Is this non sequitur week on the sdmb? How in the world is that responsive to what I said or what anyone in the thread has said?
Ok then. I am glad we all agree here that companies should be free to decide what they want to offer and at what price and that there is nothing better than a free market. I suppose we can close the thread now and go home.
Yes, because no one can ever suggest that their needs aren’t being met by a free market because that’s some sort of psychotic heresy that is exactly like saying that the government should take over business and OMIGOD YOU GIVE ME MY DAMNED O’GRADY AU GRATIN POTATO CHIPS YOU ELFIN KEEBLER* BASTARDS OR I’M SICCING JUDGE JUDY AND HANK PAULSON ON YOU!
*Dammit. On second thought, I’m pretty sure Keebler didn’t make those chips. Still, death to elves! DEEEEAAAAAATH!
Anybody who wants to make high quality versions of another publisher’s books will run straight into copyright law.
But hey, let’s be pure market fundamentalists and abolish copyrights. After all, that’s a pretty energetic intervention by the mean 'ol government, right?
You’re naive, sailor. The publishing industry is as much a product of Big Guvment as any other. Here’s an alternative: mandatory labeling of binder quality. Mandatory licensing of competing printhouses. Why don’t we just sever the intellectual property component from the actual printing and distribution altogether?
I know this is the pit, but I have to say my insult (naive) was gratuitous and actually mildly embarrassing. I mean what’s the point?
I’ll retain the content and even the snark, but I retract the personal characterization, which frankly I have insufficient basis to make.
I grew up one of seven kids on a cattle ranch in the fifties. Our books were respected, and not numerous… but they led a hard life in any case. They were read by every kid, three or four times each for some of them. So they eventually fell apart.
They were all we had, so perforce, we fixed them. We fixed them in a host of ways, with mucilage glue from the glass bottle with the funny rubber top, and with library paste that tasted kinda good, and Scotch tape, and cardboard, with flour-and-water, or whatever we had. Heck, eventually I even got my Boy Scout bookbinding merit badge, built a book press, learned stitched binding.
So our few books were read and fell apart and came back together and were read again, repeat as necessary.
I didn’t understand:
a) Why is it so hard for the librarian to slather some kind of glue on a chunk of cardboard and beef up the spine of a book? I’ve done it, it doesn’t take long. The slow part was always writing the title and the author on the cardboard … but we have computers now, print it out on stickyback and slap it on the cardboard … get a glue gun, no muss, no fuss.
I find it hard to believe that it is more expensive to do that than to buy a new book, unless the library gets them for free. Plus … it’s fun, and I always feel good when I’ve brought a book back from a near-death experience.
b) Why return the book to the library because it has come apart? Read it on a stand or a lectern, and then take it back.
Best to all booklovers,
w.
I have no problem with that. That is a regulation which would be useful and does not infringe on the freedom of the market. It still does not provide everybody with the bindings they would like.
I have no idea what you mean by this or how it would work in practice. I will note that authors are free to retain the right to publish or print with more than one house. The problem is the great majority have enough problems getting published with just one and there is no way they could have several editions. Even best-selling authors do not seem inclined to having more than one publisher simultaneously (although some do change publishers).
Look, I am not saying the free market solves everybody’s needs. I have said exactly the opposite. What I am saying is that the free market provides for the needs of most people in the most efficient way. And having the government dictate what goods should be produced and sold and at what price is a sure way of decreasing the efficiency with which people’s needs are met. That is all I am saying and I maintain that. I do not want some bureucrat deciding what bindings books should have because then I am sure things will be worse and not better than when publishers are free to choose.
Because as I said upthread, it’s often not that simple. Book glue and the other supplies needed are not outrageously expensive, but they are pricey enough that doing any considerable amount of book repair takes money from other areas. A repaired book must also be repaired by somebody. This person has to be trained how to do book repair (which takes time) and any books they repair takes time away from when they could be doing something else.
Third, a repaired book is not very reliable. It could circulate another ten years or it could crumble in a page’s hand before they get a chance to reshelve it. Book repair is an art, not a science. And wasting time and money on something that might not even work isn’t always worth it.
And finally, the library might not want to repair every book that is broken. Some stuff just doesn’t circulate very much and the effort to repair a book that may only circulate once a year isn’t worth it. If shelf space is a concern, it could just be tossed out as a casualty of weeding that would have had to be done anyway.
Oh, and one more one last thing. A book that is broken and that would be repaired would likely be a hardcover. But they book that would be purchased to replace it would likely be a paperback, making the “replacement cost” that much lower to begin with.
Therefore, book repair often doesn’t make financial or practical sense.
We don’t have a free market in books. A free market in books would not permit government-enforced monopoly, AKA copyright.
Has anybody in this thread advocated price controls? If not, that’s a big red herring. (Admittedly, I may have missed that.)
Oh. You’re sure. Wow. What’s the basis for that?
The same arguments were made against regulating food and consumer products. Those who want a free market in such objects (and those who want to fill their body with them) are advised to move to Communist China.
Personally, if a manufacturer wanted to bind their product with a glue that oozes and kills small children who ingest it, I’d have a problem with that. In the US, liability laws would cover this, and I think that’s a good thing. For America.
In Europe, I understand that regulatory authorities often take charge on issues that are left to the court system in the US. To the extent that this is more cost-effective, I believe that the approach deserves careful study.
Market fundamentalists may disagree.
It would be a matter of study and investigation. There’s no reason though why you shouldn’t be able to purchase any book you want at a copyshop, even books that are out of print. Such a plan would be wholly consistent with rewarding intellectual effort, as royalties would still be paid and subject to government-enforced monopoly.
The plan would be wholly inconsistent with the Freeee Market though. Then again, so is the status quo.
Just thought I’d throw this in here: the Easton Press is a company that makes really nice books, hardcover and bound with leather and 22kt gold on the edges. So if you’re the book collecting type, you can definitely buy books that will hold up essentially forever. Naturally, they’re more expensive.
Hardly a failure of the free market. Although, granted, they only sell “important” books (which apparently includes the Star Wars Complete Visual Dictionary.) 
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
I have quite a few Easton Press books and they are very nice. I keep meaning to acquire more of their Masters of Science Fiction series which can be found used for around $30 to $40. There are cheaper options for quality binding on classic books.
For sheer stupidity this post takes the cake.