Kindling controversy

Hey Christopher, along these lines and very much worth reading is this feature piece on ArsTechnica by John Siracusa:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/02/the-once-and-future-e-book.ars

A series of great observations about form/function, and how many otherwise progressive, tech-minded types slip into luddism when faced with any demise-of-the-paperback quandaries. And illuminating notes on how behind book publishers were (and are) when it comes to digital distribution. It's a great piece.

A bit from it:

Horses for courses

If you remain unconvinced, here's one final exercise, in the grand tradition of a particular family of Internet analogies. Take all of your arguments against the inevitability of e-books and substitute the word "horse" for "book" and the word "car" for "e-book." Here are a few examples to whet your appetite for the (really) inevitable debate in the discussion section at the end of this article.

"Books will never go away." True! Horses have not gone away either.

"Books have advantages over e-books that will never be overcome." True! Horses can travel over rough terrain that no car can navigate. Paved roads don't go everywhere, nor should they.

"Books provide sensory/sentimental/sensual experiences that e-books can't match." True! Cars just can't match the experience of caring for and riding a horse: the smells, the textures, the sensations, the companionship with another living being.

Lather, rinse, repeat. Did you ride a horse to work today? I didn't. I'm sure plenty of people swore they would never ride in or operate a "horseless carriage"—and they never did! And then they died.

I love books. My condo is overflowing with books and that was one of my primary reasons for buying a kindle. Books take up space, and if you love books, they take up a LOT of space. I bought my kindle about a year ago and am now devoted to it. It is the size of a large paperback, fits in my briefcase, and carries a library’s worth of titles in its very light frame. The battery life is ok, maybe 12 hours so that could be improved, but otherwise I’ve found few cons. I do not miss the tactile experience of holding a traditional book as the kindle fits into your hands like a - you guessed it - a book! As for immersion, no the kindle does not take away from a great story. A great story on paper is a great story on e-paper, the experience is not diminished by not having pages to turn. And when I see those arguments I wonder if those who make them have actually used these devices…I mean beyond looking at them, fiddling with them. Has Christina Rosen read her favorite Dicken’s novel on one? Did she feel less connected with the characters? Less enthralled with the prose?

The one thing I would not use it for would be text books, reference books, any sort of book you needed to flip open quickly and find an entry/definition/hightlighted text. Books still have a place in the world, but a simplified place. That’s not a bad thing.

I opened my paper-back copy of Jude the Obscure a few weeks ago. I can't remember where I got the copy, but it was certainly used. Probably printed in the late 1970s. I don't remember the name of publisher. For a few minutes, I reveled in the smell of its old, paper-thin pages. Ah, dust and silverfish. Then the cover fell off. Then the first three pages, including the introduction. Then the first chapter. So I now I truly do have installments, so many, I'm puttin' it away so it won't install anymore. Right about now, I'd kinda like one of those Kindle contraptions.

I love reading but am often distracted by the book. I'll close it to revel in its cover art or look at the author's photograph. I fight with the book to keep it open. When I shift position it closes and I lose my place. I accidentally glance to the next page and read something important too soon. If I'm in a restaurant, I often feel silly because people see me sitting there for hours with a book, as if the place was my library, but don't care about the people who sit there with their cell phones, texting. Sometimes I buy a book, thinking I'll read it, but make use of it just to decorate my shelf. I imagine if I buy a book on Kindle, I will be more likely to actually read it, because it doesn't serve any dual purpose as a decoration or a symbol of my intelligence.

I often struggle with dust jackets slipping off and find myself fixing them. I really think that the Kindle will enable me to read and fiddle around less with the book as a physical object. This is one of my biggest reasons for getting one. I'm hoping that the e-ink might even be easier on the eyes than the page, with the font size adjuster, etc.

Books won't be made entirely obsolete by e-readers, but reading will definitely be changed and so will our conception of what constitutes a book. Horses are a good metaphor. We have horses for specialized purposes, but no longer require them in our daily lives. And the instant gratification of downloading a book is good: anything that helps people read more is a bonus. After I got my Kindle, I quickly got over the need to fondle real pages and am now an ardent fan of reading electronically. I recently enjoyed Neal Stephenson's latest 1000-page monsterwork on my Kindle and the experience didn't suffer at all--especially since I didn't have to heft so many dead trees. Books consume a lot of precious resources and the process of manufacturing the paper and the book itself are very polluting. E-readers like the Kindle are the acceptable face of technological progress.

I usually have 3 or 4 books going at once just because I bounce around depending on my mood. The Kindle is great because all those semi-read books are kept in one spot. I also have small hands so reading large tomes becomes awkward and uncomfortable after awhile. No tired hands with the Kindle! I am still working on getting the bedside lamp at just the right angle so I don't get screen glare, though.

The real issue is the so-called "Digital Rights Management", which are really draconian restrictions on sharing books or other media with friends. See Richard Stallman's prescient essay The Right To Read

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

With the Kindle and other digital licensing encumbered devices, we are surrendering the right to own books, and are merely renting them from the owners. Sharing a good book with a friend becomes a federal crime. Wonderful.

I don't forsee ever moving to an electronic "pay to download" reading system.
Frankly I couldn't afford it given the amount of books I read each year.
I'm a big user of my local library. Then I don't have to buy the books OR store the books.

Sam, your post sounds like the opening for Kindle's infomercial! "Do you struggle with ordinary books?"

Just kidding. I'm intrigued by the Kindle, but I need to know someone who has it first!

Books will eventually go the way of the record. They're bulky: they take up too much space and they're a pain to lug around.

Bottom line, they're primitive...very "Flintstone".

They're resource intensive to produce, distribute, and store. They age and wear out.

If a book isn't popular enough, it goes "out of print", then people whine about how that great book they loved as a kid is no longer available.

While eBooks are currently inconvenient for some uses, the book metaphor is transitional. Eventually, the convenience of eBooks will surpass physical books.

But for some, eBooks aren't "charming". But that just means there are packaging opportunities to satisfy the "earthy" crowd.

Eventually, Libraries will have to reinvent themselves to survive. "Lending" services will be available online.

Digital Rights Management will eventually protect authors (much to the chagrin of the "everything should be fee" crowd).

Publishers will find themselves in the same dilemma as recording companies - trying to justify their existence. Middlemen sometimes fall by the wayside when markets are restructured.

I find I love having both books and a Kindle. There are three reasons that I have enough room for my books. I have a large house, with a lot of shelving. I give books away constantly. I have a Kindle.
I use the Kindle in specific ways. First - It is a godsend when exercising or traveling. No longer do I need a backpack just for the books. No longer do I struggle with a book on the exercise bike or elliptical trainer.
Second, I love being able to download a book when I want it. If something is brand new, I can get the Kindle version more quickly and more cheaply than the hardback.
Third and I love being able to download samples of books I might want.

whats a "book"?

Henry M:
There’s such wonderful drama in the phrase "right to read", isn’t there? Fortunately, no one’s conspiring to rob you of that “right”, in spite of Stallman’s rants.

What Stallman is calling for the right to steal, not the right to read. If it’s software (as in anything not physical), it must be “free”. Free to roam, free to be shared. The only reason Stallman doesn’t call for free cars and homes (i.e. hardware) is because he doesn’t have a matter replicator.

Didn’t someone spend their time and money to create that eBook, or write that program? Yes. So, why shouldn’t they be paid for their work? You buy a hardcover book, you pay for it. You share it with a friend by handing it to them. You surrender your copy to them – you don’t get to clone it (let’s ignore the issue of Xerox for a moment).

You lend your car or bike to someone, and it’s out of your hands. You don’t get to go to the car dealer and demand another because you lent yours to a friend. They’d call the cops and send you to Bridgewater for 30 days.

DRM isn’t “draconian”. It can incorporate "sharing" - but when you pass your "copy" off to your friend, it leaves your device, just as if you lent your book to a friend. Serialized copies that can't be cloned are exactly like books - sans Xerox.

Keep in mind that if you lose or damage that physical book, you can't go to the bookstore and demand a replacement. But DRM can solve those problems.

I suspect you have a job, and you expect to get paid for your time, the products you produce, or the services you provide. So why are you less considerate of authors? Here’s a thought…stop cashing your paychecks. Tell your boss or your customers that you’re now working for free. And let us know where to show up to start living off your free labor.

It’s the least you should do, given that you expect others to do their work for free for your benefit.

LOL! The only problem the kindle poses is to the profit-margin of the bookstore. B+N beware!

I can't wait to get my Kindle. All this talk about paper being better than E-paper sounds just like the debate between film photography and Digital photography just a few years ago. All the photographers that said digital would never be as good a film were sadly mistaken. Digital pixels has revolutionized photography. Too many people simply hate change. Mark my words, as soon as the price of an ebook comes down to under $100 and the price to download a book comes down to $5 you will see a huge jump in sales. I also disagree with the notion that they will not replace the textbook. What could be better than a device that would free a student from having to carry around tons of outdated books and not having to spend zillions of dollars for these college textbooks.

I love my Kindle but I still buy many books. My Kindle has provided me with a dream solution to a week's worth of travel. I have the ability to read personal, business or professional literature, highlight items I consider important (and not by dog-earing the pages) and then print out all of my highlights and my notes onto easy-to-review sheets of paper. By comparison, I hardly ever go back to books I've previously read, find all my underlined passages and copy them out for filing. I have to be thoughtful about the new bestsellers I buy on Kindle. If it is a book to share, I'll buy a hardcover, otherwise, I buy the ebook.

I have a sony ebook reader and I love it. I read more with it than I did before because its so convienent to carry around. When I go on vacation I can have a great selection of books and magazine (courtesy of Calibre) to read on the plane or by the pool. I hate reading papers on the computer (I always print things out to read them) but I find the bookreader easier to read than a paperback. Its better in the sun, wind and I don't have to keep switching hands to avoid the shadows.

Just another way for publishers to make more profit without the expense of printing/manufacturing, shipping, etc. Readers will not pay much less and the authors will not be paid more. I wish somebody would explain how you get an author to autograph your Kindle?

A word is a word is a word. I won't miss books taking up all that space in my little condo and I won't miss not having to squint or wear glasses because of small print The only thing I will miss is spending hours wandering though a bookstore trying to dig up hidden treasures.

Fred

You have got the whole concept of Free Software wrong; and I couldn't help but correct you there.

Free Software does not mean you get it for free without paying. It means you have the freedom to modify, redistribute, and share.

Please tell me this. If I pay for song to be downloaded; do I have to pay again and again to play on each of my DRM restricted players. Or should I be free to play it in whatever player.

Also; when I send an official document; is it not wrong to assume that the other person has paid for an expensive Microsoft product? Is it not better to send them in a free and open format like ODF.

Are you telling me that all the "hard work" people do on software are not influenced in any way from other source code. So is it ok for them to lock up this modified code from all future development? Software is a science; and science should be free. That is for the common good.

Again; it is free as in freedom, and not in price!!!!

- Deepak B Jacob

I've been using my wonderful Sony eReader for months now, and before that the adequate but lower class version made by the French company Bookeen. Believe me, "immersion" is not an issue with these remarkable things; I can't leave home now without plopping it into the makeshift shoulder sling I bought for it.

I'm not an avid reader, so I'm not in the market for a Kindle, but I can definitely see why people would want them. So many books in one package must be wonderful.
The only gripe I have is the cost of the book. And no, I'm not advocating free books, being a firm believer in capitalism. But I don't understand why the cost of the book isn't less than it is, as there is very little cost for printing and distribution. I took a random sampling of five books and compared the cost. Three books cost exactly the same on Kindle as they did on paperback - something I didn't expect at all. The two other books were $10 for the Kindle and $15 for paperback. I would think that the e-version of a book would be $3-$4, tops. I guess the market for e-books will figure itself out.
Enjoy!

This is not about tactile pleasure or anything else. It's about economics and servicability. As a veteran of the newspaper business, I can tell you, without reservation, that newspapers and books are all going to migrate to devices like this...and god help us if we don't. We needs to make paper, print and ship papers and books when we can secure the information, in tact, without them? What's the point of a hard copy? Don't get me wrong, I love newsprint, but It's the information that counts most. If I have to choose one over the other, I'll take the essence, the information, first

For the basic exercise of moving information into your brain, it's entirely possible that eReaders like Kindle will supersede normal printed books and newspapers for many purposes; eReader advantages are well-documented. However, for areas where a visual book experience is more suitable - especially art books and graphic novels - it's unlikely eReaders will replace the printed form completely. The usability of the medium is the key to its enjoyment, and quite frankly the visual appeal of reading a graphic story via portable device just isn't present. Online experience with a full-size screen is marginally better, but just try flipping through your favorite magazine online as compared to using hardcopy; nowhere near as enjoyable. My point: even in the event of widespread proliferation of useful eReaders, there will remain a place - and a substantial market - for hardcopy media.

My point in my blog "Reading Ahead" was to focus attention on the changes being wrought in the assimilation of content by the device itself (all right, I will admit the influence of McLuhan). The idea that a reading experience is "good" or "bad" is based largely on expectation of that experience. Also, you elided an important part of the post in the part you have quoted. The "Is that bad?" section refers specifically to the representational, plot-based novel, a la Stephen King, not to just any reading experience of the same text print versus digital. I do indeed question that a King novel is read the same way on a Kindle as in a book, and that the device changes the experience in significant ways.

Deepak B Jacob:
Actually, you have it wrong. As you’ve stated, one of the objectives of the FSF is to allow SHARING for FREE.

Take your own statement:
"It means you have the freedom to modify, redistribute, and share."
You can't share unless you surrender your copy. “Redistribute” implies making copies and distributing them…that's stealing. No amount of semantic gymnastics will change it.

"Software is a science; and science should be free."
You ignore the investments people make to add value. If you want it, pay for it. If you don’t want to pay for it, then don’t steal it.

"Please tell me this. If I pay for song to be downloaded; do I have to pay again and again to play on each of my DRM restricted players. Or should I be free to play it in whatever player."
Good question. You should be able to play your SINGLE copy on whichever device you want – but that’s a format portability issue, not a rights issue. Should you pay for each use? That's a complicated pricing model that seems to create more problems than it solves. Should you be able to share? Absolutely not, unless by sharing you mean surrendering your copy just as you would with a physical object.

Authors are under no obligation to "sell" their wares to you. That's why all software comes with those messy EULAs. You're purchasing a license to use something, not ownership over it. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

...and what about the printing industry which has all ready been hit so hard???

Printed books are reliable. They don't have network issues and don't run out of batteries. They'll survive getting damp and being dropped. With the Kindle, all your eggs may be in one fragile basket.

Deepak B Jacob:
P.S.
I think the most important point getting lost here is that no one has ever said you can’t freely share your work with others.

What has been said is you don’t have the right to decide what or if you want to pay for the work of others. On the street it’s called robbery. The FSF’s euphemism is “freedom”.

As I said, semantic gymnastics.

KD:
"...and what about the printing industry which has all ready been hit so hard???"
It will continue to suffer.

As others have alluded, that complaint has come up in the past when industries were obsoleted. I don't see too many buggy whip manufacturers out there, but it was a booming business in the late 1800's.

The printing industry will continue to undergo radical and painful restructuring as the need for printing continues to decline. Eventually, it may not exist at all.

I'm personally pretty scared that e-readers will give way to advertising in books...

One of my favorite parts of entering the home of a new friend is encountering their bookshelf. I look to see what books we have in common, what the friend is interested in reading and new titles that I want to try. You can't get that with a kindle. While I think that the kindle is great for travel, nothing beats thumbing through an old worn out paperback copy of Tale of Two Cities to find your favorite passage and re-read the notes that you left in the margin.

first of all, for you people talking about the Sony eReader stop!! That is not the discussion that is not the tech. that is going to put books out of business believe me you!!! Also, way to many problems that were stated publishing etc. will keep this at bay for some time I am sure. I like real books, i don;t like looking at a screen to long.

CC:
"I'm personally pretty scared that e-readers will give way to advertising in books."
Why? What if there are 2 pricing models as many sites offer now - one price to have it without embedded advertising, another for the cheaper(or free) version.

Josh26th:
Clinging to the old technology will not keep books around. They're too expensive to produce and distribute, and worse, they're wasteful. If you’re at all green, then you’d be considering the environmental cost of your books, and finding ways to eliminate all that waste. Youo should be embracing the benefits of eBooks rather than focusing your issue with “screens”. Keep in mind that the screens will continue to evolve. Also, books won't disappear in the next 2 years. Three maybe, but not 2 :-)

MFJ:
“One of my favorite parts of entering the home of a new friend is encountering their bookshelf… nothing beats thumbing through an old worn out paperback copy of Tale of Two Cities to find your favorite passage and re-read the notes that you left in the margin”
Why is it that you can’t imagine being able to pull up a sortable index on a Kindle – by author, title, subject area, etc.. All this silliness of “books are cozy, eBooks are not”. Kindles support annotation - those “lovely notes in the margins” you’re so fond of, and they’re soft – you can make them visible or invisible.

Where oh where have the environmentally conscious gone, oh where oh where can they be?

Oh yeah, they’re holding onto their books with a death grip, and ignoring the environmental benefits of eBooks. Strange, don’t you think?

"I don't see too many buggy whip manufacturers out there, but it was a booming business in the late 1800's"
Really??? Hundreds of thousands of people in the printing industry have lost their jobs and the best comparison you can come up with is buggy whips. Give me a break

With regard to the smarmy comments about dead trees, I would remind folks that trees are a renewable resource.

That being said, I made the transition from record albums, to CD's, to digital downloading of music. I suppose I will one day make the transition to e-readers. I'm optimistic that it may get folks reading again, and am looking forward to the first largely electronic breakout "bestseller." I have hope that the technology itself may offer creative opportunities for the imaginative author we can scarcely imagine now. In its own way, it might even make "novels" truly novel once again.

But I do miss record stores. I'll miss bookstores in much the same way.

KD:
"Really??? Hundreds of thousands of people in the printing industry have lost their jobs and the best comparison you can come up with is buggy whips. Give me a break"
The analogy fits, whether or not you like it. The fundamental shift in transportation technology from animals to machines forced people to either get retrained and transition to new jobs, or be left by the wayside. The “romantics” who didn’t want to leave the old technology either died off, competed for a smaller job pool, or were left unemployed.

The printing business you’re pining away for is undergoing a similar technology shift. Your failure to grasp the analogy appears to drop you squarely in the “they’ll die off” corner.

Harrybosch:
"With regard to the smarmy comments about dead trees, I would remind folks that trees are a renewable resource."

Cute. You've selected the one component in the supply chain that’s renewable, and ignored all the rest that aren’t.

Maybe some of these people out here clinging to their books would be willing to share their dinosaurs with so you can create your own renewable oil resource. Unfortunately, I hear it takes quite some time to process the dead dinos.

I work on a computer screen all day every day. Though I like a lot of the things the Kindle would offer, I'm not sure I want my pleasure to be so much like my work. And I feel reading a book is easier on my eyes than staring at a screen, even with font enlargements. But I'd be interested to see what other people think.

If you posted late yesterday or this morning, I may have deleted your comment -- my apologies. I was deleting some spam-comments and mistakenly emptied the whole box.

So if you don't see a comment you submitted here, please resubmit it. I think this affected two or three readers.

I wonder if there will be a Coffee Table version of Kindle's in a future graphics capable version. Something massive, about 10 pounds. Then that will lead to the graphic novel version, and then the animated version and then someday, we'll end up with the equivalent of a portable television! Progress!! Hope it has a cool 1960's retro look.

Thanks, Chris.

Fred: "You've selected the one component in the supply chain that’s renewable, and ignored all the rest that aren’t . . . Unfortunately, I hear it takes quite some time to process the dead dinos."

What do you think electronic readers are made of? There is nothing "green" about the Kindle, and you are kidding yourself if you think so. Landfills of the world are filling up with discarded cellphones, computers, and yes . . . electronic devices such as the Kindle. Toxins from these devices seep into the groundwater and soil.

Hard to believe pointing out that books and paper products are far more renewable and recyclable would be controversial.

To truly jumpstart Kindle sales, I propose:
Amazon allows a book to be gifted up to 5 times, at $3 per gifting paid for by the giver of the book. When a user gifts the book to someone else, that user no longer has control of the book, and has to re-buy it or have it gifted back if they want to re-read. Each gifting counts against the 5-time gifting "life" of the book. (Book expires in gifting, much as a real book might. After 5 giftings, the book cannot be re-gifted.)
One further restriction is that each account is only able to name 5 gift recipients, and can only change those at the first day of each month. (will harshly limit a "free market" for books - as people will have to wait for a certain date to be able to designate a new recipient. This shouldn't significantly affect those who are only gifting in their family.)
People want to share books with family. Currently, book publishers get NO income from gifted used books. This method allows everyone to be a winner:
1. Book publishers establish a NEW revenue stream on used books;
2. Kindle owners will feel that they can share books with family, resulting in greater sales of the Kindle device both individually and as family gifts;
3. A major advantage of physical books over Kindle books (first sale) will be mostly eliminated;
4. The income from gifted books will greatly exceed that of new book purchases that would have been made were it not for the gifting policy. Lets face it, the majority of books are "good" and would be shared in physical form, but not so fantastic that one would insist a family member buy the book themselves. I expect that Amazon would have over 5 book giftings (at a total income of $15) for every prevented "Sale" at $10.
5. With the economy doing poorly, people are looking for perceived "bargains." The Kindle2 is not a perceived bargain at its list price, compared to physical books. This gifting policy will change that.

I think this is a win/win/win for Amazon, publishers, and consumers. I know that current agreements with publishers make changing the rules complex and difficult. Amazon might even consider making a new class of "giftable" books going forward for publishers who agree to this new strategy, but leave existing books in their current ungiftable state.

I'm with you, Harrybosch, you said it. Whilst reading all these comments it occurred to me that folks seem to be ignoring how UNgreen these devices are!

Consider that we've a couple generations of lazy and uninspired gift givers out there who claim they're bringing their parents (and friends and siblings) up to speed by gifting them with the season's latest innovations and gadgets. Most of said gift recipients have barely grasped the computer and e-mail, yet Merry Christmas, here's something else you won't use. Digital frames, digital cameras, MP3 players, cell phones... they all go the same way -- discarded because they're unused. And those that do manage to get used are upgraded constantly because they'll be obsolete in ten minutes.

The image of a pile of books waiting the big remash has never creeped me out as much as the image of a pile of toxic plastic.

Harrybosch:
"What do you think electronic readers are made of? ...Landfills of the world are filling up with discarded cellphones, computers, and yes ...electronic devices such as the Kindle "

But Haaaaaarry, you left out the books, magazines, and newspapers that people don’t bother to recycle…to say nothing of the energy consumption to transport the paper back and “recycle” it.

Just think of how eco-friendly it is if you use a Kindle for that daily read. Include Sundays for good measure (and boy that paper is big). I once kept a month’s worth of newspaper to see how much space it took up. It was A LOT. It’s okay to try this at home, kids. You’ll be amazed at how big your pile is.

Now, let’s say Johnny has evolved – he CAN read but CAN’T RECYCLE. He gets a Kindle, keeps it for 3 years, and then like an ass tosses it in the trash. Bad Johnny. Bad Bad Johnny. (I swear, Johnny is never going to recycle anything until we recycle him back to ash.) Harry, I assume you’ll agree there are a lot of Johnnys out there. Oh wait, I remember, you already made that point in the quote above, didn’t you? You said the Johnnys of the world are throwing all those cell phones, computers, etc. in the trash already. Cool, so you’re on board with this train of thought.

But wait…Johnny used a Kindle, so even though the twit wasn’t into recycling, he unintentionally eliminated 3 years worth of newspapers from the landfill. Cool. Remember how 1 months worth of newspapers was A LOT? Imagine 36 months worth… that’s 36xALOT. Maybe we can call that a GigaLot.

So, a GigaLot of newspapers vs. one itty bitty Kindle. Hmmm….I’ll take the itty bitty Kindle. Much greener.

And we didn’t even get to the books.

to #39, lb...
the kindle's screen is not backlit and with the use of e-ink is far more like a book than a crt or lcd screen. i also work on a computer screen all day and would also be leary about reading a book on a computer screen. i have absolutely no problem reading for hours from the kindle. in fact, i've recently finished two 1000+ page novels ('anathem' and 'les miserables') and thoroughly enjoyed reading both on the kindle. the more i use it the more i appreciate it.

btw, i have noticed that almost without exception those who criticize the kindle are those who have not used one. i appreciate your open-mindedness

Greta Schmidt:
“I'm with you, Harrybosch, you said it. Whilst reading all these comments it occurred to me that folks seem to be ignoring how UNgreen these devices are!”

Greta, life is full of tradeoffs, wouldn’t you say? Don’t we have to compare the pros/cons of each product/technology? I can’t speak for others, but I’m not ignoring the green factor of any of these devices.

Let’s look at the big picture. If new technologies result in the wholesale elimination of paper-based products, we’ve saved the resource and energy consumption that would have gone to production, distribution, and disposal of those products.

Sure, if I hold a newspaper next to a Kindle the newspaper looks greener – on the surface. The comfortable, familiar feel of paper next to that horrible unnatural plastic and electronics. Yuk.

But, is that comparison valid? Shouldn’t we be comparing the Kindle and all the paper it eliminates? From that perspective, we’re holding a teeny tiny Kindle next to a GIANT pile of paper.

So, what’s the scale - how big is that pile of paper? Looking at just daily newspapers…let’s assume an inch of uncompressed paper in a daily like the Globe, and 3 inches for the Sunday edition. That’s roughly a 39 inch stack in a month. In 36 months, the stack has grown to a whopping 1,404 inches tall – that’s 117 FEET. That’s nearly the height of a 12 story building. Wow. Teeny tiny Kindle vs. 12 stories of paper. Hmmmmm … suddenly that paper doesn’t look so green. Even if we take just 10% of that pile its size dwarfs the Kindle. Oh okay, let’s admit it, even 1% of the paper is still an enormous waste of resources.

And that’s just newspapers.

How much of that paper is ending up in landfills? How much energy consumed to produce, distribute, and recycle/trash the paper? I don’t know the specifics, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a government study to see the consumption footprint for Kindlers is dramatically smaller than for the paper crowd.

And doesn’t a dramatic reduction in consumption trump recycling? Isn’t the best kind of recycling the kind we don’t have to do?

So, who’s really UNgreen, Greta, the “they’ll have to pry my books out of my cold dead fingers” crowd - aka consumption tubbies? Or the consumption-fit Kindlers?

"But Haaaaaarry, you left out the books, magazines, and newspapers that people don’t bother to recycle…to say nothing of the energy consumption to transport the paper back and “recycle” it."

Paper biodegrades naturally in about two to five months, and makes an excellent mulch by the way. Eighty-percent of electronic devices that people choose to recycle will be shipped to developing countries, to be disassembled by children, and to poison their groundwater and soil. But out of site, out of mind! At any rate, it is clear you've drunk the Kool-Aid. I won't convince you otherwise.

"i have noticed that almost without exception those who criticize the kindle are those who have not used one."

Pleae do not include me in this group, as my first post shows me to be a fan of this device. I'm just not going to kid myself that I am helping the environment by using it.

Harrybosch:
"Paper biodegrades naturally in about two to five months, and makes an excellent mulch by the way."

Oh Harry...maybe in your compost pile out back that’s true, but it doesn’t work that way in landfills. "a landfill study conducted by University of Arizona researchers uncovered still-recognizable 25-year-old hot dogs, corncobs and grapes in landfills, as well as 50-year-old newspapers that were still readable." And, I think you (conveniently) missed that the example given is for JOHNNY WHO CAN’T RECYCLE. That means, no compost piles fo Johnny, it’s straight to the landfill.

Also, closed landfills have been recycled into public and private use areas for some time now. Golf courses (both with and without attached residential developments), parks, and athletic fields. It wouldn’t be safe to use the land if the trash below the surface was decomposing – there would be cave-ins!! Imagine the publicity if that foursome of retirees disappeared into the center of the 12th fairway. Satellite trucks everywhere. Big news.

So much for the 2 to 5 months theory.

‘Eighty-percent of electronic devices that people choose to recycle will be shipped to developing countries, to be disassembled by children, and to poison their groundwater and soil. But out of site, out of mind! At any rate, it is clear you've drunk the Kool-Aid. I won't convince you otherwise.”

Now Harry, you sound like the manifesto of an old Left Wing group more focused on rhetoric than facts.

Great strides have been made at both the State and Federal level to put laws in place to cover ewaste disposal. Granted, Congress tends to move at a glacial pace compared to technology, but they are at least doing something about it. Why, Massachusetts made it illegal nearly 10 years ago to dump CRTs. Other states have and are taking their own initiative.

Last year the Postal Service (of all people) launched a pilot program with Clover Technologies Group for a FREE national collection program for small electronic devices. Hmmm…maybe there actually ARE programs being organized, and businesses being launched to handle the problem.

“The postal service program made it a priority to avoid sending e-waste to developing countries. "Are all these shipped to non-approved third world countries? No. Not at all. That was a big concern of the contract," said Eric Martin, Clover's vice president of sales.”

Uh-oh. They might get this recycling thing down and THEN what would happen? It might actually be UNDENIABLE that paper consumption is anti-green compared to electronics.

“I'm just not going to kid myself that I am helping the environment by using it.”
Oh Harry, if this keeps up you’ll have to up your KoolAid dose just to be able to say the rhetoric without laughing, never mind actually believing it.

Please, Harry, if you love the environment (and it sounds as if you do), don’t waste paper products. GO GREEN!! GO ELECTRONIC!!

Mother Nature will love you for it.

Chris:
"…I simply don't know what to make of this…Can you really not immerse yourself in a novel on the Kindle? Is Kant less metaphorically "deep" on-screen?"
Gee, and all these years I thought it was about the words, our imaginations and our intellect. How shallow of me not to see how important the physical media is.

So much for epic poems once written on the backs of napkins. All meaning is lost without the right media....books. Dusty old books.

To Joe Nelson: One can re download free any book one has paid for on Kindle. If one loses a paper book, one pays for the replacement.

I'm a bit piqued at Watz's comments implying that the older generation (me) cannot grasp the supposed complexities of new technologies, and relegate gifts of this nature to the dustbin. Has he never seen anyone over 40 using a cellphone?

The Kindle in fact is a godsend to those of us of the older generation because of the ability to increase text size, and the well lit screen. As for immersion in the book, that is a function of the how good the book is, not the delivery system.

Fred:
You said:
"What has been said is you don’t have the right to decide what or if you want to pay for the work of others. On the street it’s called robbery. The FSF’s euphemism is “freedom”.
As I said, semantic gymnastics."

If I make software; and I want to give the end-users the freedome to do what they want with my code; then how is it called robbery under any "semantic gymnastics".

It is my software and I have the right to give it away free by making my own license or using any licenses such as GPL, APL, BSD, CC, etc, etc.

You cannot label it "robbery" or "piracy" when we are talking about such licensed "free software". People like us do not use a single bit of proprietary software on our systems. Please don't call us robbers!!! The real robbers are who take our code from the community and close it up!!!

Please read up a bit more on it. You will easily understand why even major corporations (Sun, IBM, Google) are opening up to GPL styled licensing and opening up their code. They are forced to as the close-style of development cannot keep up with the dynamic open source style.

Richard Stallman is a personal friend of mine. There is no person I have met who has more clarity of thought!!!!