> The relationship between physical book checkouts and author/publisher revenue is less direct

Indeed. The publisher charges universities etc. a one time lump sum to purchase N copies of a book. The author gets next to nothing.

Source: am an author of technical books. Royalties will buy me a few cardboard boxes.

why do we need "publishers" in today's market?is not like you have to have 4 intermediaries to sell on amazon or even digital copies? i'd be more forthcoming to pay $10 for a book that i know 50-70-90% proceeds go to the author than 2-4-5% which the rest take up?

publishers, printers, yada yada must've been important to sell books 50 years ago but are they really necessary today?

> why do we need "publishers" in today's market?

Distributing and marketing a book still takes expertise.

ah, so the one who is supposed to make money from his/her skill is given pittance while distribution and marketing people take the cake. fine.

edit:

if onlyfans can allow questionable skills be monetized and give millions to the um, performers, surely an author can find a way to sell their own books themselves

> the one who is supposed to make money from his/her skill is given pittance while distribution and marketing people take the cake

You may want to read on the economics of publishing instead of working off assumptions [1]. Scientific publishers are a scam. But trade fiction and nonfiction publishing isn’t a moneymaker.

[1] https://www.almostanauthor.com/the-economics-of-publishing/

i need some numbers... $100 book(fiction for ease of understanding), how much does each entity in the chain from author to consumer earns?

if that is the economics, where does digital books and audibooks fare? why do you need the intermediaries in that thing? same for amazon? its not like i HAVE to pay a printer to publish a digital ebook so if that is removed from the pie, shouldn't the author "get" that portion also?

I've always said that onlyfans is one of the more ethical platforms; there's less of a question of who gets paid and how.

so what is the role of publishers and marketers and whole dinosaur industry that should die already.

i've had a proposal. From a $100 physical book, an author makes say 5%. That is all their work as the original work and remuneration they get so if we move to digital, how about the author double or triple that to say $15. add another $5 for delivery and the same book now costs me $20 and the author gets "more" money, something they actually want and what i want, to consume the content created and support the author and be easy on the wallet. this would probably kill the paper book model overnight but i really don't have concerns about the poor publishers and printers who would go out of job

Does it? I genuinely doubt this; and if it does -- is this current system by which it happens worth keeping (i.e. is not merely legacy gatekeeping by incumbents?)

Self-publishing isn't free, and usually requires guidance from a professional resource to do properly without your book being lost in the chaff. You may get a higher percentage of return, but haven spoken to a fellow community member who has done self-publishing and writing for a major publisher, they commented they would never do self-publishing again.

My books are both in eBook format and paperback. ~400-500 hundred pages in length. The hundreds of hours spent writing the book/taking screenshots, formatting, does not pay off, at least for technical books.

Creating technical books is purely for the notoriety, possibly job prospects, etc., IME. I've had wonderful community feedback which is certainly a self-esteem boost (maybe ego, which isn't necessarily a good thing :)), but it is only going to buy me a few cups of coffee at Starbucks.

The physical degradation of the books seems like such a minor effect. I'm pretty gentle with books. As for library ebooks, I had no idea the contracts were structured like that.

Like with so many physical possessions, it really varies from person to person. Some people have libraries full of books they've read, and all their books are in pristine condition. Look at their other possessions and they're all in excellent condition.

Other people, you loan them one paperback book, and when you get it back it looks like it's been dropped off a highway overpass bridge and run over in rush-hour traffic. Look at other possessions that person has, and you'll see the same thing: they're all beat up and pieces of them are broken.

Some people are just destructive for some reason, and it's entirely from carelessness, not malice.

"Some people are just destructive for some reason, and it's entirely from carelessness, not malice. "

And then some people simply consider books as objects for use, and not sacred reliques to be touched only with glothes.

(unless we are talking about historical books)

I mean, books or rather the information in them is kind of sacred to me. But the physical objects are just paper, that can be printed out again, if it has been in too heavy use. And heavy use includes them to be in a tightly packed backpack, close to saltwater or rain, among other things. If I would treat books as fragile things, I would only read them at home, which means, I would miss out on them a lot, as I like to go outside and travel.

It sounds like you're one of those people who can't handle everyday objects without breaking them somehow.

I'm not talking about treating things as extremely fragile, I'm just referring to being able to use and handle things without somehow destroying them in short order. The people who do this are just like you: they think it's normal and think everyone else is overly cautious, when in reality they're just a clumsy oaf. These are also the kind of people you can't lend tool to, because they'll destroy them, by doing things like using a screwdriver as a pry-bar.

"by doing things like using a screwdriver as a pry-bar. "

Oh, of course I have done this - with an old rusty screwdriver, but not with a tool of precision.

But since you are getting personal: well then maybe you are also one of those persons who have everything as looks shiny, but when doing things in the dirt of real life, you would put absent minded a chainsaw or powerdrill on the ground? Which is something I would never do, but have witnessed a few times from the look shiny folks (where the tools get probably polished later). I just treat objects adequately. Printed out paper is printed out paper. A rusty piece of metal, is a rusty piece of metal. And a high precision machine is a high precision machine, where different standards and care apply.

edit: in case of misunderstanding: I was not saying above, that I think it is OK, to treat borrowed things badly. Only that I think it is OK to treat my books as objects for rough use.

What nonsense. We were talking about physical books here; indeed when I went hiking in de olden days (not that many years ago), I would pack paperbacks in my backpack to read and they would not survive the trip well; it rains, the backback is tightly packed but things rub, it’s moist outside (and if you sleep in hiking huts, also inside) and sometimes things just go wrong. I also like to read in the (hot)tub and water splashes, it’s, again, moist because of steam etc. Oh, sometimes my dogs ate a book that I was reading on the couch and put aside to go for a walk etc. People have dropped teapots or beer or food on books I was reading on pub outside tables.

What has this to do with tools? Or other stuff; I have pristine computers from 70s-80s, I have handhelds like the openPandora that I used 10 years daily and look brand new. Almost all (I developed software for old phones and new phones over the last 20 years so I have many of them for testing) my mobile phones I had in my life, working still or not, look new still (the few that don’t have cracked glass). One has nothing at all to do with the other.

These days you can get water resistant e-readers and phones, so now the books don’t suffer in these circumstances; if people enjoy the physical more than the elements will still mess iup these books if you don’t read them on a couch at home. Well, the dogs…

Also, stop calling people oafs. No need for personal attacks here.

There can be many reasons for being clumsy; mental (stress/burnout), neural (Parkinson/stroke/spinal damage), physiological (rheumatism/tendon damage/nerve damage) and substance abuse. And some people are just clumsy; not much they can do about it; oaf means more (in a bad way) than just clumsy.

Yes. Realistically, I could put in the extra effort to be mindful of how I handle the things I own -- but I simply don't care enough.

If you lend me a paperback book, it's likely going to be dog-eared and written inside with pen; and the covers will almost certainly have creases all over. In my view, paperback books are cheap, mass-produced disposable goods that were meant to be thoughtlessly handled (e.g. reading at the beach).

If you lend me a KNIPEX plier wrench, it's likely going to be used as a hammer, for when I'm simply too lazy to go get one. It will be left out in the rain, completely uncovered. Why? Because I simply do not care. If it becomes rusted or visibly broken, I will buy a replacement -- but I will not go out of my way to treat material, unthinking, unfeeling objects with any respect or dignity.

I consider the necessity of most physical things we own an annoyance; and the responsibility of caring for them a self-imposed burden I have no interest in carrying.

Dipping your book in sea water is not normal "heavy use". If you do that to your library book the library will probably make you purchase a new one.

Anyways the reason to treat library books reasonably nicely (not with gloves, but like a reasonable person) is not because books are sacred. Its because library books are not yours, they are something you are borrowing from someone else. Treating other people's possesions that you are borrowing with respect is just common courtsey.

"If you do that to your library book the library will probably make you purchase a new one."

Sure thing, which is why I would not do this with libary or borrowed books in general, but rather buy it cheap second hand, before I take them to the beach with me.

"Treating other people's possesions that you are borrowing with respect is just common courtsey."

Sure thing. I was refering to the general habit of rough use of books, not that it is nice or acceptable to treat borrowed things badly.

Fair enough, i probably shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. If its your own book (and not a rare book), by all means do whatever you want with it.

> (unless we are talking about historical books)

You should not touch historical books with gloves. It is generally correct to use your bare hands. The reason why you would wear gloves while handling a book is to protect you, perhaps because the book has been contaminated with hazardous chemicals or something.

Anyway.

It is also my experience that some people completely destroy their books. I don't know how it happens. I don't think of myself as careful with books. I shove them in backpacks, insert random objects to remember my place, take them outdoors, etc. Yet somehow, the books look much the same afterwards.

Part of this is just knowing how to pack books to avoid damaging them. Simple stuff like putting the spine down. If I'm going outside in the rain, keep the book out of the water. If I'm shoving something in my backpack and there's already a book inside, just check to make sure I'm not shoving something directly into the book.

>It is also my experience that some people completely destroy their books. I don't know how it happens. I don't think of myself as careful with books. I shove them in backpacks, insert random objects to remember my place, take them outdoors, etc. Yet somehow, the books look much the same afterwards.

Yep, this is me too, and with everything else I own too. I don't treat them like museum objects, but they generally look very good even after lots of use.

Some people just can't do this. Honestly, I don't know why. It's just how they are. Maybe they don't have an intuitive sense of how much force is really needed to handle things, and they use far too much? Much like a small child. I'm not sure. Hence my use of the term in another post, "clumsy oaf".

You can see this with some people's cars too. You get in a normal person's car that's a few years old, and it looks fine, though maybe the seating surfaces are obviously not brand-new and it's not perfectly clean. But you get in one of these oaf's cars, and even after a year, it's completely destroyed inside and the interior looks like it's decades old.

Stop calling people oafs or ‘small child’. No need for personal attacks here.

There can be many reasons for being clumsy; mental (stress/burnout), neural (Parkinson/stroke/spinal damage), physiological (rheumatism/tendon damage/nerve damage) and substance abuse. And some people are just clumsy; not much they can do about it; oaf means more (in a bad way) than just clumsy.

Seems people using objects different from how you use them triggers you. Maybe not everyone feels like washing and vacuuming their car every Saturday? Or ever? What’s it to you and how does it make them oafs?

Sounds like you're the one who's triggered here, so I guess my comments describe you?

Only with books in certain cases, not the rest. The word Oaf triggers me though: you are calling people stupid who care less than you about physical goods or who are ‘clumsy’. That’s good for nothing in an adult discussion.

Ok, maybe that word wasn't really what I was looking for. I was trying to describe clumsy people, not stupid people. Lots of people are clumsy and careless without being idiots.

If you break a book at the library, you usually have to pay for its replacement.

Sure there is some normal wear and tear that isnt "breaking the book", but if you browse through your library you will find lots of books that were purchased 20-40 years ago that are still in good shape. I don't really think normal wear and tear is very significant.

Still, you now understand the publishers’ logic. The publisher doesn’t care who buys the replacement, only that they get some revenue from it.

Libraries argue similarly that the wear-and-tear model is miscalibrated, but they are in a weak negotiating position.

I mean, from where i'm sitting the logic is "how can we extract as much revenue as possible", with the wear and tear argument being post hoc justification.