Real Book vs E-Book: Which Do You Prefer & Why?

[Topher925]

You sure about that?

Trees are a renewable resource. What is the environmental footprint of an electronic device?

Yes, pretty sure. Trees are technically not a renewable resource since they are being consumed faster than they can be grown. Anyway, the energy required to turn a tree into a book along with the ink, dye's, chemicals, etc are not renewable. There is a study out there comparing the environmental footprint of a years worth of newspaper, magazines, and books compared to an ipad and the ipad won hands down. I'll see if I can find it.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, pretty sure. Trees are technically not a renewable resource since they are being consumed faster than they can be grown. Anyway, the energy required to turn a tree into a book along with the ink, dye's, chemicals, etc are not renewable. There is a study out there comparing the environmental footprint of a years worth of newspaper, magazines, and books compared to an ipad and the ipad won hands down. I'll see if I can find it.

Old growth for furniture and some building materials is being used faster than grown... paper mills often use rapidly grown poppler that is perfectly renewable. The issue there is the use of water, fuel, and bleaching agents, not the renwewability of the trees.

 

[Mu naught]

you can read an e-book in the dark right?

 

[Perspicacity]

I'm conflicted. I bought the kindle when it originally came out, and built up quite a large library. I've swapped in my kindle for an iPad, and find it annoying that I can't move my kindle purchases into iBooks.

I can read all of my kindle books on my iPad, using the kindle app, but it makes me worried that I'm spending all sorts of money on stuff I don't really own and can only legally use as long as I'm on an approved device.

What if Amazon and Apple don't want to play ball with the next company that designs the next better device? Am I going to have to choose between the best new technology and my old digital collection?

I do think that these things will be eventually ironed out—I think 25 years from now literally every bit of literature or art will be available to everyone at whim. I'm just not sure whether I'm wasting a lot of money on digital content in the meantime.

 

[JaredJames]

If they're in PDF format it isn't a problem.

I'm always wary of buying from companies that insist on you using their own formats (Apple being one of the biggest offenders).

 

[Perspicacity]

If they're in PDF format it isn't a problem.

I'm always wary of buying from companies that insist on you using their own formats (Apple being one of the biggest offenders).

That is true, but often times pdf's aren't available.

 

[Office_Shredder]

That is definitely copyright violation. Period.

He is actively copying and distributing copyrighted material. It's like me taking short clips from various blockbusters and compiling them together into a 'new' film and then putting it in cinemas. See how long you get away with that for.

It's not at all clear that it's the same

http://www.umuc.edu/library/copy.shtml#copy

What Can Be Copied?

* A chapter from a book (never the entire book).

The rules for what you can use for educational purposes are hazy as far as I can tell. The difference with your film example of course is the fact that you're profiting on it.

 

[JaredJames]

A bit controversial are those rules, under what should be avoided:

"Making multiple copies of different works that could substitute for the purchase of books, publisher's reprints, or periodicals."

Which is exactly what you described the teacher doing. He is substituting the purchasing of the various books by making copies and using them within the class. Although what he is doing may fall within the spirit of what is allowed, he is definitely violating the "what should be avoided" rule.

"Copying the same works from semester to semester."

Does he change what he teaches / use different books each semester / year? I don't know many who do that. Would take a lot of effort.

From the fair use for instructors section, this applies equally to the above:

"If you use something for one semester it is likely to be seen as fair use. If you use something repeatedly, it's less likely to be considered fair use. The expectation is that you will obtain permission as soon as it is feasible. Using something over a period of years is not within the spirit of the guidelines."

"Copying more than nine separate times in a single semester."

Again, pretty vague, does this apply to individual items or sets of copies? In the one sense he would only be allowed to provide for nine students, in the other, as long as he does it all in one then he's ok.

 

[Proton Soup]

A bit controversial are those rules, under what should be avoided:

"Making multiple copies of different works that could substitute for the purchase of books, publisher's reprints, or periodicals."

Which is exactly what you described the teacher doing. He is substituting the purchasing of the various books by making copies and using them within the class. Although what he is doing may fall within the spirit of what is allowed, he is definitely violating the "what should be avoided" rule.

"Copying the same works from semester to semester."

Does he change what he teaches / use different books each semester / year? I don't know many who do that. Would take a lot of effort.

From the fair use for instructors section, this applies equally to the above:

"If you use something for one semester it is likely to be seen as fair use. If you use something repeatedly, it's less likely to be considered fair use. The expectation is that you will obtain permission as soon as it is feasible. Using something over a period of years is not within the spirit of the guidelines."

"Copying more than nine separate times in a single semester."

Again, pretty vague, does this apply to individual items or sets of copies? In the one sense he would only be allowed to provide for nine students, in the other, as long as he does it all in one then he's ok.

whose rules are these? the university's? US copyright office's ?

 

[JaredJames]

whose rules are these? the university's? US copyright office's ?

You gave the link, I just read it. Was I not supposed to do that? I took it that you meant them to back up what you said about his copying being "fair use". From what I understood from them that there were conflicting sections which made what he was doing equally wrong.

The university rules don't trump US laws. So theirs or not, they can't give teachers a workaround to the regular laws.

I've had a quick look but can't find anything specific, but I find it hard to believe that US copyright law allows for people (or teachers) to actively make multiple copies (enough for a class) of various sections of books and then publish them (although not for profit). Although I can see how this helps with getting students the materials required, I also see it as a way of removing the need for a student to purchase the book (for a lot of teaching style textbooks their main income is from students), therefore reducing copyright holder profits. I'm very interested in seeing where it states that sort of thing is allowed in the law.

 

[Proton Soup]

i only gave you an anecdote.

 

[Office_Shredder]

You gave the link, I just read it.

Proton soup and I are different people

 

[JaredJames]

Apologies for the mix up. I took the rules quoted as an attempt to show the lecturer was acting within the rules of copyright, given it is was a reply to my post based on the anecdote.

Regardless, all other points I made stand unless someone can tell me otherwise.

Is there anything in place to stop someone buying an e-book on their own device and transferring it to another or distributing it to their friends?

I'm really liking the idea of a kindle at the moment but do you have to use Amazons own format? Or can you use any PDF on it?

 

[moonman239]

You sure about that?

Trees are a renewable resource. What is the environmental footprint of an electronic device?

No, they're not. By the way, you can make an e-reader more environmentally friendly.

 

[Newai]

The only reason I go with ebooks is much more effective searching. Not all books have indexes, and all I need to do is recall a few choice words in a sentence. Plus, lugging a laptop is much easier on my back. I can take my whole library anywhere.

 

[Norman]

I actually would prefer both, with the exception that I'd like that book in pdf format from which I can extract text or figures for reports or articles, or if it's a technical book, data for analysis or plotting. Files can be backed up.

I prefer paper as a permanent record. Electronic systems can fail catastrophically, e.g. hard drive crash, etc. E-books may be prone to failure.

There are many books I have or plan to purchase which are not in e-book or otherwise electronic format because they are rather esoteric.

Very good points, especially about long term records.

I read constantly (both work and pleasure). Research articles in PDF are quite nice. I don't have to have a bunch of filling cabs in my office, everything is on a nice little hard drive. But if I am really working through a paper or a text, I prefer the paper to be in front of me- so I can mark it up, make calculations on the backside or scrap next to it, and also so I don't have to be staring at a monitor and sitting at my computer desk while working through it. But I love that I can email myself a paper and read it on my phone while I grab a coffee some mornings when I have time.

When I read for pleasure, I definitely like a real book in front of me. I enjoy a physical book, I enjoy the cover art, I enjoy being able to read during take off and landing while flying (can't do that with an e-reader). If a book contains artwork, or pictures, or any other visual media than words, does an e-reader or PDF really do it justice? I don't think so.

I would really love to get a free (or extremely cheap) ebook version when I buy a physical book. That would be fantastic!

 

[General_Sax]

If they're in PDF format it isn't a problem.

I'm always wary of buying from companies that insist on you using their own formats (Apple being one of the biggest offenders).

Get a free pdf-reader app (GoodReader or something like that).

Torrent books.

Upload to Ipad.

Profit.

 

[The legend]

Get a free pdf-reader app (GoodReader or something like that).

Torrent books.

Upload to Ipad.

Profit.

i do that quite often(maybe always!)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You need to seriously research disease vectors.

Do you mean vectors that carry indices, or vectors that carry in disease?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I find it amusing that a good place to catch a virus, is at a porn site. Though I hear that some pass out trojans.

 

[nismaratwork]

I find it amusing that a good place to catch a virus, is at a porn site. Though I hear that some pass out trojans.

Good one Ivan.

Jimmy Snyder: And a har har to you too.

 

[The legend]

nice one Ivan. PF is full of funny people!

 

[xunxine]

I would normally prefer a real book, partly because it is less painful to the eyes and has the feel of a BOOK. Much like comparing having a real pet cat and a virtual one in those apps or the 90s tamagochi.

For leisure reading, I love holding a book and have a sense of motivation to see how thick (ie. how many pages) I have read and how much more to go. It is also easier to refer to a physical book. Just reach out for it, flip it and leave it open on my desk. If it's an e-book, I guess I'll have to switch on the device, open the app, find the book and search for whatever. And I'm also at the mercy of its battery life or electrical wires and how updated it is.

However, when I'm standing in a crowded bus or have only 1 free hand, I'd whip out my iphone to read an e-book. In this case, it is very convenient. Plus, I get to highlight the words that I don't understand and open up the dictionary entry, all with just a thumb. This convenience is not matched by a real book. Currently, I'm in between reading a real book when I get a seat on the bus, and an e-book when I don't.

Though they are getting more affordable (or so I read), e-book readers are still not cheap. How many of us have the luxury of getting the most advanced readers to put our millions of books inside? The real book is still affordable, can be bought at second-hand stores for as low as $1, be borrowed from libraries and shared with other people without fear of infringing copyright. Even in developed countries, there are still people who are financially strapped. Donations of books are very much welcome. In fact, at the moment I'm planning to give away some reading materials to a less developed country to be distributed to the children in their villages.

Real books can be enjoyed by all, e-books by those who can afford it. IMHO only

 

[airborne18]

Amazon has free Kindle software for the PC. The real benefit is that they have a ton public domain books for free in the Kindle Store. Apparently they are much cleaner than the pdf downloads on google.

 

[abluphoton]

Ebooks.. because you get them for free.. :D

 

[JaredJames]

Ebooks.. because you get them for free.. :D

Not necessarily.

Most now require you to buy them for devices such as the iPad and Kindle.

 

[Pythagorean]

You sure about that?

Trees are a renewable resource. What is the environmental footprint of an electronic device?

You tell me. My town runs on hydro and wind power. =P

 

[JaredJames]

You tell me. My town runs on hydro and wind power.

Well the question is, is it better for people to use electronic readers or is it better for people to use books?

In other words, is it more of an impact to produce, transport and use an electronic reader or produce and transport a book?

Taking into consideration transport for books will have a larger impact than readers, but then readers will require energy to use. (Of course, if energy is from wind / hydro etc it's not such an impact.) But also that books can be recycled into new books relatively easily.

An interesting comparison.

 

[Pythagorean]

Well the question is, is it better for people to use electronic readers or is it better for people to use books?

In other words, is it more of an impact to produce, transport and use an electronic reader or produce and transport a book?

Taking into consideration transport for books will have a larger impact than readers, but then readers will require energy to use. (Of course, if energy is from wind / hydro etc it's not such an impact.) But also that books can be recycled into new books relatively easily.

An interesting comparison.

I was being playful, but also illustrating the idea that the power source of electronic devices is malleable in principle. It doesn't have to come from the ugly double f.

To be honest, I think my town is only 80% green right now. The goal is 95% (by adding more wind if this trial is effective). We've had hydro for as long as I've been alive and as citizens, we own shares in the power company even (i.e. it's truly public).

In any case, the energy I use to power my devices is the renewable portion =P

 

[JaredJames]

I didn't mean to aim it specifically at you, however I felt it was a good jumping in point.

Renewable in your town, although a good thing and thus removing the 'energy for use' component, doesn't mean e-readers are better than books straight away.

If the impact from producing an e-reader is greater than that of producing a book, all the renewable energy available for use isn't going to make a difference. I do feel that books will ultimately lose out when it comes to transport impact.

 

[Pythagorean]

If the impact from producing an e-reader is greater than that of producing a book, all the renewable energy available for use isn't going to make a difference.

not quite. e-readers can support several equivalent books, so you mean "If the impact from producing an e-reader is greater than that of producing X books..."

where X is the average amount of books owned by someone who is willing to buy an e-reader in the first place.

I own on the order of 10^2 paper books.

I'm sure plastic, gold, and silicon are infinitely times less renewable though :/

 

[JaredJames]

not quite. e-readers can support several equivalent books, so you mean "If the impact from producing an e-reader is greater than that of producing X books..."

where X is the average amount of books owned by someone who is willing to buy an e-reader in the first place.

Yes, sorry should have been clearer (same applies to transport).

I own on the order of 10^2 paper books.

I'm sure plastic, gold, and silicon are infinitely times less renewable though :/

Certainly.

I don't own many books, I prefer everything in e-book format on my laptop so I can take it everywhere with me without additional weight. Plus I can have a number of backups, without the need for 'excessive' storage (for the backup or original).

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

I'm sure plastic, gold, and silicon are infinitely times less renewable though :/

They are very recyclable though, and renewable energy can be used for that.

 

[nismaratwork]

They are very recyclable though, and renewable energy can be used for that.

Yeah, but the processes used to separate the precious metals from the boards and connectors can be anything from safe and well done... or more commonly it's shipped overseas and it's an environmental disaster. If you want to reclaim gold you need heat, and/or acid, and the acid-crap mixture is often dumped into rivers and other bodies of water.

JarednJames: Even books that haven't been released as e-books are often available free in formats that can be converted for any e-reader. It doesn't please me, but it's another issue e-books... to what degree will publishing (which has dealt with piracy in analog) be able to manage the electronic manifestation of this difficulty? Movies are large, and can be packed with features to make it less desirable to pirated them, and often games use multiplayer or other online components to verify that a copy is legitimate. A book is rarely going to exceed a megabyte, and the concept of viable copy protection when people are scanning pages onto PDF files seems absurd. As someone who's written before, and would like to again, I can only hope readers represent a less predatory pool.

 

[JaredJames]

nismar, I wasn't saying you can't get them free, I deliberately tried to ignore illegal file use.

If a book is brought out via a paid means (and only legally available via that means), and it turns up at a free source then it is an illegal copy and something they need to try to work against.

Now, if you got rid of regular books and only published in an encrypted e-book format, it's problem solved so far as piracy goes (prevent printing and other actions).

But, if you insist on using paper books then you are constantly open to piracy whether you like it or not. There's nothing you can do about that.

I ignored illegal copies as my comment was aimed more towards items which are only available in e-book format and are secured. (I have a number of course textbooks like this.) However, the simple fact as I put it above stands. If you use paper copies, you are open to privacy. There's nothing you can do about it.

EDIT: I suppose you could supply each book with a 'secure key' which e-readers can read and check for legitimate copies. If it doesn't have it, it doesn't work. I'm thinking of Apple style tech where you can't install an app unless it has been purchased via your account. So the only way to get an e-book on your e-reader would be to purchase it through a store with your account. But even then if you 'jailbreak' it (as per apple tech) you can get around that.

 

[mugaliens]

I buy used books for around 50 cents each, and I never have to worry about a power surge or equipment failure deleting them.