Re: e-book publishing

On 8 Jun 2000, Eric Eldred <eldred[_at_]eldritchpress.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Eric Eldred <eldred[_at_]eldritchpress.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Publishers now see potential profit in hanging on to the book,
> > > and can be using the old contracts to profit unduely from their
> > > publication in electronic form.
> >
> > If the publishers keep marketing the work, why shouldn't their
> > investment continue to reap returns?
>
> Marketing by "eBook" publishers is often a joke. They keep the
> book's copyright just because it doesn't cost them any money to
> store it on tape somewhere and then print the book on demand, one
> copy for that one reader who will buy it. Of course, hanging on
> to the copyright is also something the publisher can mantain on
> balance sheets as good will or intangible property, depreciate,
> and if enough of these are hoarded, perhaps Hollywood would
> discover some treasure and pay lots of money for it.

"Marketing" by the major ebook publishers appears to me to emphasize the technology and ride the coattails of print publishers' promotion and authors' brand attraction.

> An author might wish to make sure -- if the marketing is not genuine
> -- that the "out of print" clause not prevent the rights from
> returning to her so she can do a better job herself. I'm sure
> decent publishers would cooperate.

Good point. How do you define performance? Before the Thor Tool decision, print publishers wrote off their inventories, kept the BOOKS IN PRINT listings and sold the last book of every title if they could. That was OK. There was "no cost" as long as space in the warehouse held out. How is the eBook strategy different?

> > There is a movement in Congress to force all publishing into
> > e-formats, abandoning print, in connection with the library
> > depository program (which distributes free copies of government
> > documents to 1300 libraries around the country). The movement
> > argues that epublishing will save money. For whom? First the
> > libraries must buy more computers to provide access. Second,
> > they will probably buy paper and microform copies from private
> > sector programs set up specifically to supply this information
> > in archival media wuch as paper and microforms.
>
> Tell us more about this. Do you mean government documents, not
> "all publishing"? Why wouldn't the private sector be involved
> in the electronic publishing, as the latest scheme for
> Congressional documents appears to be?

Sorry I wasn't clearer. Yes this point is about all government publishing, including the government depository program. It is most likely that the private sector will fill the void by supplying paper editions to libraries that once got them for free. Paper is desired because it is archival and can be used without equipment that is expensive and soon obsolete. Libraries do not have a lot of money for equipment and materials or space for computers in reading rooms designed for books. Patrons' time on computers is often limited to an hour or less. Library computers generally lack accessible disk drives. I have also noticed that government PDF files, such as the latest Dept. of Commerce census of publishers, are set to disable offline usage!!

The Dept of Commerce has also proposed to abandon the National Technical Information Service and let the world download technical reports from the multitude of government agencies that prepare them. Gone would be the huge bibliographic database maintained by NTIS as well as the convenience of obtaining a well-produced paper copy (often generated from microfiche) and having, instead, a mess held by rubber bands and paper clips.

If any of this point concerns you, you might write to your people in Congress.

Thanks for your interest.

Albert Henderson
Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000 <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Mon Jun 12 2000 - 18:11:08 GMT