Also, why are e-books any different from paper books? Let them price them however they want. If Hollywood and theaters want to sell movie tickets at $50/person, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
Also, why are e-books any different from paper books? Let them price them however they want. If Hollywood and theaters want to sell movie tickets at $50/person, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
You nonchalantly say that students can just buy older versions, but that is often impossible. Homework problems are regularly taken from the textbook, and those problems are regularly changed from version to version. Additionally, when publishing companies are coming out with a new version every couple years, there's not a lot of availability for used books either.
This semester, my econometrics professor had a professional publisher 'compile' his seminar notes into a 'reader'. This basically meant printing out the pdfs and putting them in cheap binding, the kind that you might get at Staples for a negligible sum. He was shocked when they ended up costing almost $100 per copy for the student, since there was no copyright/licensing in question - they were his own class notes.
If a college student told me that they spent over $1000 per semester in textbooks, I would have no trouble believing it at all. Used books are not always available or viable. Workbooks are less common, but now publisher have 'access keys' that they are using to force students to buy the new books. My professors have always been understanding when I refuse to do the online exercises that require the access keys (unless they send me unlocked copies), but I can imagine not all students are so lucky.
I'm also fortunate that my classes (CS, statistics, economics) tend to have one textbook per course, and they usually aren't so dependent on the in-book homework problems. For CS in particular, you can often use online books/tutorials in case of the text, depending on the class.
But for my friends in humanities-based classes, with perhaps ten overpriced books for a course? I pity the fools - or rather, I pity their empty wallets!
As Enron and countless other examples show, a purely free market does not always result in an optimum outcome, even for something as perfectly fungible.
Even if that's not a perfect example, do we really disagree that a pure free market doesn't always lead to the optimum outcome?
Also, I don't think its civil to downvote simply b/c you disagree.