|
My understanding is that it was an error in printing that they will rectify in about a week. No word yet what happens with people who have already bought the book. I asked the question last week and haven't heard back.
To be honest, I don't know what this means for them as a publisher. Is it a simple insurance claim (is an insurance claim ever simple)? Or does it mean that replacing books already purchased would result in a net loss? They didn't have to republish, and certainly they wouldn't have if they didn't think they could make $$ out of it, but "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" it ain't. Maybe what's gone from a nice gesture from the publisher has turned into a liability. In the end, I'm grateful that they have republished, in whatever state, as the prices for second-hand copies were getting ridiculous and I'd rather people had access to the information within.
I agree with those who say the images are not acceptable as the flawed nature of the images was not disclosed as part of the sale, and therefore represents a fault.
On the other hand, I also agree that the images are not a quintessential part of the book. I would even go so far as to say that there are far better images available online that benefit from modern image processing techniques (many shot by members of this group). Even if I had an original second edition would I consult it for the pictures? Probably not. Though it is nice to glance across when reading the text to see what is being referred to.
Markus
|