Comments on: James Boyle and/vs. Amazon Kindle 2

By: Evin M

Evin M — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:15:44 +0000

which (I forgot to relate) was an issue with the Kindle because audiobook are a associated with different set of rights…if I recall correctly.

By: Evin M

Evin M — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:14:32 +0000

As far as I know, there isn’t any limit on the capacity to convert books into Braille as a format accessible to blind people. In fact, I think it was mentioned in one of our readings (unless I’m just making that up). This ability to transpose format seems like the same thing as making an audiobook…

By: Dan Spector

Dan Spector — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:15:35 +0000

I think publishers provide an important editing service, even if they’re reducing costs by going straight to e-book format; it’s a bit like the comparisons between newspapers and bloggers, I think. The possibility of e-books allows amateur writers more accessibility, but publishing houses will (hopefully) remain to lend more authority and fact-checking to written work (especially non-fiction).

Furthermore, an interesting alternative to e-books is printing-on-demand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Print_on_demand), where books are printed as soon as they’re ordered, which (supposedly) reduces the need for capital.

On a tangential note, I first heard about print-on-demand publishing in context of the Long Tail theory, which seems to be particularly relevant to the Hype Machine, eBooks, etc. Some more recent articles have criticized the theory; you might find them interesting.

http://www.longtail.com/the_long_tail/2008/06/excellent-hbr-p.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/07/long_tail_debunked/
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article5380304.ece

By: Evin M

Evin M — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 01:16:59 +0000

I think “publishers” might become an outdated term, if we’re moving into the era of online books. Are they even publishing anything anymore, if the writing goes straight to e-book format? I think that Amazon will become a new publisher, because authors could work with them directly to create an e-book, without worrying about the additional step in the process.

By: David L

David L — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:44:20 +0000

Wow, a quick search says that authors of digital books, under the Amazon Digital Publication Distribution Agreement, are allowed to negotiate a Suggested Retail Price with Amazon, then take 35% of that original SRP, regardless of whether Amazon discounts the digital book subsequently. http://forums.digitaltextplatform.com/dtpforums/entry.jspa?externalID=2&categoryID=12

35% sounds like a ton compared to supposedly 5-10% royalties or print books, or even 1$/book contracts that bigger-name authors prefer. So I’m not sure if my numbers makes sense.

But if that is indeed the case, it seems like all authors might have a sizable incentive to offer their works digitally with Amazon at this point in time. Even if they miss out on hard-copy sales, 35% of $10 is better than 10% of $20 or $30. It looks like the real losers here are the publishers of course.

By: Grace A

Grace A — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:17:14 +0000

Does anyone know if the royalties that an author receives from selling a digital copy of a book to a Kindle reader are different from normal print royalties? If so, are they more or less than print royalties? The margins involved for the publishers must be different (at least compared to hardcover books) but it seems like publishers get more profit from a Kindle copy at $10 than from a paperback. If so, that might affect who adopts the technology and how quickly.

By: Ben S

Ben S — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:25:21 +0000

Incidentally, earlier today it was posted to Slashdot that the Author's Guild is objecting to the Kindle 2, claiming its inclusion of an automatic text-to-speech converter constitutes infringement of the right to create derivative works (producing an audio performance).