I don't think it's likely I'll ever pay for enrlteocic books regularly, but not because I'm so devoted to paper books, just because I'm used to finding my enrlteocic entertainment for free.Additionally, I don't see the ebooks being necessarily a terribly sustainable model for publishers. Not only is it difficult to protect enrlteocic content from unlawful distribution, coming up with and maintaining a systemic method of distribution is bound to be expensive, and the likely result would be a system too inflexible to keep up with the market and changing technology. Plus, there already are several enrlteocic distribution models that cut out the middleman, with varying degrees of success, and a publisher would have to offer far more than their shiny name to compete with those models effectively, at least from an income and reputation standpoint.I know that if I were a writer, I would never even consider selling my enrlteocic rights to a publisher unless what they were offering me was better than I knew I could do on my own (that just makes sense, right?) Based on my experiences in webcomics, that means they'd need to not only have an extremely solid plan for protecting my material from unlawful distribution as well as encouraging lawful sales, they also would need to be offering me extremely healthy advances and royalties... I would expect to be making on the higher end of five figures a year at least by allowing them to handle my enrlteocic distribution for me. I realize that sounds much too high from a print market perspective, but my husband and I currently make our entire living from VOLUNTARY payments for an otherwise free enrlteocic distribution product, and that has perhaps given me a different perspective on the enrlteocic market. It may not be the most stable income ever, but if my husband and I are doing that on our own, I don't think it's unreasonable to require that publishers show they can do at least as well before handing over those rights.

by Joao 02:44:24 AM 2012.05.16