I don't know how the publishers can possibly predict how much it will cost or how much profit they make on e-books when they have no idea how many e-books they will sell. Sales determine final costs but I really think that 50¢ per digital copy is way too high.
I have laid out books before and using templates, style sheets and other shortcuts it shouldn't take too long. All the editing is done for the print copy and all you need is RTF text of the book and QuarkXPress or InDesign to do the layout which should be a streamlined and fairly easy process.
Once laid out the only other thing to do is add the digital tags for turning pages and the such. Again, it's a mortal lock that process is automated too.
I would love to buy an iPad as I am a voracious reader but at $12-$15 for an e-book the cost is way too high. I rarely buy hard covers for more than $18 and for me it would be a no-brainer to spend the extra 5 or 6 bucks to get hard copy.
People who don't like technology or enjoy the visceral feel of a book will always buy hard copy but the real market for Apple and it's publisher partners are people like us. We are comfortable with technology, we still read a lot and an iPad is certainly a much better alternative than a Kindle. The sticking point is cost. Show me a digital book for less than the cost of a paperback, which runs generally around the 8 dollar mark, and I switch. I like the visceral feel of books too and certainly I can build more bookshelves to house more books but I also like reading in bed or when I travel and the idea of a couple of dozen books on my iPad or easily adding another one when needed sounds too good to be true.
I'm all for everyone getting paid but it sounds to me that the fly in the ointment here is Apple. They want 30% from every e-book? That's way too much by half IMHO. They are sounding more and more like Microsoft every day and I say that with great sorrow. I have been a Mac user since 1992 and I have bought or traded for dozens of Macs. I love Macs. I love Apple. I'm not a fan of price gauging even from my favorite company. I hope they charge reasonable prices for their content because I really want an iPad and the only way I justify it to my wife is if there is a viable e-book option. She reads a lot too.
Publishers get roughly half -- $13 -- of the selling price of a book. But after factoring in payments to the author and the cost of cover design and copy editing, only about $4.05 is left. And, the report noted, that doesn't even include overhead such as office space and electricity.
Author's royalty can range from $2.27 to $3.25 on an e-book, leaving the publisher with between $4.56 and $5.54, before paying overhead costs. For comparison, under Amazon's $9.99 e-book model, publishers would take in between $3.51 and $4.26 before overhead.
Did anyone pay attention to the article? It basically states that Amazon's $9.99 pricing nets the publishers nearly as much profit as the sale of a hardcover version. A hardcover sale averages around $4.05 in profit and an Amazon sale comes in between $3.51 and $4.26. Given that the variable factor mentioned was the author's royalty fee which had a 98 cent range, one can approximate that the range of profit for a hardcover book is between $3.56 and $4.54. Not far off the Amazon range at all.
So what it comes down to is that the publishers are pissed off that they're not making MORE money off of digital sales than the print version. Except that the new prices under Apple only make them about a dollar more per sale. But chances are the higher prices will actually cost them sales so for each lost sale, they're going to have to sell 4 extra copies to make it back up.
Apple and the publishers can go ahead and charge $13-$14 a e-book, however if they included a rental price of half that amount, they would see tremendous amount of activity and Apple's iPad sales would skyrocket.
Rentals of e-books would be a tremendous profit potential as it's in the reach of more people at a lower price point than buying would be. Most people who are considering the iPad as a e-reader will be put off by it's $499 price tag, unless they knew they could get rent their books cheaper than buying it at $9 on a Kindle like they were used too.
Do you realize that most people know if you wanted to "rent" a book the best place is the library.
That's why they only intend to charge $12-$14 for the ebook, not $26. Where is the BS here?
Two things:
1. Why are we comparing ebooks to hardcovers? Why not to paperbacks?
2. The NYT article is very disingenuous. Read it carefully. Let me give you a couple of examples:
After allocating $0.80 for design, typesetting, copy-editing, it turns around and says "the publisher is left with $4.05 out of which it must pay for editors, cover art designers, ...
The it says that "print book sellers cannot sustain 3 to 5 percent of the market taken up by ebooks" and later on claims that they will cause bookstores to go out of business.
The easy thing to do is to increase the price of hard covers to adjust for the loss in sales. The aficionados and collectors will still be buying. And then reduce ebook prices to a provide a similar return as that of paperbacks. This will increase sales tremendously and make books much more accessible to the general public.
Can't speak to this, but I'm a university professor, and I can tell you that publishers have been incredibly resistant to making electronic versions of textbooks available. A big part of this is that e-textbooks could/would significantly damage the economy of entrenched campus bookstores.
Many campus bookstores rely on textbook sales as the majority of their income, so the loss of too many paper copies of textbooks would threaten the survival of campus bookstores, and in turn the loss of staff and student jobs, and many sales representatives and customer service and support jobs as well. This is particularly true of smaller campuses that contract out their bookstore management to companies like Barnes and Noble; they face the same issue as their general bookstores in terms of being too badly undercut by e-book sales.
I personally would love to have electronic versions of the textbooks I use for my classes, as well as other books I use on a regular basis for reference, programming, etc. It would literally revolutionize my work flow; I would use an iPad as an e-reader alongside my MBP and it would save me from having to carry literally thousands of pages of books back and forth with me from my office to my home. Of course, this is assuming some kind of unified DRM system could be had along with a durable mark-up protocol that would allow me to make notes and annotations within the electronic books I would use.
Regardless, part of the issue is that it's simply easier to stick with the established system, because even though they might net more profit by going electronic, the cost and the potential loss of content control seems currently too great for them to follow that path.
For me, that makes something like an iPad or even a Kindle a device of very low utility.
Do you realize that most people know if you wanted to "rent" a book the best place is the library.
Not really, libraries differ, some have a homeless problem, some don't carry nearly any sort of selection worth bothering with, some require traveling a great distance to access, and if you find a book you like odds are someone else has it out already or they have to order it, sometimes it's just to dam cold (or hot) to go, etc. That's the penalty for little or no cost renting.
There is a large market for e-book rentals like movie rentals, people read for enjoyment and then really have no further use for it. (if they want to keep it, then they get to apply the rental price to the e-purchase price). The vast electronic library would be nearly instantly available to anyone with a device and a net connection.
Publishers were fine getting 50% of Amazons $9 e-book prices, and the math for the $13-$15 iBookStore also netted them about $4.50 profit per e-book as well.
I see room for iBookStore e-book rentals coming in the iPad's future. Rental volume will be orders of magnitude larger, as e-book rentals is a untapped market and it's a lower price point for consumers.
With e-book rentals being half the cost of a say $14 e-book purchase price, and publishers getting their 70% (Apple getting 30%) that still nets $4.90 per book, about what the net is on the purchase price on Amazon. (thus why I feel Amazon was jammed up by publishers so quickly after the iPad announcement, they needed to adjust prices to take advantage of the more affluent Apple market)
Publishers see e-books sales and rentals as a extra avenue of revenue with a product they already have invested in with traditional paper books, merely transferring the existing prepared electronic files over to Apple/Amazon is all that's needed.
However if e-books were to seriously erode the traditional paper book model, some of those traditional costs would have to be applied to e-books and the models of renting and buying reworked. I doubt that will happen anytime soon, as the barrier to entry for e-books with the iPad is a whopping $499, plus internet connection fees and one can't resell the book to recoup.
Apple is leveraging their iPad in the MacBook space to gain the fastest adoption possible, thus e-book rentals would surely be coming, just like movie rentals in iTunes.
E-book rentals also work in favor of publishers because it allows them more viewing and profit control. One reads the book and it's yanked off the device. Right now with traditional paper books, one copy could be read by hundreds of people.
My guess is right now Amazon has to work their site and create a rental model, we all know Amazon can yank e-books off Kindles, so it shouldn't be too much of a issue for them.
It won't, because the utility of a real book is worth more than the printing cost. Also, there's no reason to actually pay the full MSRP. The retailers have half the price as a margin to play with, so the price differential is nowhere as large as they say. (See the Harry Potter book releases for example.)
I don't believe people are going to pay $7 for something that is free at the local library.
As I said, there's no reason to pay MSRP. I have no idea where you are currently situated, but Amazon ships pretty much everywhere.
And the fact is, I think that most Americans buy paperbacks. Sure you can get hardcovers if you want the latest book immediately, but the fact that they all end up in paperback for less than $10 at Walmart and most grocers, just shows to me that most Americans buy paperback.
And if I at average pay around $7 for a paperback, why would I pay $15 for an ebook that I can't borrow or resell to someone else. I mean a huge market exists for $1 or less books at fleamarkets. It is scary to think some people will be even less literate.
For digital media, its need to be competitive and needs to drop to $7 or less when the paperback comes out (this hasn't been mentioned). In addition I need to be able to borrow this media unlimited times. Obviously when I have it 'borrowed' out I should not be able to use or read it. I addition, I should be allowed to resell my 'copy' for whatever price I wish to.
There needs to be regulation to cover this. As there should be no reason why I can't legally take an MP3 and sell it to someone else, provided I fully transfer the copy of the MP3 and destory all copies I have.
I really don't care what a publisher's fixed costs are. If I like or want the book, I'll buy it regardless of price. Just don't trot out a bunch of bull justifying these inflated prices for e-books when common sense would tell anyone that the price of a physical book is going to be higher than an electronic version, but an electronic version 'near' the price of a physical book... baloney!
Well, clearly you are wrong. The cost of printing, warehousing, delivery and returns is a small percentage of the total cost of the book, with Apple taking 30%, this is more than cancelling that out. In addition, the suggested list prices for new eBooks are half the list prices for new print books - so where is your complaint?
Why are we comparing ebooks to hardcovers? Why not to paperbacks?
Exactly. I almost always either purchase paperbacks or buy the hard covers when they go on sale at B&N. The paperbacks typically cost about $5 and the discount hardcovers costs about $7.
I have not purchased a e-book reader yet for precisely this reason. I have to shell out $250 on a Nook (There is no way I'm buying an iPad) and then have to pay more for e-books than I would for a hard copy? Most e-book costs more than paperbacks on both Amazon and B&N. The only way I'm going to buy a digital reader is if I am able to make up the cost of the device in reduced book price. Forget $13, I'm not paying more than $3 for a e-book that's available for $5 in hard copy. I should be able to go to B&N or Amazon or the publisher and simply download the book to my device/computer. They should be passing on all the savings on reduced costs (inventory/storage/shipping etc) to me.
Of course there are plenty of people that buy books as soon as they come out, and they would obviously expect to pay more - just as they do now. But that cost too should be significantly less than when they purchase hard copies.
The other problem I have with e-books is that it can't be shared legally. The Nook allows you to lend a book, but in practice they have crippled it so badly, it's almost as good as not having it.
1. Why are we comparing ebooks to hardcovers? Why not to paperbacks?
The comparison is to hardcover new release prices because the price listed is for ebooks coming out at the same time as new releases. Macmillan and others have stated their intention to lower the price over time for a title to match the physical book editions. So when a paperback version of a book does come out, the ebook should be priced to match.
This is what they say they will do. We'll just have to wait to see if they were being genuine.
There is a large market for e-book rentals like movie rentals, people read for enjoyment and then really have no further use for it. (if they want to keep it, then they get to apply the rental price to the e-purchase price). The vast electronic library would be nearly instantly available to anyone with a device and a net connection.
SO by that logic you want purchase something, use it for it's intended purpose and then decide you don't want it anymore. And you want this cost to be less because you'll only use the product for its intended purpose once. Ermmmm.... When you buy a book, your paying for the content, for the entertainment, the means of delivery is irrelevant - the content is what you're purchasing. Once you've got that content in your brain, you don't erase it from your brain - the experience remains.
It's not like a car or a tux hire - the end product is not purely physical - it's the content, which once consumed stays with you forever.
What is with people wanting something for nothing? That's the price - pay it, or don't pay it. But don't claim the 'right' to reduced pricing or claim that content creators are 'greedy' for wanting to make a profit for their work?
How many of you are prepared to earn less money for no less work?
I telling you, $4.99 is the most I would pay for an e-book and THAT should be the flat rate price!
Nah, they should be free. Why pay anything at all - it's our RIGHT to have content for free - stuff paying people who produce the content and then expect to make a profit. It's wrong that these companies make profit. It doesn't cost anything to email the transcript, so just email it for free and let us read it already...
You obviously don't have a lot of respect for literature, or for people's right to earn a living.
Comments
Last week it was revealed that Amazon frantically phoned publishers as Apple co-founder Steve Jobs gave his keynote introducing the iPad in July.
Seems wrong to me.
I have laid out books before and using templates, style sheets and other shortcuts it shouldn't take too long. All the editing is done for the print copy and all you need is RTF text of the book and QuarkXPress or InDesign to do the layout which should be a streamlined and fairly easy process.
Once laid out the only other thing to do is add the digital tags for turning pages and the such. Again, it's a mortal lock that process is automated too.
I would love to buy an iPad as I am a voracious reader but at $12-$15 for an e-book the cost is way too high. I rarely buy hard covers for more than $18 and for me it would be a no-brainer to spend the extra 5 or 6 bucks to get hard copy.
People who don't like technology or enjoy the visceral feel of a book will always buy hard copy but the real market for Apple and it's publisher partners are people like us. We are comfortable with technology, we still read a lot and an iPad is certainly a much better alternative than a Kindle. The sticking point is cost. Show me a digital book for less than the cost of a paperback, which runs generally around the 8 dollar mark, and I switch. I like the visceral feel of books too and certainly I can build more bookshelves to house more books but I also like reading in bed or when I travel and the idea of a couple of dozen books on my iPad or easily adding another one when needed sounds too good to be true.
I'm all for everyone getting paid but it sounds to me that the fly in the ointment here is Apple. They want 30% from every e-book? That's way too much by half IMHO. They are sounding more and more like Microsoft every day and I say that with great sorrow. I have been a Mac user since 1992 and I have bought or traded for dozens of Macs. I love Macs. I love Apple. I'm not a fan of price gauging even from my favorite company. I hope they charge reasonable prices for their content because I really want an iPad and the only way I justify it to my wife is if there is a viable e-book option. She reads a lot too.
Publishers get roughly half -- $13 -- of the selling price of a book. But after factoring in payments to the author and the cost of cover design and copy editing, only about $4.05 is left. And, the report noted, that doesn't even include overhead such as office space and electricity.
Author's royalty can range from $2.27 to $3.25 on an e-book, leaving the publisher with between $4.56 and $5.54, before paying overhead costs. For comparison, under Amazon's $9.99 e-book model, publishers would take in between $3.51 and $4.26 before overhead.
Did anyone pay attention to the article? It basically states that Amazon's $9.99 pricing nets the publishers nearly as much profit as the sale of a hardcover version. A hardcover sale averages around $4.05 in profit and an Amazon sale comes in between $3.51 and $4.26. Given that the variable factor mentioned was the author's royalty fee which had a 98 cent range, one can approximate that the range of profit for a hardcover book is between $3.56 and $4.54. Not far off the Amazon range at all.
So what it comes down to is that the publishers are pissed off that they're not making MORE money off of digital sales than the print version. Except that the new prices under Apple only make them about a dollar more per sale. But chances are the higher prices will actually cost them sales so for each lost sale, they're going to have to sell 4 extra copies to make it back up.
Apple and the publishers can go ahead and charge $13-$14 a e-book, however if they included a rental price of half that amount, they would see tremendous amount of activity and Apple's iPad sales would skyrocket.
Rentals of e-books would be a tremendous profit potential as it's in the reach of more people at a lower price point than buying would be. Most people who are considering the iPad as a e-reader will be put off by it's $499 price tag, unless they knew they could get rent their books cheaper than buying it at $9 on a Kindle like they were used too.
Do you realize that most people know if you wanted to "rent" a book the best place is the library.
That's why they only intend to charge $12-$14 for the ebook, not $26. Where is the BS here?
Two things:
1. Why are we comparing ebooks to hardcovers? Why not to paperbacks?
2. The NYT article is very disingenuous. Read it carefully. Let me give you a couple of examples: The easy thing to do is to increase the price of hard covers to adjust for the loss in sales. The aficionados and collectors will still be buying. And then reduce ebook prices to a provide a similar return as that of paperbacks. This will increase sales tremendously and make books much more accessible to the general public.
Can't speak to this, but I'm a university professor, and I can tell you that publishers have been incredibly resistant to making electronic versions of textbooks available. A big part of this is that e-textbooks could/would significantly damage the economy of entrenched campus bookstores.
Many campus bookstores rely on textbook sales as the majority of their income, so the loss of too many paper copies of textbooks would threaten the survival of campus bookstores, and in turn the loss of staff and student jobs, and many sales representatives and customer service and support jobs as well. This is particularly true of smaller campuses that contract out their bookstore management to companies like Barnes and Noble; they face the same issue as their general bookstores in terms of being too badly undercut by e-book sales.
I personally would love to have electronic versions of the textbooks I use for my classes, as well as other books I use on a regular basis for reference, programming, etc. It would literally revolutionize my work flow; I would use an iPad as an e-reader alongside my MBP and it would save me from having to carry literally thousands of pages of books back and forth with me from my office to my home. Of course, this is assuming some kind of unified DRM system could be had along with a durable mark-up protocol that would allow me to make notes and annotations within the electronic books I would use.
Regardless, part of the issue is that it's simply easier to stick with the established system, because even though they might net more profit by going electronic, the cost and the potential loss of content control seems currently too great for them to follow that path.
For me, that makes something like an iPad or even a Kindle a device of very low utility.
Are you a math professor, by any chance?
That's why they only intend to charge $12-$14 for the ebook, not $26. Where is the BS here?
the bs is if a book sel's 5 millon copies the over head cost is gone by the first 200k in sales
so the book sellers rake in the cash .
the economies of scale demand this .
So no one can actually show any proof that Amazon is taking a loss, yet no one seems to question this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...le-sales-surge
Apparently Amazon sold more digital copies than paper copies last quarter. Yet they had a record quarter!
Do you realize that most people know if you wanted to "rent" a book the best place is the library.
Not really, libraries differ, some have a homeless problem, some don't carry nearly any sort of selection worth bothering with, some require traveling a great distance to access, and if you find a book you like odds are someone else has it out already or they have to order it, sometimes it's just to dam cold (or hot) to go, etc. That's the penalty for little or no cost renting.
There is a large market for e-book rentals like movie rentals, people read for enjoyment and then really have no further use for it. (if they want to keep it, then they get to apply the rental price to the e-purchase price). The vast electronic library would be nearly instantly available to anyone with a device and a net connection.
Publishers were fine getting 50% of Amazons $9 e-book prices, and the math for the $13-$15 iBookStore also netted them about $4.50 profit per e-book as well.
I see room for iBookStore e-book rentals coming in the iPad's future. Rental volume will be orders of magnitude larger, as e-book rentals is a untapped market and it's a lower price point for consumers.
With e-book rentals being half the cost of a say $14 e-book purchase price, and publishers getting their 70% (Apple getting 30%) that still nets $4.90 per book, about what the net is on the purchase price on Amazon. (thus why I feel Amazon was jammed up by publishers so quickly after the iPad announcement, they needed to adjust prices to take advantage of the more affluent Apple market)
Publishers see e-books sales and rentals as a extra avenue of revenue with a product they already have invested in with traditional paper books, merely transferring the existing prepared electronic files over to Apple/Amazon is all that's needed.
However if e-books were to seriously erode the traditional paper book model, some of those traditional costs would have to be applied to e-books and the models of renting and buying reworked. I doubt that will happen anytime soon, as the barrier to entry for e-books with the iPad is a whopping $499, plus internet connection fees and one can't resell the book to recoup.
Apple is leveraging their iPad in the MacBook space to gain the fastest adoption possible, thus e-book rentals would surely be coming, just like movie rentals in iTunes.
E-book rentals also work in favor of publishers because it allows them more viewing and profit control. One reads the book and it's yanked off the device. Right now with traditional paper books, one copy could be read by hundreds of people.
My guess is right now Amazon has to work their site and create a rental model, we all know Amazon can yank e-books off Kindles, so it shouldn't be too much of a issue for them.
It won't, because the utility of a real book is worth more than the printing cost. Also, there's no reason to actually pay the full MSRP. The retailers have half the price as a margin to play with, so the price differential is nowhere as large as they say. (See the Harry Potter book releases for example.)
I don't believe people are going to pay $7 for something that is free at the local library.
As I said, there's no reason to pay MSRP. I have no idea where you are currently situated, but Amazon ships pretty much everywhere.
All completely false.
Not really, libraries differ, some have a homeless problem, .
This is the first thing you think of? You're too good to go to a library that might have homeless people walking around
God this place gets more and more bizarre every day
BTW: How do you "rent a book?" Either you read it or you don't.
Thanks for the chart, and yes exactly. Either you read a book, or you don't. Nothing else matters. Not the how the who the where or the why.
Either read it, or don't, and stfu and move on.
And if I at average pay around $7 for a paperback, why would I pay $15 for an ebook that I can't borrow or resell to someone else. I mean a huge market exists for $1 or less books at fleamarkets. It is scary to think some people will be even less literate.
For digital media, its need to be competitive and needs to drop to $7 or less when the paperback comes out (this hasn't been mentioned). In addition I need to be able to borrow this media unlimited times. Obviously when I have it 'borrowed' out I should not be able to use or read it. I addition, I should be allowed to resell my 'copy' for whatever price I wish to.
There needs to be regulation to cover this. As there should be no reason why I can't legally take an MP3 and sell it to someone else, provided I fully transfer the copy of the MP3 and destory all copies I have.
You're too good to go to a library that might have homeless people walking around
Either read it, or don't, and stfu and move on.
Well it seems your in a very cheery mood today. (insert wise ass comment here)
God this place gets more and more bizarre every day
(insert something about doors and asses here)
I really don't care what a publisher's fixed costs are. If I like or want the book, I'll buy it regardless of price. Just don't trot out a bunch of bull justifying these inflated prices for e-books when common sense would tell anyone that the price of a physical book is going to be higher than an electronic version, but an electronic version 'near' the price of a physical book... baloney!
Well, clearly you are wrong. The cost of printing, warehousing, delivery and returns is a small percentage of the total cost of the book, with Apple taking 30%, this is more than cancelling that out. In addition, the suggested list prices for new eBooks are half the list prices for new print books - so where is your complaint?
Why are we comparing ebooks to hardcovers? Why not to paperbacks?
Exactly. I almost always either purchase paperbacks or buy the hard covers when they go on sale at B&N. The paperbacks typically cost about $5 and the discount hardcovers costs about $7.
I have not purchased a e-book reader yet for precisely this reason. I have to shell out $250 on a Nook (There is no way I'm buying an iPad) and then have to pay more for e-books than I would for a hard copy? Most e-book costs more than paperbacks on both Amazon and B&N. The only way I'm going to buy a digital reader is if I am able to make up the cost of the device in reduced book price. Forget $13, I'm not paying more than $3 for a e-book that's available for $5 in hard copy. I should be able to go to B&N or Amazon or the publisher and simply download the book to my device/computer. They should be passing on all the savings on reduced costs (inventory/storage/shipping etc) to me.
Of course there are plenty of people that buy books as soon as they come out, and they would obviously expect to pay more - just as they do now. But that cost too should be significantly less than when they purchase hard copies.
The other problem I have with e-books is that it can't be shared legally. The Nook allows you to lend a book, but in practice they have crippled it so badly, it's almost as good as not having it.
Two things:
1. Why are we comparing ebooks to hardcovers? Why not to paperbacks?
The comparison is to hardcover new release prices because the price listed is for ebooks coming out at the same time as new releases. Macmillan and others have stated their intention to lower the price over time for a title to match the physical book editions. So when a paperback version of a book does come out, the ebook should be priced to match.
This is what they say they will do. We'll just have to wait to see if they were being genuine.
There is a large market for e-book rentals like movie rentals, people read for enjoyment and then really have no further use for it. (if they want to keep it, then they get to apply the rental price to the e-purchase price). The vast electronic library would be nearly instantly available to anyone with a device and a net connection.
SO by that logic you want purchase something, use it for it's intended purpose and then decide you don't want it anymore. And you want this cost to be less because you'll only use the product for its intended purpose once. Ermmmm.... When you buy a book, your paying for the content, for the entertainment, the means of delivery is irrelevant - the content is what you're purchasing. Once you've got that content in your brain, you don't erase it from your brain - the experience remains.
It's not like a car or a tux hire - the end product is not purely physical - it's the content, which once consumed stays with you forever.
What is with people wanting something for nothing? That's the price - pay it, or don't pay it. But don't claim the 'right' to reduced pricing or claim that content creators are 'greedy' for wanting to make a profit for their work?
How many of you are prepared to earn less money for no less work?
I telling you, $4.99 is the most I would pay for an e-book and THAT should be the flat rate price!
Nah, they should be free. Why pay anything at all - it's our RIGHT to have content for free - stuff paying people who produce the content and then expect to make a profit. It's wrong that these companies make profit. It doesn't cost anything to email the transcript, so just email it for free and let us read it already...
You obviously don't have a lot of respect for literature, or for people's right to earn a living.