Mitch Wagner Asks About Ethics Of Downloading Media You Already Paid For
from the discuss dept
A few weeks back, we linked to the NY Times' Ethicist, Randy Cohen, explaining why it's not unethical to download a digital copy of a book, if you'd bought a hard copy of the book -- even though it probably violates copyright law. That created quite a lot of anger from folks who felt that it was clearly an ethical violation as well. Mitch Wagner, apparently missed that kerfuffle, as he's written up a short blog post for Computerworld asking people their thoughts on the ethics of downloading media that you purchased legally:I recently got a hankering to re-read some of my favorite books. I already own them, in hardcover and paperback. But I'd like to re-read them as e-books. Do I need to buy the e-book versions, or can I download a pirated copy of the e-book for free?However, he goes on to make another point that also deserves some scrutiny:
The argument that says it's wrong is pretty simple, and clear-cut: When I bought the books, I bought individual copies of the books. All I own is that one copy. If I lost the copy, I wouldn't be entitled to a free replacement. It wouldn't be right for me to shoplift the book from the local Barnes & Noble. I'd have an obligation to buy a new copy, or borrow one legitimately, before re-reading the book.
On the other hand: I already paid for these books legitimately. They're my books. The shoplifting analogy is specious, because in that case, I'm depriving the rightful owner -- the owner of the bookstore -- of their copy of the book. If I download a copy of the e-book, nobody else is deprived of their copy.
Every couple of years, TiVo hiccups and fails to record a favorite TV show. In that case, I have to decide whether to wait for the show to come out on DVD, or just download the episode from the BitTorrents.Now there will be people who will claim that, due to the fact that it likely infringes on copyright to do so, it's automatically unethical. But morality isn't determined by the law. In general, I've always argued that if the economics increase the overall market and opportunity, then there's no moral issue to speak of -- and it's hard to see how someone downloading an episode their TiVo missed would harm the overall economy in any way. But, I'm guessing that some folks here will disagree...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: e-books, ethics, mitch wagner
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So it's unethical to shoplift the book from Barnes and Noble. Fine. The reasoning here seems to be that owning one copy of the book grants you some rights on other copies of the book, at least in electronic format. But since you own some aspect of the book already, that almost necessarily has implications on physical copies as well.
If I buy two copies of the same book at Barnes and Noble, why should I pay full price for the second one? If I buy 200 copies, why should I pay the same price for the last 199 of them? Is it ethical, then, to give Barnes and Noble somewhat less than their full asking price for those other 199? How much less? If the book is listed at $10, can I leave $7 on the counter and walk out without a stain on my conscience? (Yes, I understand the Loss Prevention guys might follow me out and tackle me, but that has nothing to do with ethics).
If I resell those $7 books to people who don't already own a copy, am I then ethically obligated to collect extra and give it back to Barnes and Noble? After all, they don't already own a copy of the book.
In general, I've always argued that if the economics increase the overall market and opportunity, then there's no moral issue to speak of
Interesting. So let's say a celebrity - maybe Winona Ryder - is walking through a store and drops an expensive dress in her bag and walks out without paying. But Winona is going to wear that dress to the Oscars later that week, and that will undoubtedly increase the market and opportunities related to that dress. Was Winona's peccadillo therefore moral/ethical?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Good point sire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't know. But actually your consideration isn't that much different from my proposal. I am sure we both agree that it doesn't matter if I photocopy it for personal reasons at 100% or 200% magnification. So let's say 100% - an exact copy.
Now, let's say I don't have the equipment to make that exact copy at my home, so I contract someone to make me that copy. Same result, right?
That copy costs less than just buying a second copy of the book. Let's say half as much - buying a second copy from B&N would be $10, but making a second copy for my personal use would cost me only $5.
However, I realize that it's sort of foolish to pay a completely separate company to print me a second copy of the book, when there's already a company churning out plenty of copies of that book. In fact, it's the original publisher. So rather than go through all the needless hassle of paying some OTHER company to make me a copy of my book, I just go get another copy of the original publisher's run from Barnes and Noble. Making a copy of my book would have cost $5, so I leave $5 instead of the $10 asking price. Yes, I have "deprived them of a copy," but then again I did pay for it, just like I did when I "deprived them" of the first copy I bought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Technically if (using your example), the essence of the book is $3, and the physical book costs $7, then it would make sense that you should pay less for the second copy. However in reality, no book store (or publisher) would let you do that as they could sell the book to someone else for more money.
However, with e-books, the essence remains at $3, whilst e-book itself essentially costs a negligible amount ($0). If you already own the book, you have paid your $3 for the essence, and should therefore be able to buy the e-book for '$0'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They should order more books, then. Then they'd have copies for both of us. There's lots of paper and ink. If a store runs out of copies of a book, it's a failure of inventory management - not a representation of actual scarcity.
Let's say I go into Barnes and Noble today and there is only one copy of a book I want there. Suddenly, some other guy grabs it before I get to it and heads for the counter. I follow him and protest that I want the book, too. Does Barnes and Noble 1) sell him the book at the list price or 2) hold an impromptu auction between the two of us?
Of course it does (1). Does that pose an ethical problem because they COULD have sold it at a higher price through an auction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obviously not, because in that case the book store is a willing party to the transaction to sell it at a fixed price. Which is the problem with taking a book from the store and paying cost for it: The bookstore isn't a willing party to the transaction. And which is why making a personal copy isn't a problem, because the bookstore isn't a party at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
if you can find a bookstore that will work with you in this manner, then go for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Owning the essence of the book itself entitles me to get ebooks for free, ethically speaking. If I did not own the essence of the book, it would not be OK, ethically, to download it without paying.
But how much of the price I paid for the original book goes toward the physical copy, and how much toward the essence? And why, then, can't I just subtract the price of the essence from the price of the physical copy, and pay that? If the book costs $10 - $7 for the physical copy and $3 for the essence, why do I have to pay $10 for a second copy of the book? Why can't I pay $10 for the first and $7 for the second, since I own the "essence" already?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When you buy a book from a bookstore, you obviously buy the physical good, but the license is what is in question. If you already bought one paper copy at the bookstore price, it wouldn't make sense to buy the second at a lower price because the store already purchased the book from the publisher at an agreed price. You could ask the publisher to sell you a discounted book, but good luck.
Copying or downloading is a different issue. I would argue that when you pay for the content in any form equal to what the creator thinks it's worth, you have the freedom to do what you want with the content(except resell it as your own).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We're talking about ethics here, not laws. Copyright and licenses are legal constructs.
If you already bought one paper copy at the bookstore price, it wouldn't make sense to buy the second at a lower price because the store already purchased the book from the publisher at an agreed price.
Isn't that their problem, though? In fact, I'm betting the bookstore bought many copies of the book. Let's say 1000. Why would it buy the "essence" of the book 1000 times and not just once?
You could ask the publisher to sell you a discounted book, but good luck.
Oh, so if I eliminate the middleman, then it's ethical to pay a reduced rate for my 2nd (or 3rd, or 4th) copy. Isn't it unethical for them to NOT sell me those second/third/fourth copies for less than the market rate? After all, aren't they double-dipping by selling me the "essence" twice?
I would argue that when you pay for the content in any form equal to what the creator thinks it's worth, you have the freedom to do what you want with the content
Are you really "paying for the content," though? You're paying for something - some essence, but does that essence give me ethical free reign to do anything I want with the full content for all uses? When the creator puts the content in a physical form like a book, he has amortized the cost of the content across many physical objects. So you're paying not for the content, but a small fraction of the amortized cost of the content.
A version of Windows costs many tens of millions of dollars to make, but you can buy it for like $199 thanks to the miracle of amortization. If I'm a company that owns 1000 computers, is it ethical to buy one copy of Windows and install it on all 1000 of my computers? After all, by your logic I paid what the creator thought the content was worth, and I am not reselling it as my own...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bulk Rates
If so then you could say the book stores do only pay for the essence of the book once and receive a discount for the rest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There are a couple of problems with your argument. The "essence" and physical book are not available separately (at least at Barnes & Noble). There is no mechanism in place for you to pay for them separately. Even if you could (say shoplift the book and leave your "donation" on the counter), B&N pay the distributor for both the essence and physical book so if you pay only for the physical second copy, B&N loses the money they paid to the distributor for the "essence". The distributor pays the publisher for both as well. "Essence" and physical book are only separate when you get all the way back to the author and the printer. The author has already been paid for the "essence" from the first book purchase, so if you break into the printing factory and take a second copy and leave a fair amount for the physical book (costs + profit + compensation for any damage/disruption caused by your break-in), THEN you MIGHT have a morally supportable argument since you aren't effecting any downstream businesses who deal only with the "bundled" book (though still highly illegal of course).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Interesting. So let's say a celebrity - maybe Winona Ryder - is walking through a store and drops an expensive dress in her bag and walks out without paying. But Winona is going to wear that dress to the Oscars later that week, and that will undoubtedly increase the market and opportunities related to that dress. Was Winona's peccadillo therefore moral/ethical?
I agree with your argument about overall market. In your scenario someone does get hurt economically. Just because it is worn at the Oscars, and sales on that dress improve it doesn't mean that the shopkeeper that was stolen from isn't at a loss from the theft.
But another way to look at the whole picture is if I buy a book, and chose to scan it into digital form, or type in to a ebook form, I am free to do so (so long as I do not sell it). So by downloading the version I am just cutting out the time and labor of scanning or typing it myself. My downloading would be akin to fair use. The person offering it for download though is questionable unless they have a way to make you prove you already own the book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The original point is not about buying additional copies of the book at the self determined discount and reselling them. It's about reasonable personal use of a work you already bought the rights to.
Why is it that the assumption is that if I make a copy of something, I'm going to resell it for a profit. Nobody mentioned that in the original article, but, you added it as well.
So, if I go into Barnes and Noble and buy a copy of a book, read it and give it to someone else, am I guilty of copyright violations? What if I sell it at a consignment shop? Should the FBI arrest all of the librarians?
Ok, how about if I buy a copy of the book, and scan it into a book reader that converts the test to speech for me to hear. Is that a violation. Should the blind start waiting for the FBI to kick down their door?
Whats the difference if I buy a CD, and rip it to mu iTunes, or if I own the vinyl, and record it to my computer, or if I download the tracks from the internet instead of recording them from the vinyl, or ripping them from the CD? Or are the media producers concerned I might have a method to circumvent the planned obsolescence of the media I purchase. I bought a record, but records are obsolete, so I should buy the CD, but, CD's are obsolete, so I should buy the MP3...
If I bought a single copy of some media, and use it for my personal use, why should I need to buy a copy for every format. I like the way it was, personal use is fine as long as you aren't making multiple copies for profit.
Bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: shoplifting v. file sharing
And using Winona Ryder as an example is low. Ni culturi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ridiculous
He owns a copy. He could very well scan his own electronic version of the book. That is by no means unethical or even illegal. So skipping the personal labour and downloading that electronic version amounts to the same thing.
I own 800 CDs. I'm too lazy to rip them all to MP3. I simply downloaded all the albums I own. I feel there is nothing at all wrong with doing that. I would not fret doing the same with an eBook if I owned the hardcopy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ridiculous
Because...you say so? It's extremely close.
He owns a copy. He could very well scan his own electronic version of the book. That is by no means unethical or even illegal. So skipping the personal labour and downloading that electronic version amounts to the same thing.
And he could make a photocopy of his own book also. Or he could contract someone to make that photocopy. Since the publisher is doing exactly that, he could "skip the personal labour" and just go out and get a second copy of the original book, as long as he paid the publisher the costs of the copy (just as he would pay a photocopying house).
I own 800 CDs. I'm too lazy to rip them all to MP3. I simply downloaded all the albums I own. I feel there is nothing at all wrong with doing that.
What would you do with your MP3 copies if you were to sell or lose one of those 800 CDs? Do you ever loan any to a friend? If so, what do you do with the MP3s while the corresponding CD is on loan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ridiculous
Since they are not identical. It would be logical to assume that the properties that govern their use are not identical as well. You/we will need to decided if, how and to what degree they differ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ridiculous
So if I bought a CD, made a copy (to preserve the original) and then lost the copy at a park, must I assume that it was found and destroy my original? Why is that a mix tape in the 80's was OK to give to a friend, but when it's MP3s is an issue? Just because they are digital shouldn't make them less ethical than any other copy. Actully it should make them more ethical, as the cost of copying is far far less. Actually, you would think most bands would love some good old fashioned grass roots advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ridiculous
The recording industry believed differently until recently. Every time a format change occurred, the industry was quite ok with charging us to move from vinyl to 8-track to cassette to CD, and a lot of us did. This latests format change has just screwed their business model and they are in a panic because their most dedicated customers are no longer happy with paying for music they may have already purchased 2 or 3 or 4 times already.
Is it ethical to download a digital copy of something you have paid for ? YES. Is it ethical to download a digital copy of something you haven't paid for? No.
How do you control or legislate that? I have no idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who cares, Im downloading anything I've already paid for at least once and won't feel bad about it in anyway.
Screw the folks who will disagree!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who cares?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What if the MP3s you downloaded were not simply CD rips automatically encoded by software, but painstakingly re-engineered by the record company for maximum sound fidelity in the MP3 format?
This is analogous to one of the arguments for why it might not be ethical to download the e-Book: the e-Book is generally NOT simply a scanned copy of the paper book; it is reformatted for electronic consumption. Someone was paid to do this work.
What about downloading an audiobook of a book for which you already own the paper copy? Conversely, if you own an audiobook, is it ethical to download an e-Book version?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: enhanced versions
I've seen a much higher incidence of errors in ebooks, and many cases where markers denoting end of chapter or some sort of change of context are completely absent, making for some pretty confusing changes of context that you don't get until halfway through the paragraph.
But yes, real effort to format a work for a new medium is something I would pay for... but many ebooks are more expensive than the paperback I already own. I doubt the effort put in to the new format is more than the original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-> Someone tells me about a book I should read.
-> Admittedly, I will look online to see if I can read past the first 10 pages on Amazon to see if they have any substance.
--> If it's cool, I'll try to find more information online, I will scan through it and if it's neat enough when I've had a few beers, I'll leave a Post-It® note on my keyboard for me to buy it when I awake.
----> (else) I can't find anything online, I look for something else and open another beer.
If, when I wake up and am out of beers, and I realize I didn't find anything good that night, I may write a letter to Mitch Wagner telling him how bad his book is and how I didn't find interesting.
I may even provide him a link to something interesting and ask him to be more funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old skool
*Younger readers may wish to Google some of these.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MP3s
If I'd had to buy it from iTunes and the like it would have been cheaper to replace my broken turntable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Downloading Media
In my opinion, it is perfectly ethical to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you ever find an example of this, let us know, would you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not the copies that are valuable, but the work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On a related subject
There are some who would claim that the act of loaning/borrowing copyrighted material is a violation of the copyright owners rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, and half the concerts I go to, the artists themselves on stage say its okay to download their music.
Trent Reznor / Nine Inch Nails actually actively encourages it. Asks us to hit the torrents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I agree, they are the same product of music. However, I strongly disagree that they are the same music (songs). Depending on how wild and group is feeling, the music can range from similar to what is on album to wildly different.
You are welcome to pay for each different set of songs.
Where I fail to see any possible point you guys make is when you say we should pay multiple times for the exact same tune. Format shouldn't matter. Paid once and then all digital is ours. Just how everybody in my generation feels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reznor, your hero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reznor, your hero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reznor, your hero.
Knowing Reznor's history I would say he has built his business models in Spite of the industry. He has wanted to do many promotional things throughout his career and they wanted it shot down time and again.
I say he is flourishing despite the labels. They held him back. He would be even bigger right now if it wasn't for them.
One small instance that happened not so long ago was the alternate reality game he was playing with Year Zero. He purposely leaked songs on thumb drives. What did the industry do? They issued DMCAs to get them removed. He had to fight them to allow them out there for free as were his own wishes. He has always hated the labels and I can definitely see why.
You can say that he has led us back, but that merely demonstrates that you have no idea what he is selling. He gives his fans a reason to buy. I still buy his CDs. I don't really buy anyone elses anymore though. His have so many extras inside. Lyrics. Art. Heck, one of them was even a disc that would change colors when it was heated (like when you played the whole disc). They are great reasons to buy. You know what I see in other discs that are sold by the recording industry? Nothing but a tiny slip that lists the songs. Worthless reason to buy a disc.
And he does anything but hide from digital distribution. He gives away his music for free online. I guess that only further demonstrates that you don't really know him well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Wormtongue knows he is paying for the performance and not the music at a live event.
Thusly, I bestow upon you a new moniker: Arise, Wormtongue Groundhog, long may your discs be shiny and your sales be meagre!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Purchase another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Purchase another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Purchase another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The laws on this are old and need to be rewritten. The problem with that is the system for that process is broken. Seems if you have the money to pay the lobbyist you can have laws that prop up your business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh REALLY??
Oh, really? REALLY? We area purchasing a LICENSE? Since when? And by that I mean, show us ALL in the copyright code where its codified that purchasing copies (legal, real) of copyrighted material is a LICENSE AGREEMENT. Please. Show us. Because AFAIK, this DOES NOT EXIST anywhere in the copyright statute, which establishes ONLY issues relating to, you know, COPYING (illegally, infringing).
You people (and by that I mean, industry shills/apologists) come along and just proclaim out of the blue that suddenly, all your media is licensed, without EVER informing the buying public of such an agreement. It is an agreement that Joe Consumer NEVER agreed to, is NOT represented in copyright law, OR consumer law (unless CLEARLY specified UP FRONT prior to purchase) and ONLY serves one side of the license (the rights holder) at the expense of the other (the consumer, who get ZERO rights that a license would provide).
If you REALLY believe that this is a LICENSE issue, then Joe Consumer has EVERY RIGHT to obtain alternate format versions of media he ALREADY HAS A LICENSE TO.
You dont get to have it both ways, EITHER he is purchasing a one-off copy and can do whatever he wants with it within copyright (and that includes making HIS OWN PERSONAL GOD DAMN COPIES IN ANY FORMAT HE WISHES),
OR
He has a LICENSE and he he ALREADY has the right to the underlying material, is entitled to REPLACEMENT of the media he purchased, and is not required to REPURCHASE said media in light of new technological formats that may come out in the future. None of this is enforceable of course, because A) its not legal and B) Joe Consumer never signed a license agreement (with attendant terms) to begin with.
And NO, shrink-wrap EULA-style license "Agreements" that are not clearly stated on the package or at time of purchase, and that you can only view the terms of AFTER purchase and cracking the wrap (and subsequently cannot return once opened) does NOT constitute a legally binding license agreement. You dont get to just PROCLAIM a license agreement exists when there is ZERO knowledge on the part of Joe Consumer that he is agreeing to such a license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You've already purchased the 'content'. What difference does the format make?
Would it be ok to scan the book into a PDF personally? Of course, you own the book. So what would be the difference?
The ETHICAL issue here is how a company can sell an item and then proceed to try and tell the purchaser what they can and cannot do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ok lets
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just steal the damn thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everytime TAM says something stupid like that I take a break and download something copyrighted I have not paid for. Fuck ethics, fuck the RIAA and fuck the US while you're at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL! TAM, is that you?
"Lift off the skin of a technologically-challenged and you'll find a copyright fascist" - Vladimir Ilich Lenin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think of the children!
Think of all the TiVO support technicians who won't be able to feed their children tonight, because you found a useful and convenient solution!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Costs
After your first copy, you should then only need to pay a slight premium over distribution/creation/etc costs.
Electronic books are damn near free to distribute but do have some up-front costs to scanning/etc the physical into electronic format.
When you buy a book, you pay for the content, not the object itself eg pdf/paper/etc. The cost of the object *should* be assumed by the person who wants the contents.
If a large 1000 page book costs ~$30 to create, distribute, etc and they charge $60 for the book, I guess they figure the content is worth $30. That $30 should be a one time payment.
After you buy the physical book, you should be able to re-purchase another physical copy MINUS the value of the content. If you get an ebook, I guess you should be held liable for the ~$0.000001 cost to distribute/etc. MA'b they'll give you a bulk rate and buy 1,000,000 copies of the electronic version so you can just pay a penny.
Overall, I think a person should be able to create an account with someone like Amazon and once you purchase a book, they keep track of that and let "re-purchase" additional electronic versions at HUGE discounts. Obviously they need to cover the costs of investing into different electron formats. Ma'b something like $0.50. I would think some form of DRM would be needed, but whois gonna care about DRM if it's only $0.50 to replace it.
I could see issues with setting physical copies with heavy discounts for fraud reasons. They might need rules like you can only get a replacement copy once every 8 years OR anytime to return the old ruined copy.
And like different electronic formats, replacing different versions, eg paper cover vs leather bound would carry a premium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]