I was looking through a specific response to a question I'd asked in
the past, when I saw that I hadn't noticed your statements. Although it
may appear stupid to reply now, considering that I have just read the
message, I will still try.
Most of the grant money for University level R&D, comes from the people,
through tax dollars, donations, and student tuition; therefore, I ask
you, why should the people pay a second time, and possibly be forced
into the poorhouse, in order to have the privilege of being educated?
Why should education not be free or, at the very least, affordable?
Your stance seems to suggest that charging for access to information on
a sliding scale based on quality, as a means of stimulating the economy,
is not only a positive notion, but the only notion that could possibly
work; yet, I suggest that their are tax dollars which could be better
put to use funding NFP publishing companies that can disseminate
information freely or cheaply. In a properly run NFP publishing house,
that has a decent amount of funding, the designers, copy editors, and
authors that you mentioned can all be compensated. (before you suggest
that funding would be impossible, think about various web models first)
As well, in addition to most of the important people you mentioned still
being employed and in the loop under an NFP umbrella, providing free
access to information can actually help stimulate the economy, and allow
for a more even distribution of wealth; for, it provides those, that
would not normally be able to afford access to information, an avenue of
possibility for competing effectively with the rich.
Okay, so you may never agree with my viewpoints about free access to
information and education, 'cause you may very well have money; however,
I am sure that most of the 77.72 % of High-school graduates, eligible to
attend college but unable to progress due to financial reasons, would
tend to have opinions in line with my own.
With regard to the profit from and satisfaction + delivery to the market...
You say there isn't a market; therefore, I suggest, considering you
claims that the costs of production and printing are so high, that
different avenues of distribution be found, and that the companies that
publish start to make efforts to actually develop a market for their
materials. I must also put toward you the question, if there is so
little profit to be made, then why do they continue? from my
perspective, considering my Aunt owns a publishing house in Scotland, it
is due to the fact that although the Author may not see a ton of the
profit, those in distribution do. A great many books that provide
small profits, end up equalling to a gigantic profit overall; therefore,
a cost reduction to enhance sales over the long term is possible, but is
absolutely undesirable in the short term.
I am not saying that the costs should be reduced to unlivable standards,
and not to the point where competition drives the delivery of a poor
product; yet, I am suggesting that the costs for the consumer can, and
should, be reduced to affordable levels while keeping quality high.
Large publishing houses, could use some of that stored capital toward
publishing a more vast amount of materials at the same time, because
although the profits will not be as large, the costs as long as quality
is kept high, will be offset by the fact, again, that a large amount of
small profits put together equal a large profit overall. I must also
state that, from experience, the better the quality and lower the cost
of the product you provide, the less support calls you need to take, and
the less money required to be put toward customer support. Right now I
manage a small business that is competing quite effectively in a highly
saturated market, specifically because we chose to reduce the costs for
the consumer while at the same time increasing the quality of service;
therefore, I know what I suggest is possible, especially since the
concepts are not new, extremely basic, and very easy to implement.
Now, before I am done my rant, I must again state I have not stolen a
book, because I am a great fan of going to libraries, in person or
online, and of purchasing materials that I need to use consistently
(goes for software too, because the coders I know work bloody hard);
yet, I can most definitely turn a blind eye to others doing it when I
feel the company is gouging the consumer.
Anthony
P.S. 30hrs max allowed at most chains in Canada as a means to avoiding
additional health insurance costs to the company, multiplied by $10.25
our new minimum wage in Ontario, is equal to $13,543.53 after tax... in
other words your flipping burgers statement is BS, and I would love it
if people with money would stop spouting this nonsense.
On 11/20/2009 5:17 PM, [email protected] wrote:
book. (e.g. advanced computer engineering, physics topics, biomed,
> journals, or graduate level anything).
Interesting rationalization for theft. It's ok to steal a BMW, but not a
Ford? You do realize you're stealing from real people, not faceless
corporations, don't you?
My wife and I both work for a large publisher. I'm in a division that's
totally Web, the Family Education Network (<www.fen.com>), but my wife is
closer to the textbook side--she produces Web sites for college math
courses. She started as a copy editor in the 1980s, though, so I've
learned a lot about book publishing by osmosis over the years.
_______________________________________________
Flashcoders mailing list
[email protected]
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
