WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by tgl on 2008-11-23 01:45:35 +0000

Posted by dyedon8 on 2008-11-23 01:49:04 +0000

Listeners went to Napster and the file-sharing networks, they would have just as readily gone to iTunes if that was available. If you're gonna say something like this --that listeners woulda paid for music if the choice had been available to them-- then why would we even need there to be free book downloads when Amazon, etc. are available to everyone? And what's this about essays?

Posted by tgl on 2008-11-23 23:05:15 +0000

It's not either/or. There will be free downloads, pirate and otherwise (Gutenberg.org hosts content whose copyrights have expired). There will be convenient online services that let you download "ebooks". Both will exist. Publishers shouldn't try to compete by blocking the file sharers, they should embrace the technology. People will pay for content if it's priced right, and if they don't get hassled about how to copy or re-use it in the future. --- Essays. You might not get someone to part with $30 for a downloadable novel. You might get them to pay $1-3 for an essay or short story. Especially if you then send them a hard copy. Stephen King tried something like this, not sure what the results were. I think he may have been ahead of the curve, and his readership isn't tech-savvy enough.

Posted by dyedon8 on 2008-11-24 00:33:43 +0000

But here's the thing: if it's all about convenience, as you assert, and if people will pay for reasonably-priced content, as you also assert,then why switch at all, if there are reasonably priced alternatives that don't involve new gadgetry? It's seemingly because of the new gadgetry. Which doesn't seem terribly convenient.

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2008-11-24 00:45:49 +0000

Ugh. And I suppose there'd be a GPS map to tell you exactly where they are in relation to you. Again, ugh.

Posted by tgl on 2008-11-24 01:09:42 +0000

http://www.loopt.com/

Posted by tgl on 2008-11-24 01:12:25 +0000

If the reasonably priced alternative is the library; that's not convenient.

Posted by loxocele on 2008-11-24 01:24:32 +0000

i'm with do8 - not to mention, to me having the physical *book* is major. i never get rid of my books (even old textbooks), and really value being surrounded by mine (even though it's a huge pain every time i move)...plus, there's just something about the physical experience of reading a book, or turning the pages, of being able to flip back and forth easily. it's the same reason why i'm finally getting a record player this year and raiding my parents' *huge* collection of neglected vinyl, or why i still wear garters and stockings rather than pantyhose, or why i own pen nibs and liquid ink: there may be *new* ways of doing things, but that doesn't mean those new ways are entirely better ways. sometimes there's something to the old classics.

Posted by loxocele on 2008-11-24 01:25:21 +0000

this sounds kinda like hell. :P

Posted by loxocele on 2008-11-24 01:27:43 +0000

first the tastee, now out of town. sad. :(

Posted by dyedon8 on 2008-11-24 01:47:08 +0000

If the reasonably priced alternative is any of a zillion bookselling pages available online, it's no less convenient than, say, ordering a Kindle. (I got Carolyn Chute's "Merry Men" online for one cent the other day. Seriously.)

Posted by mahatma chani on 2008-11-24 12:10:04 +0000

Couple of points: The vast majority of published authors make most of their income from teaching positions and the like, not from speaking engagements. And hardly any published books recoup to the point where authors make any money on royalties. The populist authors can continue to cash in when Hollywood comes knocking. Now it's true, I can go to the library and look to see if they have, say, "Cats Cradle." And alas, in this example, someone else has already taken it out. Although I could get say "Godbless You Mr. Rosewater" or "Slaughterhouse Five" instead, if I had an e-book reader, it's probably more likely that I would have never left my home and just downloaded the lifework of Kurt Vonnegut off bittorrent instead. Case in point: the iPod. Once I got the iPod it was just a matter of time that I pretty much stopped listening to CDs and later stopped buying music. Why? Because this way's easier than the old way of acquiring new music. Convienence always trumps everything.

Posted by mahatma chani on 2008-11-24 12:29:29 +0000

One more anecdote. Sometime this summer The Gecko expressed interest in joining the Brookline Library, so we trekked over there one afternoon. After a while of perusing the stacks, she went to the main desk to check out four audiobooks on CD. Turns out, you need a credit card to join the library, and she didn't have hers with her. Fortunately, I did, so I joined and took her audiobooks out. Those damnfool things sat on our dining room table for six weeks untouched. Why? Because figured out how to just download the same audiobooks off the web, and that was so much easier to put on the iPod. So we wasted the time going to the library, I had to fill out paperwork that eventually was unneccesary, we shlepped the audiobooks back home, cluttered up the house, only to return them past the due date and get hit with a penalty for having them too long, when it turns out that we never even had to leave the house in the first place. Convience will trump everything.

Posted by tgl on 2008-11-24 13:04:04 +0000

Damn hippies.

Posted by pamsterdam on 2008-11-24 13:07:29 +0000

My 2 cents: Jello Biafra is pretty much right about things.

Posted by tgl on 2008-11-24 13:08:53 +0000

You still had to wait for it to be delivered. Additionally, an electronic device will let you take 10-20 books with you, instead of 1-2. I'm not knocking books. I own a couple myself. Books will be with us for a long time, too. I also agree with MC that there is a future for Kindle-like devices.

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2008-11-24 13:17:20 +0000

I'm weeping on the inside.

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2008-11-24 13:39:01 +0000

I'm throwing this out there, I can't say with certainty if this is a factor in whether there will be an eventual total rejection of books in favor of a Kindle-like device. In terms of physical actions during the listening vs. reading experience: with listening, nothing changes from analog to digital - you're still sitting there, listening to music on your outsized component system/iPod dock/headphones. It's only the source of the information that's changing, which ultimately people are amenable to due to the convenience. The act of reading, though, depends on a person being active and turning each page, dog-earing or bookmarking a book, and, as dd8 points out, writing in the margins. There's a lot more action directly related to reading that book. Maybe no one will care, eventually...but the specific tactile qualities of book-reading I think probably count for something. They still could be replaced over time with the button-pushing or whatever it is you would do on a Kindle, but hopefully that won't happen in my lifetime.

Posted by tgl on 2008-11-24 13:51:57 +0000

The Kindle's form factor is closer to book-like then the other e-readers out there. Not sure there will ever be an electronic equivalent to page turning & dog-earing. There will be electronic pages: http://www.eink.com/products/index.html Actually, I could see a 150-page book made up of E Ink pages. There'd be a mechanism to display 150 pages at a time, or an auto-scroll feature that resets the first and last page depending on your progress. I depend on gauging my progress based on the percentage of pages I've read, so, I'd probably prefer the second option. Not too hard to envision a markup capability. Get this: once you markup the book, you can download all your notes into a different format. You could display other's markups in the margins alongside your own... compare notes.

Posted by dyedon8 on 2008-11-24 14:25:31 +0000

Except for royalty distribution, etc.

Posted by dyedon8 on 2008-11-24 14:26:17 +0000

I hope there are still a bazillion people out there so aggro for books that waiting a few days is a major inconvenience.

Posted by dyedon8 on 2008-11-24 14:28:33 +0000

In a classroom situation, kids with Kindles or whatever would probably have some interface to the 'net, rendering their 'marked up texts' useless while they updated their Facebook status.

Posted by tgl on 2008-11-24 14:54:32 +0000

"ebooks" make it easier to reach a bazillion or a gazillion people. Sayin'

Posted by dyedon8 on 2008-11-24 14:59:42 +0000

I like your optimism, but reading is much more active than watching movies or listening to music. The appearance of free books online isn't automatically going to get people to read more -- it is, after all, about conveniece, right?

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2008-11-24 15:07:18 +0000

I tend to think the culture of book-reading lends itself being patient. A book takes a while to read - you can listen to a music album in usually around an hour, and watch a movie in around two. Near-instant gratification! If waiting for a book to be delivered is so integral to this - how is it that so many people buy books on amazon.com and wait for the shipment, rather than buying immediately in the store? Does the % savings trump the immediacy of buying the book in the store that day? music:drugs books:vacation

Posted by tgl on 2008-11-24 15:15:43 +0000

Nothing is guaranteed. New technology generally means new opportunities.

Posted by tgl on 2008-11-24 15:18:29 +0000

That's why I think these e-readers would work better for delivery of periodical-like content. Why pickup a Metro if you can have it (and the Economist, and the WSJ, and the NYTimes, and the Post, and the Glob) downloaded and waiting on your Kindle before you leave the house?

Posted by dyedon8 on 2008-11-24 16:31:24 +0000

The periodical model makes sense for bth sides of the industry.

Posted by MF DU on 2008-11-24 16:36:17 +0000

The problem with a part of this discussion that I'm having is that I interpret RSN folks here pitting one format against another in some kind of Mad Max / Thunderdome scenario where only one format will live while the other format will die. What's wrong with acknowledging the convienience of the newest format and using it where it benefits you the most, while still being able to utilize older formats as some situations will dictate? The volume levels of Ipods SUCK for live djing both for events and on the radio. Also, playing actual pieces of music / media also help me to organize themes (song titles, years, genre, artwork, musicians etc.) I know I can do this with smart Playlists on Itunes and I often do, but I like the happy accident of going to grab one piece of music and happen on something else I havent seen or looked at for a couple of years. Also what is more engaging for those left that still listen to radio stations, internet streaming, terrestrial, satellite or otherwise: a hard drive on shuffle ("DJ Ipod" as dyedon lovingly calls it) or an actual human pairing songs together to acheive the potential of an actual aggregrate musical statement as opposed to just some random set of tunes? All of this can be applied to books vs. kindle, or film vs. digital as well. What's wrong with a director making an aesthetic choice on one film of super grainy or fucked up digital for one scene and a lavish film shot for another scene? Orson Welles scraped sandpaper on footage of Citizen Kane to get the aged newsreel film, but a Variety of mediums and approaches were used throughout the film as a whole. I think using everything at your disposal and being prepared for whatever comes your way is a better approach than looking at it like one way is better than another way. Just my .02

Posted by MF DU on 2008-11-24 16:37:56 +0000

"there's a stinking Mt. Everest of crappy books out there." needs to be the next RSN header. Just sayin...

Posted by tgl on 2008-11-24 16:40:58 +0000

Can I call my own number?

Posted by tgl on 2008-11-24 16:45:00 +0000

If Matt Cassel can do it...

Posted by MF DU on 2008-11-24 17:13:45 +0000

I dont have any of the right equipment, but I must admit I would LOVE to play the Metal Gear game avail. On PS3. Not ready to plunk $400 for the console or to upgrade to a hi-def tv. I also no longer have cable, so I guess I will have to find someone at a party with a tricked out system...

Posted by jbcardinale on 2008-11-24 18:05:40 +0000

My two cents. My mom found a box of records in her trash room in her apartment building. She gets very excited when she can give me records. So I went to visit her and there was a whole bunch of records from the early 60's and a whole bunch of crappy records by Eddy Arnold and Jim Nabors and the like. I found a few gems and some records that will be very useful at a 50th wedding anniversary party I'm playing Saturday night. To me, sorting through that box of records (Do I keep Tammy Wynette or not?) was way more fun than downloading something for free on line, no slight to the ipod users. I like to read in the bathroom in the morning I've been re-reading The Fellowship of the Ring. The paperback is over 30 years old. When I first read the book I was listening to Eno's Another Green World a lot so it keeps popping it head now, especially St. Elmo's Fire and Fripp's guitar sound. The book has a phone number for a girl I dated on the inside cover. To me some books become are like old friends. Convenience makes a difference but so does experience.

Posted by pchippy on 2008-11-24 22:18:26 +0000

A few points suggest themselves to me: 1. If the Kindle's main claim to superiority of format is its convenience, there's one major way in which it falls short. I may have 300 books (or 10,000, or however many they can hold) on my Kindle, but I still only have one Kindle. If I want to have something to read in the bathroom, and something to read in bed, and something to read on the T, and something to read in my living room, I either have to buy multiple Kindles, or I have to continually move it from one place to another--into and out of my bookbag, into and out of the bedroom--I even have to remember to bring it into and out of the bathroom with me. How is that convenient? 2. I'm fortunate to work in a building just a few blocks away from the main branch of the BPL, so I can wander over there during my lunch hour to pick up books and videos (for free!), and the exercise does me good, and the library building itself is beautiful and makes me happy to be part of a civilization. And--and this is the big thing--if the video I want to watch or the book I want to read isn't immediately available, I request it online (which takes about 30 seconds and is free), and generally within about two days it's available on hold for me to pick up. I understand that not everyone in the world lives or works within walking distance of a public library, and in many parts of the country such libraries as exist are only open for a few hours a week. But for those of us who live in large cities, they are EXTREMELY convenient and provide a very valuable service. And more isolated/rural libraries do their best to get their hands on whatever materials their patrons desire. 3. I do use sites like Gutenberg from time to time, and they serve an undeniably useful purpose. (Many useful purposes, in fact.) If I'm online, and I come across some blog post that reminds me of something I think I remember reading about in Milton's Paradise Lost, I don't go to my bookcase and pull out my Milton and flip through it looknig for the passage in question; I call up the text of the poem online, and I use the "Find" feature to search for keywords that get me to the passage in question much faster. But reading a printed book is still more aesthetically pleasing than reading a screen, and when I want to actually read Milton, I find a book much more convenient and more pleasurable. My Paradise Lost weighs 170 grams and measures about 8x13 cm. It was printed in 1866, it cost me a dollar, and it has neither a power cord nor a battery to be recharged. It looks good on my shelf, and it feels good in my hand.

Posted by mahatma chani on 2008-11-25 11:02:36 +0000

1. Bring the reader with you. The reader that eventually will take off will weigh next to nothing. 2. Libraries won't go away completely; they're going to have to become more specialized to compete with the ever expanding and easier to get onto Internet. I also didn't say all book stores are going away either. It will, however, be a slow march towards their extinction unless they find ways to draw people into a store that sells books and book-related ephemera. Example: record stores are staying in business by selling t-shirts, figurines, DVDs, etc to offset the declining interest in packaged music. 3. Welcome to the 21st Century, hippie!

Posted by tgl on 2008-11-25 13:15:24 +0000

Everyone has great, valid, reasons as to why they wouldn't personally use an "eBook". However, the rs.n community tends to value things differently than the general population. This is were periodical- & book- reading is headed. If anyone is considering providing content that would normally appear in a physical periodical or book, they should be prepared.

Posted by mahatma chani on 2008-11-25 14:34:52 +0000

Ding! Ding! Ding! Just found out today that I don't have any rights to any of the previous books I've signed contracts for regarding e-tail.

Posted by MF DU on 2008-11-25 15:40:07 +0000

The rebuttal to Point 1 sucks. Pchippy is totally right on this. If I can't remember or find my wallet 10 to 25% of the time, the kindle's chance of being with me always is fuck all.

Posted by dyedon8 on 2008-11-25 17:42:25 +0000

The TV writers' strike was largely about internet-based revenues -- wouldnt surprise me if newspaper writers/etc. pulled a similar stunt at some point.

Posted by ConorClockwise on 2008-11-25 18:40:51 +0000

Charlie Rose had Lawrence Lessig on yesterday, author of this book: Riveting speaker. This guy just gets it. His discussion of the art of Mash-ups and Copyright law was jaw dropping. I'm ordering the book on Amazon later tonite.

Posted by tgl on 2008-11-25 19:27:44 +0000

Watched it. Lessig for SCOTUS!

Posted by mr. mister on 2008-11-29 13:52:34 +0000

This article states that the screen is not harmful to your eyes. Which would be my major concern. You can't beat free I am a cheap f--k. I listen to college radio and download my favorite bands for free. I go to Time's top 100 books and go to the library and read them for free. I don't feel guilty when I download things. Until someone or something makes me feel bad about it I will probably continue. Because again I am cheap f--k.

Posted by mahatma chani on 2008-11-29 14:44:34 +0000

M-sqaured... your ranting posts make me happy. Keep 'em coming.

Posted by tgl on 2008-12-01 01:51:39 +0000

salient "As a technology, the book is like a hammer. That is to say, it is perfect: a tool ideally suited to its task." "Go back to an old-fashioned idea: that a book, printed in ink on durable paper, acid-free for longevity, is a thing of beauty. Make it as well as you can. People want to cherish it."

Posted by jbcardinale on 2008-12-02 16:07:07 +0000

An article about that typewriter band in an on-line magazine, Blast. http://blastmagazine.com/the-magazine/entertainment/2008/12/typing-to-their-own-beat/

Posted by tgl on 2008-12-03 02:21:33 +0000

commentary My take-away: while we fetishize books and LPs, don't forget the readers and listeners.

Posted by tgl on 2008-12-03 02:27:57 +0000

My recent issue of Tape Op features an interview with a company providing onsite recording and distribution of concert CDs. Basically, they let audience members leave with a CD of the performance. Possible with a connection to the soundboard and one or two "room" mics. Not sure if a laptop has enough processing power to do the recording.

Posted by tgl on 2008-12-03 02:28:26 +0000

Audience members part with $$ to get this CD.

Posted by mahatma chani on 2008-12-03 11:03:06 +0000

People who read, subscribe to, and contriute to Tape Op still probably buy recorded music. Maybe Rory could say otherwise, but I suspect a modern-day laptop has enough power to run a bare-bones Pro Tools session to do a recording.

Posted by mahatma chani on 2008-12-03 16:38:06 +0000

It's begun!

Posted by tgl on 2008-12-03 23:32:13 +0000

DiscLive warning: myspace

Posted by mahatma chani on 2008-12-06 12:02:33 +0000

It continues!

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2008-12-11 15:09:06 +0000

Seconded.

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2008-12-11 15:17:32 +0000

"According to the RIAA's recently-released 2007 sales report, the American music industry sold 36.6 percent more Extended Play (EP) and Long Play (LP) records than it had in the previous year, increasing vinyl sales revenue by 46.2 percent. CD unit sales, on the other hand, declined 11.7 percent with revenue dropping 20.5 percent during the same period." Of course CDs will still sell a lot more than vinyl, but the increase in vinyl sales can't be ignored by the industry. That's a pretty impressive increase in sales, and IMO enough to warrant some note. Comparing the absolute unit numbers doesn't show enough of the picture.

Posted by tgl on 2008-12-12 11:12:00 +0000

As in most things, moderation is the right choice.

Posted by tgl on 2008-12-30 04:34:28 +0000

Resellers are killing the publishing industry

Posted by mahatma chani on 2009-01-05 11:07:34 +0000

Digitalization continues. FWIW: I work with Ben.

Posted by G lib on 2009-01-05 14:17:06 +0000

"she goes to the bookstore and buys it:" awesome. and FWIW: in the rare stuff 'biz' we call it digitization.

Posted by pchippy on 2009-01-05 16:04:17 +0000

Professional lexicographer, stepping in to note that "digitalization" is indeed a word, and that though its primary sense is "The administration of digitalis in a dose sufficient to achieve the maximum therapeutic effect without producing toxic symptoms," it can also be used to mean "digitization." Personally, I'd say that "digitization" is the act of putting a specific body of information into digital form, while "digitalization" is the general act of replacing non-digital technology with digital technology--"going digital," as it were. Thus, if I throw out my old tape-cassete Walkman and buy an iPod, I'm engaging in digitalization but not digitization. But that distinction isn't in the dictionary, and probably nobody else actually uses the two words that way. It's just my personal preference.

Posted by G lib on 2009-01-07 12:53:12 +0000

geek

Posted by mahatma chani on 2009-01-07 13:32:29 +0000

Intriguing. FWIW: I stopped paying the bill for our NY Times subscription as the Gecko was the only one reading it. My non-payment of course stopped it coming. When I finally called up to pony up the bill, they offered to scrap the $56 past due amount entirely and give us half off the delivery rate just to keep a subscriber number in their records. Go figure.

Posted by tommy on 2009-01-08 22:03:27 +0000

"probably nobody else actually uses the two words that way" I begin today.

Posted by TheFullCleveland on 2009-01-23 18:52:04 +0000

Some good commentary. (via MFGR)

Posted by tgl on 2009-01-29 22:19:54 +0000

Not so! Did I hear the radio right, the new owner is Muckey Interesting bit on the radio is that the real estate is owned by the city. Muckey and the previous owner, Hudson News, just rent the space. Not sure if the original owner (who sold to Hudson in 1993) actually owned that parcel, I doubt it.

Posted by tgl on 2009-04-20 19:43:38 +0000

This model works!