6 ms·
> They can also reach buyers who want to see the full product before making a purchasing decision or who wouldn't become aware of your book through conventional
by elcapitan 9y ago
> They can also reach buyers who want to see the full product before making a purchasing decision or who wouldn't become aware of your book through conventional marketing efforts.
This is definitely true for me, and one of the reasons why Oreilly is one of the defining "colors" on my bookshelf. In particular with technical literature I really need to get a good look into the book before I make a commitment and a decision to buy. I just don't want to spend money first and then stick to something that turns out to be rather disappointing.
So my usual way of buying books is to download various publications on a topic via Bittorrent and then buying the best one once I know what I want. This is similar to going to a public library, getting a few books, and buying the most convincing one for long-term use. If there was a micropayment way of paying for the short-term evaluation, I would be more than happy to pay for that (as I implicitly pay via library contributions, which go to the publishers to some part).
Having said that, Oreilly traditionally had a market of being the "printed out manual of open source software", which I'm pretty sure is dead by now, and I wonder if they can reposition completely. One thing I noticed is that they now often sell books that have titles that sound very general "Data Science for blabla" but turn out to be really just tutorials/manuals for some particular framework. That's the kind of book I would want to avoid. Nothing against good examples, but I don't need printed out tutorials.
- nhangen 9y agoWhat makes you think that this is OK?
- elcapitan 9y agoI don't think it is ok in a legal sense, but it is perfectly fine in a moral sense. I can spend any time I want in a bookstore or a library and read those books as well, and the way I use BT is exactly that. I don't care if corrupt lawmakers have illegalized that. I care for the people who make good books, and I do so by selecting the best of them and paying those.
- chii 9y ago> What makes you think that this is OK? what makes you think this _shouldn't_ be OK?
- maccard 9y agoBecause it's (most likely, depending on where OP lives) illegal. Distributing and copying other people's IP is illegal and unethical, rven if you have noble intentions after the fact. (To be clear, i don't agree with the DRM implementation, I don't agree with O'Reillys recent change and I don't agree with an always online subscription service that is out of the price range of most people).
- CuriousSkeptic 9y agoIllegal yes. Unethical? Very much still debated. It's really a fascinating debate once you go looking for quality arguments. Lawrence Lessig (creator of Creative Commons) has a couple of great keynotes, and books, setting the tone for the battle ground. Benklers Wealth of Networks is another great resource covering similar topics. Then you have the clear opposition variants such as Stallmans arguments. The book Against Monopoly is also a good read on this angle (this one is more about patents than copyright though) I don't recall the source right now, but there is also this fascinating history of copyright in Europe and the statue of Anne which, ostensibly, was mostly about censorship and not at all about authors rights or ability make a living. First step is to recognize that IP is a propaganda term, designed to confuse issues and appeal to an entirely different set of laws and moral frameworks. So if you use this term, know that you've been successfully manipulated by the other side of the debate.
- Ace17 9y ago> First step is to recognize that IP is a propaganda term, designed to confuse issues and appeal to an entirely different set of laws and moral frameworks. Exactly. BTW, equating non-profit copyright infringement with attacking ships also might be some kind of propaganda.
- wolfgke 9y ago