Not that this is realistic, but wouldn't it be fair if textbook publishers made PREVIOUS versions of textbooks free to view online? This would help in two ways. 1. It would give a reason for the company to not publish a new textbook every few years just for the sake of making money. 2. It would allow students to have free access to the fundamental content (and if students don't buy the latest edition then they would be at a loss for that new content). The publishers would argue that this is not fair, because then students wouldn't buy their new textbooks as much. But if the "new editions" do indeed have enough new content in them for us to buy the new book, then it wouldn't even matter right?...The argument would be invalid. I know they would never do this because they would still make less money, but if they did, would it not be so much more fair because they'd still be making decent money? Or am I missed something?

The problem here is that you're assuming corporations aren't heartless.

The purpose of a business is to make as much money as their resources allow them to, so I don't think Wiley or whatever is going to settle for "making decent money" when their current model allows them to exploit students' wallets with little-to-no repercussions.

The only possible way this could happen is if a cost-benefit analysis was performed and showed that increased customer loyalty outweighed the advantages of reprinting books every few years, and unfortunately that's probably not going to happen.

Originally Posted by DanHiggins

Not that this is realistic, but wouldn't it be fair if textbook publishers made PREVIOUS versions of textbooks free to view online? This would help in two ways. 1. It would give a reason for the company to not publish a new textbook every few years just for the sake of making money. 2. It would allow students to have free access to the fundamental content (and if students don't buy the latest edition then they would be at a loss for that new content). The publishers would argue that this is not fair, because then students wouldn't buy their new textbooks as much. But if the "new editions" do indeed have enough new content in them for us to buy the new book, then it wouldn't even matter right?...The argument would be invalid. I know they would never do this because they would still make less money, but if they did, would it not be so much more fair because they'd still be making decent money? Or am I missed something?

I think you're missing the definition of "fair".

Different people find different things "fair". Fair isn't giving students free access to fundamental concepts, nor is it devaluing new textbooks. Fair also isn't purposely churning out useless new editions to make more money (that's capitalism).


And you're basically saying they should make less new versions, which already will seriously decrease their profits, and then on top of that make it so that there is much much less reason to buy the new versions. If that were the case, the books probably just wouldn't get updated, period. It wouldn't be worth it.

And if for some reason the new edition had some earth-shattering info not in the older versions, the old version is "useless" to you anyways, but to get the new version you'd have to pay way more because if what you suggested was implemented, the price of new versions of textbooks would skyrocket.

You seem to realize that your idea is totally unrealistic, and I really don't understand how it would make things "fair".

Most older versions of textbooks are 90% the same as the current ones. So if they allowed that, that would make the current versions completely useless and noone would buy them.

Plus, come on dude.... there's pirate bay, its not like you can't just download the book for "fair" use....

Older versions have 95%+ similar content. Publishers change a few pages and slap a brand new price sticker on it "forcing" ppl to change

This is equivalent of saying that Apple should be selling all previous models of the iphone, ipod, ipad at cost (for example iPhone 4s at about $150).

Its suicide for a company to consider this. SOME textbook Authors allow some previous versions of books online but those are usually limited to authors of very small publishers.

Originally Posted by MrPlinkett

Most older versions of textbooks are 90% the same as the current ones. So if they allowed that, that would make the current versions completely useless and noone would buy them.

Plus, come on dude.... there's pirate bay, its not like you can't just download the book for "fair" use....

I know, that's the point. It would encourage less editions of the same content overall.

Originally Posted by Entropy

The problem here is that you're assuming corporations aren't heartless.

The purpose of a business is to make as much money as their resources allow them to, so I don't think Wiley or whatever is going to settle for "making decent money" when their current model allows them to exploit students' wallets with little-to-no repercussions.

The only possible way this could happen is if a cost-benefit analysis was performed and showed that increased customer loyalty outweighed the advantages of reprinting books every few years, and unfortunately that's probably not going to happen.

I completely get this. I am not at all saying it's realistic. But I'd say it's a fair compromise. Unfortunately fair compromises are not always realistic. I just wish the publishers would stop producing new textbooks all the time. Or profs would stop requiring the newest versions to be bought (thus decreasing the demand for new books).

I killed a man once

torrents. that is all.

Originally Posted by DanHiggins

I know, that's the point. It would encourage less editions of the same content overall.

Yes, but that's the point. Publishers and companies want more editions of the same content overall so they can sell them to us and make more money. Why would the want to encourage something that would lead to less profit?

Originally Posted by Quiver

Yes, but that's the point. Publishers and companies want more editions of the same content overall so they can sell them to us and make more money. Why would the want to encourage something that would lead to less profit?

Just that profit comes at our expense. This is a case where businesses can abuse their power over people. In this case, students, who are a demographic that are in debt for the most part.

Originally Posted by DanHiggins

I completely get this. I am not at all saying it's realistic. But I'd say it's a fair compromise. Unfortunately fair compromises are not always realistic. I just wish the publishers would stop producing new textbooks all the time. Or profs would stop requiring the newest versions to be bought (thus decreasing the demand for new books).

It might decrease the demand for new books but not diminish it in any way, shape or form. The supply will still remain steady and so will the demand.

Originally Posted by DanHiggins

Just that profit comes at our expense. This is a case where businesses can abuse their power over people. In this case, students, who are a demographic that are in debt for the most part.

Well, yeah. Business is a horrible cut-throat world. I don't agree with it but I'm also not idealistic enough to believe that the CEO of Pearson or whatever cares that his 7+ digit salary comes from ripping off poor 20 year olds.

I'm not saying it's right or fair, but I'm saying that's why it happens and why it won't change unless something drastic happens.

Originally Posted by Quiver

Well, yeah. Business is a horrible cut-throat world. I don't agree with it but I'm also not idealistic enough to believe that the CEO of Pearson or whatever cares that his 7+ digit salary comes from ripping off poor 20 year olds.

I'm not saying it's right or fair, but I'm saying that's why it happens and why it won't change unless something drastic happens.

You are right. I just think it's unfortunate.