(Insert Relevant Title)

I've been doing some reading. Some of it has been light reading -- I picked up two paperback books this evening at an outlet mall that's on the way between my home and DC. Oddly enough, that concept is relevant to something that I read just a moment ago -- and its also relevant to how I just read something a moment ago.

The article I read just a moment ago was an electronic version of a New York Times article on the death of the standard book selling model. As it happens, I've got a paper copy of the article (we picked up the Times while we were in DC; I wanted to get a book to read with breakfast, but I couldn't find a bookstore - the one that used to be there, Olssons, closed a few months ago. That's relevant, too. - so my wife darted across the street to a CVS and picked up the paper. She's nice that way. Among others. ) but I haven't actually seen the paper copy of the article -- the paper's sitting on the kitchen counter, where we'll find it while making breakfast tomorrow. I found the article bouncing around through the net.

Here's how that happened. I had found this article, on the situation in Gaza, and Obama's comments earlier about whether he supported Israel's actions (short answer: yes, then, but now? Not sure.) which I came to via the Google news scooper (the article was titled "Gaza Crisis Is Another Foreign Challenge for Obama, Who Defers to Bush"; given how Google rejiggers their news page, it might not still there when this is read). So I went from one electronic news summary source to the detailed article -- and while looking at the article, noticed "Bargain Hunting for Books, and Feeling Sheepish About It", over on a sidebar, and thought to read that. Its what that article says about books and the standard book selling model that ties all of this together. Its not (as I thought it would be) saying that Amazon will kill the bookselling model. Its saying that readers will - not because they're readers, per se, but because, having read a book for which they paid a non-insignificant amount, they are selling those books, for pennies on the dollar, far more cheaply than bricks and mortar stores can do it, and even for less than electronic stores can do it. They're not doing it for income sufficient to live on, you see, but rather for income sufficient to be able to go out and buy more books. But from where? Thats where that outlet store comes into play, here, because it's a store (a chain, I think), called Book Warehouse, and as you might suspect from the name, not to mention the location, it's a discount outlet. The two paperbacks I picked up cost me $5.29, total, which is an excellent price for one paperback, let alone two. In so doing, I didn't buy from Borders or Barnes and Noble, or from Amazon, all of which (certainly the first two; possibly the third) would have cost me more. I bought them because I liked the titles, and, in leafing through them, I liked what I saw. Thats the only downside of buying electronically, or from an individual -- you don't know if you'll really like the book. But if the price is cheap enough, you'll take the chance.

So enough people take the chance, and buy electronically, and what happens? Well, what could happen is that the bricks and mortar stores, like Olssons, shut up shop, because not enough people come in to browse and buy; they can just use the net to purchase, when they know what they want -- its only when they don't that they come to the store -- and maybe, even then, they don't buy there, they get the book from Amazon, or the guy who's selling his books on the net, too. As the established book sellers start to fold, the sales to Walmart and Target and their ilk aren't enough to keep the publishers going -- so they shut up shop, too -- and now the only books for sale are older physical ones, or those that are self-published (individually or collectively), and sold electronically. Parking lots where the Borders used to be.

Will that happen? Who knows? But could it? Yes, it could. Though the RIAA and their fellows are rightly raked over the coals for their confiscatory methods, they do have one point: alternatives that allow you to bypass an organization that creates and sells a product without fees and profits going back to the organization, and the people whose creativity feed it, weakens the organization. When I read those electronic copies of New York Times articles, I do it for ease, and convenience -- but thats the unintended side effect.

The question is: how to combat it?