However, they do miss one issue, which is the question of potential market size. That is to say that for every book, there are only so many people who would be interested in it, a non-specific but certainly finite number of people who will part with money to purchase the product at all.
Amazon hasn't missed that at all. That portion of the population who wouldn't buy the book at any price are simply not part of the potential market, for any book, at any price, and in any format. The potential market is the rest of the population who might buy the book. Amazon has shown, with the facts to back it up, that the actual market varies with the price of the book, and has shown exactly where the point of maximum profit is.
Lowering the price takes the biggest part of the profit right off the top, it rarely changes the costs.
You're assuming that the fixed costs are set in part by the number of books sold. They're not. For ebooks, the cost of selling one book is the same as the cost for selling 100 books. If I can drop the price to 1/10th the original price, and sell 100 times as many books, I come out way ahead. The bottom line is that Amazon's pricing results in the book publisher getting MORE money for the same amount of work. There's absolutely no way that can result in less profit.
Surprised that nobody has jumped all over this. Everything in the law right now points to the concept that E-books are likely to be subject to first sale rights, which means that yes, they will at some point be able to be resold.
The courts have already said otherwise. See this story. Resale of an electronic document is a violation of copyright, no matter how careful you are to ensure that the original is destroyed after the sale.
A better way would be to over censor on a massive scale. Any time an individual or company requested removal of a document, remove ALL documents containing the name of the individual or company that made the request, and keep them out of the database permanently.
I've been having to fight off hundreds of malware attacks as a result of the company owning the IP range 184.108.40.206/16. Can I get a court to let me take over that range of IP numbers so as to put a stop to the malware?
What this story seems to tell me is that Tomas Macaulay was correct in the prediction he made in 1841 The whole speech is worth reading, but the very last paragragh perfectly describes what this study has discovered.
On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress?
here's hoping the court expands that removal process to cover ALL watchlists. Otherwise someone will be on the no-fly list because they're on another terrorist watch list. They can get removed from the no-fly list any time, but since they can't get off that other watchlist, they get put right back on the no-fly list.
The Authors name being on the cover or somewhere on/in the work should be good enough for that.
An elderly author writes a novel. Knowing he is not likely to live long enough to benefit from the term of copyright, he sells the rights to Company A. At some time after the death of the author, Company A goes bankrupt. Company B picks up the rights as part of the bankruptcy auction.
At some point after all this, you decide to make a movie of the book. Knowing only the name of the author, how would you figure out who to license the rights from?
A big part of the reason for the registration process is so that it becomes very easy to track down copyright holders. the lack of a registration process is what has created the whole 'orphan works' problem.
What about companies like Cisco? The NSA intercepted routers after they left the factory and added spyware to them without the company being aware that it had happened. Given that sort of activity, no equipment manufactured in the USA can be considered safe. In fact, even equipment that was merely shipped through the United States should be considered suspect until proven otherwise.