Ebook pricing needs to be sorted out, but this article is wide of the mark. The author argues for ebooks to be identical to physical books, but forgets that phy

Ebook pricing needs to be sorted out, but this article is wide of the mark. The author argues for ebooks to be identical to physical books, but forgets that physical books have restrictions too. > Ebooks are computer code [...]. We don’t buy them, we lease them. This implies that books aren't licensed but they are. The paper and glue isn't but the text is. > It’s for this reason that we should stop using terminology like “bestseller lists” — when it really should be “most leased” lists Why not do this for paper books too? The copyrighted content in them is under a license to you. > Buyers of physical books can do whatever they want with them No way. Can I photocopy the book and sell copies of it? No. Can I write my own book using the books characters? No. Can I sell large quantities of them into foreign markets? No. Can I lend it to multiple people simultaneously? No, at least not without copying it which isn't allowed. > ebook distributors have radically changed the pricing from that of regular books. [...] For the physical book, libraries would pay $14.40 [and for the ebook] libraries would pay $78. Is that really such a radical change though? As the article later notes a library might buy as many as 80 copies of a major bestseller, which in this case is $1152. Yet the e-book is only $78. In order to compare these two numbers we need to know how many times the ebook can be lent out simultaneously, but that number is missing... > Random House [...] limits the number of check-outs per ebook. This means libraries have to lease another “copy” when they reach a certain threshold … as if the ebook had died or something. Physical books will fall apart ("die") at some point, especially those paperback bestsellers. To make a fair comparison we need to know the ebook limit and the lifespan of a popular paperback, but those numbers are missing too... > In fact, that’s the problem some authors have with ebooks — not just that they earn less money on them, but that “They never degrade. They are perpetual. That harms writers directly,” It's a quote, but it contradicts the previous point! 'Ebooks are bad because they expire, no wait, ebooks are bad because the don't expire!' Which is it? > These authors don’t mind the high prices charged to libraries because they don’t even like libraries to begin with. [...] books can be loaned out (for free!) many times, costing writers money from presumably lost sales. Any evidence for this? It sounds a lot like the anti-piracy myth. Could people reading and talking about books perhaps boost sales? Do some authors in fact like libraries? Maybe they even spent some time there at some point? > Most physical books in libraries aren’t tattered and worn out [...] That's because the worn-out books have been shredded. > Ebook consumers should be able to lend and resell ebooks the same way we do with physical books Well, an ebook that is exactly like a physical book is an ebook that is artificially restricted to be lent out to one reader at a time. But that's what this article is arguing against. What exactly is the author advocating? What should an ebook be? That's the genuine question which goes unanswered.