Book Royalties

[Cameron Laird]

In article <a14676$3eu$1 at serv1.iunet.it>, Alex Martelli <aleax at aleax.it> wrote:
			.
			.
			.
>It seems to me that existing publishers and bookshops (including
>both online and brick-and-mortar stores) are a reasonably good setup
>to market and sell books (as well as, at least potentially, helping
>enormously with editing, production, and so on).  No doubt better
>alternatives may one day emerge, but, so far, I have seen none.
			.
			.
			.
Distribution and marketing--those are the reasons, and pre-
dominantly the former.  Tim O'Reilly writes frequently on
this subject, both in public <URL: http://www.ora.com/ask_tim/ >
and elsewhere.  In principle, publishers add value in the
editorial process, but that has become secondary or even 
tertiary for most.  Distribution's the key thing, though:
publishers (when they're doing their job) get inventory out 
on display shelves where modestly-motivated prospective
consumers are liable to exercise their impulses.

Most of the other publishing functions are fungible.  In
particular, self-publishing can work out great for people,
such as Bruce, who are in front of their audiences a lot.
Apart from a few elephant-generators (the original Dummy
authors, ...), some of the best livings among authors are
those made by trainers or seminar speakers who capture the
dollars in the pockets of their listeners.

I second Alex:  while 'twould appear that more efficient
social forms will appear some day, it's not obvious what
beats a traditional book right now.
-- 

Cameron Laird <Cameron at Lairds.com>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal:  http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html