I agree with the overall concept (ebooks are good, but there are some books that need to be in print), but the turnover is not going to be as large. Instead of 10 paperbacks at $7.50 each they will sell 10 ebooks at $4.99 and 1 leather edition at $39.99. For some books, they may never sell a physical copy (there are some really bad books out there), but for others there may be an even higher ratio.
All of these physical book requests will either need to be printed in advance or printed on demand. If I was in the publishing business I would look into how I can print beautiful books (leather bound, silk wrapped, full colour covers, vellum pages, etc.) quickly and cheaply.
I was at a restaurant with my family on Super Bowl (tm) Sunday and I wanted to find out the score in the game. There was no television nearby so I pulled out my iPad and tried to find a legal stream of the game. It took my about 5 minutes to realize that standing up, going around the corner to the bar and looking at the score was going to be much easier.
Once again, people seem to forget that this Internet thingy goes across national boundaries and that limiting the access to a set of IP addresses that seem to be located in a particular country is a pile of < insert derogatory phrase here >.
Unfortunately, with many of the current politicians being grandfathers by the time the Internet really started taking off, they are rather set in their ways. Even many of the "younger" politicians are hobbled by what they learned from their peers. As a result, a multi-pronged approach, the Internet for those that understand what it is, and a traditionalist lobbyist group (that understands the issues) is probably going to be the most effective approach. During this transition phase between the Physical Economy and the Digital Economy (no we haven't really reached the Digital Economy, yet) we need to accommodate both sides of the fence.
The RIAA/MPAA and others are only concentrating on the old gang and that is where the new Internet Liberation Front (ILF) comes in. By understanding that there is a need to listen to both sides and come up with a compromise that is reasonable to both parties, the ILF can gather bipartisan support from both new and old politicians.
The tablet revolution occurred and Apple led the charge. The changes mentioned by Glyn Moody represent an evolution of the tablet. Many people tried in the past to create a tablet market and all of them failed. Apple didn't. Indeed, without Apple as the revolutionary in this market I don't believe that you would have the Aakash tablet in it's present form.
Mike has talked repeatedly about how people build on other people's success in order to build something new. I will be the first to tell you that in it's individual pieces the iPad is not revolutionary. What it did do, however, was bring those pieces together in a revolutionary format. Since the iPad came out people have been trying to replicate that success. They should be trying to come up with their own formula based on what Apple has done, but, sadly, many companies would like to replicate instead of innovate.
While the Aakash tablet appears to be a "good deal" for those that cannot afford an iPad, it is hardly revolutionary. Lower quality screen, lower speed processor, less RAM, etc., all seem to indicate that it is an iPad imitator, not a revolutionary. I am not saying that being an iPad imitator is bad, as they obviously have a specific target demographic in mind and they are very successful within that demographic. What I am saying is that they are not the table revolution. That has already come. They may be the start of the revolution in Education, but not the Tablet.
As a parent I am glad to know that if any of my daughters get famous, have their face photographed thousands of times, I can just bring out the lawyers and sue everyone. This makes a great retirement fund for myself and my wife. Just think, it is no longer Lindsay Lohan who gets the money, but her parents! Michael Lohan can now stay at home and drink/party to his hearts content because the seed from his loins brought forth "The Lindsay".
I think this is a wonderful excuse to have as many kids as possible with as many women as possible so as to ensure a valuable income in your twilight years.
And, let's face it, if the Doctor does work on the face, he is creating a derivative work. (Hopefully not a parody.) I can still probably sue him if my income drops as a result of his work.
Dear Anonymous Coward (won't last long in the new SOPA era):
You seem to have misunderstood (deliberately) Mike's note. Mike did not pass off Dominic as saying the Newspaper had that opinion. He merely noted that Dominic, who seems to have dozens upon dozens of articles at the Washington Post, wrote an opinion piece in a mainstream newspaper. The fact that he has written dozens of articles for the Washington Post lends some credibility to his being a voice that the editorial board believes needs to be heard and who does not adversely affect the review streams of the newspaper.
Based on your review of the situation, virtually everyone who writes an opinion piece should be dismissed. Much like I am dismissing you. Good bye.
Isn't the Internet full of Intellectual Property? Wasn't it created using the creative minds of thousands of people? If the House and Senate were so interested in protecting IP wouldn't they protect the Internet?
(self deluded individual who believes that government is "of the people, for the people by the people" )
I am somewhat confused by Americans. In 1776 the American Colonies threw off the yoke of the British because of, amongst other things, lawmaking (a taxation law) without representation. In 2011 you have a case of lawmaking (SOPA) without representation.
In the 1700's was it much like it is today with only a small (but growing) number of people actually concerned and the vast majority of people blissfully unaware of their surroundings? I keep hearing how America is the bastion of democracy and yet the elected officials seem to think that censorship, for whatever reason, is valid. That letting private individuals and corporations do the work of the police is a "good" thing. They believe that telling the rest of the world "free speech is necessary" and then behind closed doors eliminating all of their competitors free speech because "oh, they violated my copyright on my name".
Are the MPAA and RIAA the British of the new world? Are the elected officials following their lead the turncoats of the 21st century?
What happened to the United States of America where first and foremost it was people that mattered. After all, didn't an American pen "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
So, should Mike set up a KickStarter project and see how much money can be raised to have them pay the NetFlix bill? This would most likely get the mainstream press involved and perhaps put this subject to bed once and for all.
So, if there is no penalty for allegations made in error/jest, doesn't this mean that people will file allegations of copyright infringement for almost anything? Won't the RIAA and MPAA be taken off the net because they have stolen someones words without obtaining authorization? Won't people file dozens, hundreds of notices against the heads of these organizations and make them pay the $35 per incident to clean up their record?
"This is an abomination." (c) 2011
(I am anticipating that these words will come out of the mouths of the MPAA head after he has been kicked off the net and I want to rub it in.)
So, if things are based on a first to file basis, can I trademark "Pascazi" (a term to denote a weasel) in other countries and then sue him when he sues other people as he is behaving like a weasel and that would be violating MY trademark?