When e-books were first introduced I was immediately against them, even without trying them out. I was determined that I was not only a book person but a physical person. However, when Indigo’s Kobo e-reader went on sale a few years ago for Boxing Day, Dylan and I decided to get one in the hopes that it would save us some space in our (formerly) cramped apartment.
Well, it didn’t. Our poor Kobo has mostly collected dust until recently when we had to get rid of the vast majority of our books when we moved. Now we’re stuck with a conundrum – do we repurchase the books we already owned? And if we do, do we buy them in hard copy or e-book format?
Dylan and I were talking about this conundrum the other day, and while neither of us particularly enjoy reading on the Kobo in comparison to a physical book, we would certainly read the e-books if we didn’t have to pay $20 for a digital file. If I’m going to pay $20 for a book I want the physicality of it; the smell that only books have, the heft of the book in my hands, the sound of turning the pages. But my real question is: why hasn’t the book publishing industry followed the film industry and music industry’s leads in providing digital formats with the physical copy of the book? They wouldn’t even have to come up with a new way to provide access as the film industry has that covered already. The only thing I can think of is that the book publishers are too greedy to do it: why would they risk losing the money from the customers who would pay for both? Never mind that it could cut down e-book piracy by a whole heck of a lot.
What do you think? Should book publishers start including digital copies of books with physical copies? Are the publishers just being greedy? Let me know in the comments!