered too early. That could make it invalid. If not, why say in the 28th year and not at about the 28th year? The government is usually pretty specific. If they say the 28th year, they mean the 28th year. That renewal, if even valid, ran for 47 years, which would mean that it would have gone into public domain on December 10, 2001, BUT in 1998, congress signed a copyright extension bill adding 20 years to any title still in copyright.

So, the question is, does the copyright lapse on December 10, 2021 or did it lapse in 1955 when they failed to renew the copyright in its 28th year as required?

Also, in 1968 Avon republished the book. I do not think that they were ever part of Knopf. Did they buy the rights to publish it, or did their lawyers figure that the copyright was invalid based on being too early?

Any thoughts?
Bill

 

[justine]

well, if any of you dinosaurs receive an e-reader from a well-meaning friend/relative, i would be more than happy to take it off your hands!

 

[Rekrab]

Justine: I assumed you own one already. You're first in line if I get a Kindle and decide I don't want it (which is very likely.)

Bill: I've read a fair amount on copyright but never heard of that idea it must be in the 28th year, and not before, but maybe that is the case. I've deal with law in my work and you're right: the language is very specific. A comma can change everything. I wondered how the book got reprinted as a paperback in 1968, how they got permission with the author missing. Maybe the copyright had already lapsed. Fascinating theory. And now, maybe the publisher of the ebook has figured this out and decided it's in public domain. So I'll hope for a real reprint (you know, edited and formatted and stuff), or at least a POD reprint.

The date on which the original publisher filed to renew suggests they jumped the gun by a few weeks. They filed on December 10, and it came up due January 1. Maybe they were worried about the paperwork getting processed during the holidays and built in too much lead time.

 

[justine]

nope, i'm waiting for the price to drop and for better versions. i'm not one of those people who has to have something as soon as it comes out (technology-wise, anyway). i think it's still a young enough product that many improvements still need to be made, so i'm gonna hold out for a while longer.

 

[Digney in Burnaby]

Is this like Betamax vs. VHS? I waited for that one to be over before I committed. Of course I didn't own a t.v. or a VCR during the 1980s.

Caught some bits of this CBC Radio Ideas show yesterday. Closing the Book. Is radio dead?

 

[number6horse]

I'm trying to hold out for "the good e-readers" but am losing patience lately. Not because I'm a tech-head who needs the latest and greatest, but because a friend of mine has a novel out on Amazon. And she has no plans to put it to paper. (And honestly, no means by which to put it to paper either.)

Just checked and the Kindle is currently $139.00 and from $120.00 used. I'm thinking when the $100.00 price-barrier gets broken, the sun will shine through and a celestial choir will sing out. On my Amazon account, anyway.

 

[Rekrab]

Thanks for the link to that radio show, Digney. I'll listen and get angry. I'd feel a lot better if they just didn't call them books. Sticking an "e" on the front of "book" doesn't make it a book. If they were called "schmeffs", I would not be so against the whole idea. As in, "No, my novel hasn't seen book publication yet, but until that happy day, you can read it in schmeff form for only 99 cents!"

As much as I am against ebooks (and I want to murder them) I can still imagine using the format for cynically profiting off miscellaneous texts thrown together merely to make a buck. I would have no problem with "publishing" non-fiction in that format. But anything that feels like art (poetry, literary fiction), I would only want to publish on paper.

What happens when your Kindle breaks or gets lost? Do you rebuy the ebooks, or can you download them again for free? Can you sell a used ebook to someone? Can you move it from platform to platform? I'm sure I could Google the answers ...

 

[mjp]

i'm waiting for the price to drop...

when the $100.00 price-barrier gets broken, the sun will shine through and a celestial choir will sing out.

If I were running Amazon or Barnes and Noble, I'd give the readers away. All it would take is 4 or 5 book purchases to get the return on that investment, and the massive amounts of free publicity that move generated would put a nail into the coffin of the competing hardware/format. And of course I'd figure out how to pass those hardware costs on to the authors. Since I'd be a businessman and all.

The readers will become redundant eventually anyway, when enough people have tablet computers and smartphones and surgically implanted plasma data storage sacks in their brains.

What happens when your Kindle breaks or gets lost? Do you rebuy the ebooks, or can you download them again for free?

In most cases you can download them again (in some cases they don't even live on your hardware, but rather "in the cloud.") I guess the natural extension of your question though, is what happens to your books when your house burns down or is under 10 feet of water?

 

[hank solo]

I don't own a Nook, so I can only hope it shows up in a Print On Demand edition. By the way, the book is still under copyright, apparently, but the publisher believes it's in the public domain.

You can get a free Nook reader application for your computer from the B&N site. Its not ideal, but if you just want to access this text then $1.99 for a digital copy beats the $$$$$ for a collectable paper edition. I haven't tried it but I will guess that printing the text out probably isn't possible.

 

[Rekrab]

hank solo: I'm genuinely tempted by that. Thanks for tip.

mjp: yeah, a friend of mine's house burned down and he lost thousands of rare books, records and original art works. Analog or digital -- it hardly matters when disaster strikes.

Just so you'll all not think me completely insane & irrational, I am of two minds when it comes to ebooks. Part A of my mind says a text is a text is a text, whether it's in print, scribbled in pencil on a napkin, stored on a web page, written in the sand with a stick. The words in the mind are what create literature. Media doesn't matter. I completely get that and agree, in Part A of my brain. Part B of my brain loves physical books, lives there most of the time, can't imagine a world where they not only exist, but are the pinnacle of culture, and hates the fact they are being supplanted by digital books. Part B wants to resist that inevitable change, wants to hold back the tide, and when it doesn't have a solid reason for doing so, will make up shit no matter how crazy it sounds. So, I could go either way on this question. But most of the time, I'm stuck in Part B.

 

[Stavrogin]

well, if any of you dinosaurs receive an e-reader from a well-meaning friend....

You e-reader advocates are heartless fiends. *sniff*

 

[justine]

Part A of my mind says a text is a text is a text, whether it's in print, scribbled in pencil on a napkin, stored on a web page, written in the sand with a stick. The words in the mind are what create literature. Media doesn't matter. I completely get that and agree, in Part A of my brain. Part B of my brain loves physical books, lives there most of the time, can't imagine a world where they not only exist, but are the pinnacle of culture, and hates the fact they are being supplanted by digital books. Part B wants to resist that inevitable change, wants to hold back the tide, and when it doesn't have a solid reason for doing so, will make up shit no matter how crazy it sounds. So, I could go either way on this question. But most of the time, I'm stuck in Part B.

why does it have to be either/or? it can be both, you know.

 

[Stavrogin]

Both are equally favorable - turning a blind eye to the future may result in a fender-mindbender. There are times an e-reader is a far better option than a book - there are times a book is the better option. I'm starting to sound like a Dylan song. I take my nine year old niece to the bookstore at least twice a month to satisfy her book fix and there is no "etch-a-sketch" as she puts e-books in her immediate future. She has that bookmarker for a reason. Heh. We live in times of overly rapid change which gives us that less-than-grounded feel and find no fault with those that say "Hey! Pull back on the reins"!

 

[Rekrab]

I have been doing a lot of thinking about this issue over the past week, ebooks vs real books, and I'm kind of doing a 180 on it. I still prefer real books, hands done, but I could be way wrong on the whole question. I do listen when you folks tell me I am full of it. And I am, so often. stay tuned.

 

[mjp]

I was reading an article in Vanity Fair about the writing/making/marketing of The Art of Fielding (the article is as much about the big-time publishing world as it is about the book itself), and it said in there somewhere that electronic sales for some best-sellers went fr0m 30% last summer to 50% this spring - in less than a year. Last year Amazon announced that they now sell more than 50% of their books as downloads.

People are obviously making their choice, and that choice is skewing digital. Like it or not.

To me it's no different than making a book on an antiquated letterpress or mimeograph or with toy rubber type - they're all books. Figure out a way to make an electronic version cool (no one has even started chipping away at that iceberg yet, but the possibilities are virtually limitless), and it's all a moot point. There will even be collectible electronic books. These books people download now will be collectible one day soon because they'll be obsolete and they'll seem quaint to kids who download interactive augmented-reality-GPS-driven books. Or whatever.

The article also reported that 14 billion dollars worth of books are sold in the US every year, not including textbooks and educational material.

So, yeah. Are books dead? Doesn't sound like it.

 

[pig ear press]

I don't want to go all Orwellian, but for me, I'm more concerned about how easily text can be altered when it's in electronic form. We're all well aware of Wikipedia and it's ability to confuse everyone with its "facts". I'm sure many have seen articles recently on the attempts (some successful) to change old texts, such as Catcher in the Rye, in order to fit with what is currently socially acceptable. How easily can a government erase history (or someones take on it) if it's all held in electronic form (the Russians are currently attempting to teach their kids a modern history of Russia that doesn't mention Stalin's atrocities; apparently Stalin may affect their self esteem, according to Putin).

I may have just had too much coffee. I am most certainly in no position to lead the battle cry. But before I influence a 'Kindle Burning', I do want to say that if fancy gadgets help get people reading then I'm all for that. After all, like the tobacco industry, we need to get to the children.

 

[Rekrab]

Some very smart and talented people here (mjp, Hosh, Justine, Jordan, Stavrogen, Jordan, Hank Solo, Purple Stickpin -- am I forgetting anyone?) have explained to me the pros and cons of this and I have listened. A couple days ago I had an insight. What has been pissing me off about ebooks really has nothing to do with literature or books. I'm pissed off because the 20th Century ended, and ebooks just remind me of that. Change has always been hard for me to accept.

I'll always prefer physical books. Reading screens gives me eye strain, and I like the feel, the smell, the look of real books. And I still believe, irrational as it may be, that physical books have some magic mojo. However, I have to admit that you can get a full literary experience reading an electronic text. Economically, for a writer, it makes sense to do ebooks. No up front costs for paper, ink, printing, binding, no shipping costs -- all that. If you can sell them (a big if), why leave the money on the table? And I need the money like a junky needs a fix. So I am open to the concept. I may not like it, but it's happening, and it may be a way to go if I want an audience and to make some income from my writing. So you have been warned. Don't call me a hypocrite if I start selling ebooks through Amazon or whatever. I have a shitload of bills and have done stupider things for a quick buck (such as SPIT).

 

[mjp]

$79 Kindles announced.

 

[pig ear press]

I just had a look at that site, can I ask a question...

lots of people on there are talking about adverts on their kindles and having to pay to switch them off. Is that right? If so, fuck me. I don't want to be told what to read/eat/fuck everytime I go to read. I get that pretty much everywhere else.

I got hold of three great books from dusty bookstores today. Despite bouncing over the fence and back many times, todays experience reminded me of why I would rather invest any money I have in paper than e-books.

I'm off to touch up my dusty purchase (Stalin's Bodyguard) and then finish myself off with a yellowing, Penguin collection of William Wantling (£3-suck it e-readers)

 

[bospress.net]

yeah, it seems that on the $79 and $99 models, they send adds straight up your ass. You have to pay them $30 to make them stop.

Something you'll never see in paper books, you damn whippersnappers (shaking my angry old, ink-stained fist).

BIll

 

[Stavrogin]

Paperbacks from the 60's and 70's often times had advertisements from cigarette companies smack down in the middle of the book. Just sayin' from a collector.

 

[Rekrab]

I was going to point that out, stav, but you beat me. I was just reading an old Philip K. Dick novel and somebody tore out the cigarette ad, taking part of the adjoining page with it.