Chuck, it depends on someone's disability. There is a classification (and it's important under copyright) for people who are "print disabled". Not releasing it in e-book form in order to encourage people to go to bookstores (although at the same time, releasing it through online sites, which seems contradictory) disadvantages people who are print disabled. There are programs, under the Chafee Amendment, that can make an accessible version available...but those are less convenient than being able to get it from (for example) Amazon.
Certainly, it may be your interpretation that it isn't unfair, and I can understand that. However, it isn't intended as a "cheap shot", but as the way some people feel about it. I don't want it to be that determines "what's really there"...I like to see what people think. I do formulate the questions from what might be an advocatory extreme, because I want to make the differences distinct. I would say that the choice about supporting bookstores could be as easily disputed as the disability question. :)
chuck - 11 years ago
Honestly, the "unfair to disabled people" argument doesn't make sense. It's not like e-books are the only way for them to read. Between FedEx and other shopping options that bring a book straight to your door, it sounds like a cheap shot and really weakens the whole argument against him doing this. Yeah, it's inconvenient, and does seem odd for him to do it considering he really supported e-books early on, but let's not make more out of it than what's really there.
Vicki - 11 years ago
Although I believe that it's up to King to decide how to distribute his books, I think it's rather hypocritical of him to make this choice as he was such a proponent of ebooks in the early stages. However, personally, I won't purchase the book until it is released in an ebook format.
Chuck, it depends on someone's disability. There is a classification (and it's important under copyright) for people who are "print disabled". Not releasing it in e-book form in order to encourage people to go to bookstores (although at the same time, releasing it through online sites, which seems contradictory) disadvantages people who are print disabled. There are programs, under the Chafee Amendment, that can make an accessible version available...but those are less convenient than being able to get it from (for example) Amazon.
Certainly, it may be your interpretation that it isn't unfair, and I can understand that. However, it isn't intended as a "cheap shot", but as the way some people feel about it. I don't want it to be that determines "what's really there"...I like to see what people think. I do formulate the questions from what might be an advocatory extreme, because I want to make the differences distinct. I would say that the choice about supporting bookstores could be as easily disputed as the disability question. :)
Honestly, the "unfair to disabled people" argument doesn't make sense. It's not like e-books are the only way for them to read. Between FedEx and other shopping options that bring a book straight to your door, it sounds like a cheap shot and really weakens the whole argument against him doing this. Yeah, it's inconvenient, and does seem odd for him to do it considering he really supported e-books early on, but let's not make more out of it than what's really there.
Although I believe that it's up to King to decide how to distribute his books, I think it's rather hypocritical of him to make this choice as he was such a proponent of ebooks in the early stages. However, personally, I won't purchase the book until it is released in an ebook format.