Books on the Nightstand discussion

For our Monday morning discussion over our coffee (and Amazon is a bad guy again). Waiting to read your comments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/opi...

Oh do not get me started.
This one needs a gallon of bourbon and a tequila chaser.

Ann wrote: "Oh do not get me started.
This one needs a gallon of bourbon and a tequila chaser."

Is Thursday night soon enough? (Oh, and when do you sleep?)

That's an interesting article Linda. I continue to contend that an even bigger part of the problem is the ever decreasing number of people who actually read books. There are the addicts like us who can't possibly afford to pay full retail for everything we read and the rest of the U.S. (dare I say world?) who read at most, one book a year.

Janet wrote: "That's an interesting article Linda. I continue to contend that an even bigger part of the problem is the ever decreasing number of people who actually read books. There are the addicts like us who can't possibly afford to pay full retail for everything we read and the rest of the U.S. (dare I say world?) who read at most, one book a year."


This was the latest article that I could find citing the average number of books read in the U.S.:
http://now.msn.com/how-many-books-did...

Basically, the number is six, with 25% of all Americans not reading any :-/


And then we have this - The average number of hours watched spent watching television:
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainm...

That's 1,768 hours a year (or 73.67 days) :-/


I read about 100 books a year (I'm currently on track to read about 150) and I watch no television. I do watch a movie maybe once a month though :-) For me, the biggest threat to my reading life is the internet. I spend a stupid amount of time online :-(

Linda wrote: "For our Monday morning discussion over our coffee (and Amazon is a bad guy again). Waiting to read your comments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/opi......"

For many academics today, their own copyrights hold little financial value because scholarly publishing has grown so unprofitable. The copyrights of other authors, by contrast, often inhibit scholars who want to quote freely from those works or use portions in class. Thus, under the cri de coeur that “information wants to be free,” some professors and others are calling for copyright to be curtailed or even abandoned. High-minded slogans aside, these academics are simply promoting their own careers over the livelihoods of other writers.

I remember when I was taking some classes at university that the teachers were not allowed to copy articles or excerpts from books for the students' usage. Oftentimes, the original work was so obscure that if you did manage to find a copy on the market, it was prohibitively expensive. Usually there was only one copy at the library; but unavailable for circulation (and sometimes not even that. Books were often in off-campus storage.) The professor would have the article printed once and put on reserve with little metal stickers on the sheets. There would only be one copy and it would have the copyright violation warning stamped at the top of each page. You were time-limited to the material. If you took it upon yourself to try and copy the article, the copies would end up all fuzzy and nearly illegible. I don't know how that worked/if that had anything to do with the metal label or not. Anyway, it was extremely frustrating because the material was often dense or archaic, with untranslated Latin, Old French or Old English. There was no way students could read even five pages of the material in the one hour allotted! Those who actually did the reading managed it by repeated visits to the library; but I suspect many bailed on the whole process.

I once had to buy a book of which there were only three copies extant fourteen years ago. The price was $512. It was available on AMZN for $215 (I suspect that was a data entry mistake.) I grabbed up this "bargain" as a student. Now, it's a steal at $120. No on-demand print option. No eBook option.

I am extremely conflicted about the strict application of copyright law. I don't know much about the academic presses; but I do know that a lot of scholarly work doesn't get into the hands of students by the copyright "virtue" of inaccessibility. I want authors and scholars to be compensated for their work; but there is also a need to have the work made available.

Tanya/dog eared copy wrote: "Linda wrote: "For our Monday morning discussion over our coffee (and Amazon is a bad guy again). Waiting to read your comments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/opi......"

Tanya, that was of particular interest to me, who just a few years ago was helping my son find books for his college classes through just about any means possible for my pocket book. Now, I'm working at the same university in the library and observe students who borrow the books from us (for in library use and sometimes with cautioning from us about the copyright laws).

Also, I laugh whenever I fill out a questionnaire with choices for "How many books do you read a year?" Even on Book Reporter the option for the most amount of books is usually 10+.

Tanya/dog eared copy wrote: "Janet wrote: "That's an interesting article Linda. I continue to contend that an even bigger part of the problem is the ever decreasing number of people who actually read books. There are the addic..."

I also spend a ridiculous amount of time online but a lot of it is when I'm supposed to be working :-)

Those figures you cite are not very heartening.

The whole article had me going, "Yes! BUT..." Actually, the publishing industry as a whole has me doing that! In this case, I can certainly understand Turow's polemic as he is head of the Writer's Guild and; I certainly decry AMZN's monopolistic practices which rape the industry with impunity while dancing under the banner of free trade; BUT I'm also a relatively high volume reader (certainly more than 6-15 books a year) who has very keenly felt the expense of having to purchase academic texts, had to live without libraries for six months, has only one independent store in the area (which happens to be an singularly unpleasant establishment), and being forced to scavenge secondary markets (including exchanges) to find what I need or want. I want writers to be able to able to support themselves from their work AND I want to be able to have access to books. Who knew that these goals would become, at times, mutually exclusive?

Tanya/dog eared copy wrote: "The whole article had me going, "Yes! BUT..." Actually, the publishing industry as a whole has me doing that! In this case, I can certainly understand Turow's polemic as he is head of the Writer's ..."

: > )

Tanya/dog eared copy wrote: "The whole article had me going, "Yes! BUT..." Actually, the publishing industry as a whole has me doing that! In this case, I can certainly understand Turow's polemic as he is head of the Writer's ..."

Ah yes, therein lies the core of the dilemma...mutually exclusive goals.

Tanya/dog eared copy wrote: "Janet wrote: "That's an interesting article Linda. I continue to contend that an even bigger part of the problem is the ever decreasing number of people who actually read books. There are the addic..."

That is so funny, but not in a good way. A co-worker commented to me last week how much she admires me for being able to read so much while she can't find the time, though she said she can watch tv for 6 hours at a stretch. ?!?!
All of us must really skew that average. I can read six books in a MONTH without even breaking a sweat. But I have to make up for my husband who doesn't read at all :-(

Linda wrote: "For our Monday morning discussion over our coffee (and Amazon is a bad guy again). Waiting to read your comments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/opi......"

And I just skimmed this piece, but wouldn't this decision only really affect the authors who are making the big bucks anyway - Turow, John Grisham,Jodi Picoult etc.?

Here's an interesting rebuttal to the Turow piece.

I will go on record as saying I don't agree with everything in either piece .. and in fact disagree with much in both pieces. But it's interesting reading nonetheless.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/2013...

Suzanne wrote: "Tanya/dog eared copy wrote: "All of us must really skew that average. I can read six books in a MONTH without even breaking a sweat. But I have to make up for my husband who doesn't read at all :-(..."

Same here! Hubby has no desire to read, listen to audio, nothing but work on his computer (he is legitimately bettering himself and working though, not gaming or watching Netflix so I can't be too upset).

Once a friend stopped by to drop something off while I was cooking and listening to an Audible book. He asked what I was listening to and I said "a book"; he wrinkled his nose and said "Ew".

I agree with Turow and some of you about the problem with books and reading is that there aren't that many readers. But I also fault us readers. We believe that the stuff that we read should be free or very cheap. We don't want to pay for it. It is easier for me to dish out the dough for a book (paper and ink) than it is for an e-book, and if I read if off my computer it ought to be free. For this I blame the radio and TV.

Most of us grew up listening to radio that didn't cost anything except for advertisements. Most people don't know that each time a song is played the radio station has to pay the recording company for that right.

Most of us grew up with TV coming into the house free. We only had to listen to the advertising and have electricity. The content was free. When I look at a computer screen I think TV. What is on my computer screen should be free. What comes on my e-reader should be free. I think that the publishers should have never started offering e-books for any price other than what they charged for a hard copy book. Selling them at a discount led people to believe that it is the book that cost money when in reality it is the content that costs money. I read somewhere that the cost of a hardcopy book is somewhere around $3.00 per book. The rest of the cost is in intellectual property content of everybody from the author to the person who designed the cover.

I don't really trust the publishers so I buy books whenever I have the choice. That way I have something real and the publisher can't come and take it away from me. With my e-reader I don't have that same assurance. I think that someday they may cut my access to those books, so I still think that hardcopy is better in that regard.

Almost every time I walk into Barnes & Noble I wonder how long that coffee shop can make enough money to keep the book warehouse that is the rest of the store, open?

Benita I just wanted to answer a small part of your post with respect. I personally never expected to get a book for free or cheaply.I am thrilled to pay the price for any book and gladly went to the local bookstore to get it.As for TV and the Internet for most of my life I have paid premium prices for cable and high speed Internet and I am happy to get it.I know about royalties ect. Please don't lump everyone into a big group about costs.