Offline Book "Lending" Costs US Publishers Nearly $1 Trillion 494
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from a tongue-in-cheek blog post which puts publisher worries about ebook piracy into perspective:
"Hot on the heels of the story in Publisher's Weekly that 'publishers could be losing out on as much $3 billion to online book piracy' comes a sudden realization of a much larger threat to the viability of the book industry. Apparently, over 2 billion books were 'loaned' last year by a cabal of organizations found in nearly every American city and town. Using the same advanced projective mathematics used in the study cited by Publishers Weekly, Go To Hellman has computed that publishers could be losing sales opportunities totaling over $100 billion per year, losses which extend back to at least the year 2000. ... From what we've been able to piece together, the book 'lending' takes place in 'libraries.' On entering one of these dens, patrons may view a dazzling array of books, periodicals, even CDs and DVDs, all available to anyone willing to disclose valuable personal information in exchange for a 'card.' But there is an ominous silence pervading these ersatz sanctuaries, enforced by the stern demeanor of staff and the glares of other patrons. Although there's no admission charge and it doesn't cost anything to borrow a book, there's always the threat of an onerous overdue bill for the hapless borrower who forgets to continue the cycle of not paying for copyrighted material."
Dammit... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't give them any ideas.
The copyright circus is stupid enough already.
I've been saying this for years! (Score:5, Insightful)
only surprise is what took so long? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dammit... (Score:2, Insightful)
I really wanna see them trying on this.
As a minimum it will be completely hilarios
As a mathematician (Score:5, Insightful)
I am irked by the phrase "advanced projective mathematics." This to me is a red flag warning me of some business school BS coming up.
will Apple be the "game changer"? (Score:3, Insightful)
And they keep secrets! (Score:5, Insightful)
When the authorities have requested copies of patrons borrowing records, the libraries almost always refuse to provide it without a search warrant!
Re:Dammit... (Score:2, Insightful)
Libraries already pay a fee to the author each time a book is loaned out.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2009/jan/07/public-lending-right-library [guardian.co.uk]
this is what is wrong: (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/books/19sherlock.html [nytimes.com]
dear all creators:
no, it does not make any fucking sense that your grandchildren should profit from a story you wrote, a song you sang, a movie you directed, whatever
it simply does NOT make sense. it is an intellectually and philosophically corrupt concept
intelletual property law only deserves to be disrespected, fought, and subverted. intellectual property law is a parasitical drain on our culture. intellectual property law must be destroyed. it is not of any benefit to anyone except certain entrenched well-connected, well-lawyered interests
You just made a fool of yourself (Score:1, Insightful)
Do you realize that you did nothing more than re-state the summary, in fewer words, as if it were your own idea?
Apparently, you fail at reading comprehension.
Re:Dammit... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't give them any ideas.
The copyright circus is stupid enough already.
Too late. The publishing industry has been thinking and talking along this line for a long time already. There's a conventional statistic among publishers, to the effect that every book sold is read by four people. This is usually mentioned in a context that makes it clear that there's a problem. Often they don't bother mentioning how this multi-person readership happens, but it doesn't take much questioning to learn: libraries. And the point is always that the publishers are "losing" 3/4 of their potential sales to the multi-reader "problem".
One of the reasons that a lot of publishers have developed an interest in e-books is that they see it as a way of limiting readership. After all, people won't much loan out their e-readers, and so far, few libraries have experimented with supplying electronic copies of books to their members.
(I wonder why this is? Are they such Luddites? Or are they just ignorant of the technology? Or perhaps they don't see a way to collect overdue fines. ;-)
In FreeMarket America ... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not the socialist "public authorities" you have to worry about. It's the "peer to peer lending" perpetrated by individuals with no state intervention or support!
Re:Dammit... (Score:4, Insightful)
not exactly - many of them would see library vs. unauthorized download as a completely different beast.
Amongst other things, you can't load the same book out twice at the same time. Waiting lists could enough to get someone to buy something they wouldn't have gotten already.
Fundamental difference (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a bad analogy, as there is a fundamental difference between ebook piracy and library lending...
A library has a single copy of a book and it can be borrowed by only one individual at any given time. Pirating an ebook results in new copies of the same material.
Seriously, is it so difficult to understand the difference between copying and lending/borrowing?
Re:Excellent satire (Score:5, Insightful)
The only problem is that it isn't completely accurate. It portrays libraries as quiet places where people will glare at you if you make too much noise. In the past, that used to be true, but not any more, at least here in Arizona. Now, kids run wild, and people chitchat on their cellphones at full volume in library common areas, and librarians don't do anything about it because it's become futile.
It'd be nice to live in a civilized city where people really were quiet in libraries.
Should be a red flag that it was a JOKE (Score:4, Insightful)
Now you're just adding to the stereotype that mathematicians have no sense of humor.
Re:Dammit... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:will Apple be the "game changer"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any ebook that's more expensive than the corresponding paperback is INSANE.
What Was And Is No More (Score:3, Insightful)
there is an ominous silence pervading these ersatz sanctuaries, enforced by the stern demeanor of staff and the glares of other patrons.
Cut the crap grandpa, it's obvious you ain't been in a library since one of the wheels fell off your walker a decade ago. Libraries now are a cacophonous din emergent from the cross talk between cell phones, online chatter and wailing of ankle bitters jettisoned by their mothers into a free for all day care centre. Librarians caved years ago and carry on loud conversations with all and sundry. I live 3 blocks from Vancouver's main library, I time my foray, plan my entry and exit strategies, and run it like a half back with the game on the line and time running out.
Re:Dammit... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I lend a book to ten people, then copyright law considers that fine. If I put something on a P2P network and two people download it, I get a statutory fine of several thousand dollars (well, I would if I lived in the USA). There seems to be some disconnect there.
Not defending the publishing industry, but there is a material difference: your copy lent to ten people remains a single copy and returns to you (you hope), but the one you uploaded to two others has become three copies. Still, I don't doubt the publishing industry is inflating the losses.
Re:Dammit... (Score:5, Insightful)
(I wonder why this is? Are they such Luddites? Or are they just ignorant of the technology? Or perhaps they don't see a way to collect overdue fines. ;-)
Actually, I think it's because most new e-books come with EULAs which specifically prohibit lending. And they have the DRM to back it up.
Publishers fought like hell against the public lending library concept when it first started becoming widespread ~150 years ago. Fortunately for everyone, they lost the battle. Now they see a chance to fight it again, and in the current IP-philic legal environment, they have a good chance of winning.
Re:As a mathematician (Score:3, Insightful)
Plato wasn't much of a mathematician. Archimedes was much more important.
I've actually seen printed book licenses. (Score:3, Insightful)
In books printed around 1900. The language was startlingly familiar. You were supposedly allowed to use the book for private, personal use only. You weren't allowed to sell it or rent it out.
The first sale doctrine meant that the copyright holders couldn't impose such uses on third parties without entering into a contract. That wasn't feasible in the era when publishers sold to bookstores who had no interest in becoming license brokers. Things are different for ebooks, where it's easy to sell licenses rather than copies. In fact, that's what's behind one of the niftier features of Amazon's Kindle: you can copy your book to your iPhone or Kindle as you like, you just can't resell or lend it.
There's no question that eliminating this nonsense was *good* for book publishing as a whole, because this was a deal which left the public hungry for more of their product. Some individual publishers could have made more money on certain individual works. In the transition to electronic formats, the book publishing industry could easily become the next music industry.
Re:Dammit... (Score:5, Insightful)
May not screw too much with the recording (audio and video) companies other than pointing out the ridiculousness of their monetary damages claims. But it really should be shoved in the face, and hard, of the video game industry and the bunch of whining assholes who keep pushing DRM on physically sold games under the banner of preventing piracy but actually just to fuck over people who peruse the used game market.
Seriously, name one game released since 2000 (and sold more than 10 copies) where the copy protection has prevented it from being pirated. One.
Re:Dammit... (Score:5, Insightful)
The disconnect is in your comparison. When you lend a book, you don't expect it to be copied and redistributed. When you put something on a P2P network, you expect it to be copied and redistributed, because having copies distributed throughout the P2P increases efficiency. So while you may only observe that two people downloaded your copy, you can't tell how many people downloaded copies originating from those 2 downloads...
Now your comparison makes sense if you were distributing source material that required some DRM mechanism to read, and there was some DRM server that only allowed a certain number of copies to be "checked out" at a time. Checked out in this case means having the ability to read and/or use. I've used electronic libraries that had this kind of DRM in place.
However, I do not think you intended to promote the use of DRM in your posting.
The other problem with your comparison is that libraries have permission to lend books, while nobody gave you permission to publish a book in digital form on the P2P network.
Re:Dammit... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly, those guys signed contracts that allowed the publishers to use their stuff until the sun becomes part of the blackhole at the center of the Milky Way. McGraw Hill and Pearson Ed are just a couple of examples of cash cow publishing that manipulate the length of copyrights to their own profitable ends. Imagine that.
Re:yes, in the uk (Score:3, Insightful)
A 10 year limit is probably a bit short for books, but anything greater than 1/2 of the average expected lifespan of the people is too long. Something created the day I was born should be in the public domain by the time I have matured. If it remains copyrighted throughout my entire lifetime, then it is effectively an unlimited term, which in the U.S. is contrary to the constitution.
Re:will Apple be the "game changer"? (Score:2, Insightful)
any ebook that's more than 1/4 of the price of the real, printed book, is INSANE.
Re:oh, when will the 'socialism' end?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the way the financial world is currently constructed, you have to get bigger or perish (Walmart is the perfect poster child for this), because along with increased throughput comes the ability to apply a great degree of pressure to ones suppliers. Unfortunately, this has a trickle down effect where the supplier lowers their prices under pressure, then, their employees either take wage cuts or the labor is moved overseas.
The business world is almost like the U.S. political process; it's almost a first past the post winner takes all (I know, I know, this is a horrible over-simplification).
Re:Dammit... (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when does anyone need "permission" to lend out an item that they own? I lend books to people all the time. I neither have, nor require, permission to do so.
Libraries? Forget 'em, they're already gone. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll assume you understand that as soon as more money is made from e-books than real books, the real books go away. And the day after that, the libraries go with them because the only DRM allowed will be pay-per-read.
Far fetched? Just wait....
Re:The First Book Is Free. (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, this raises a more interesting issue: where would you be if you didn't have the library when you were younger? How would it have shaped your life to not-have access to books at a young age? Maybe you wouldn't be able to afford them now.
It's in society's best interest to make books and educational materials as available as possible. That's why we have libraries in the first place. That relatively small investment in getting little TheWizardTim access to books has now turned him into a successful [whatever-you-are], which provides a huge return on investment.
We may someday see arguments that stricter copyrights are good for the economy because it allows more profits for publishers. What we shouldn't forget to include in those calculations is all the economic waste of having little TheWizardTims everywhere grow up to be poor stupid criminals instead of upstanding and productive members of society.
Libraries don't have (or need) permission to lend (Score:3, Insightful)
They own the books. They have the right to do whatever they please with them, with or without the publisher's permission. Copyright restricts publishing, it says nothing at all about already produced artifacts. Lending very well can lead to copying and redistribution. There's absolutely nothing stopping someone from memorizing a library book and reciting it to their friends, other than the effort. There's no DRM on dead trees.
Copyright made perfect sense in the days where the cost of a printing press meant adding a bit to the cost to pay authors wasn't a burden. That isn't the case today; everyone can (and must) copy things in their day to day lives, with zero to negligible cost involved. We can't just tax that nothing the way we did with the printing press.
It's time to move on. Copyright once served a purpose, but things have changed.
Re:And then (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dammit... (Score:5, Insightful)
The other problem with your comparison is that libraries have permission to lend books
Yeah, I was up to you until that point. It's the other way around. Nobody "gives" people permission to lend or even copy books. Instead, the government grants authors and "content creators" the ability to restrict this right of copy for a limited time. That's copyright.
The right to use information is among the inalienable right granted by our Creator (whomever this might be), the right of liberty. It is enshrined in the first amendment, the right to free speech, because the written word is a manifestation of speech.
Re:Dammit... (Score:4, Insightful)
I am pretty sure no one has pirated this one yet:
http://www.amazon.com/Barbie-Horse-Adventures-Riding-Nintendo-Wii/dp/B001AZ7RMS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1263932887&sr=1-1 [amazon.com]
Re:Dammit... (Score:3, Insightful)
You're not "lending" a digital book if you're giving someone a copy of said digital book.
Re:Dammit... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're going to go with that argument then the same can be said of pirated copies.
They may pirate this one but if that makes them go out and buy the sequel with real money then we have a net gain.
Re:Dammit... (Score:3, Insightful)
There are people who consider ripping games 'their game'. It doesn't matter what game it is, they do it for the cred, not the love of the game itself. Which is why DRM (especially the cookie cutter stuff that comes pre-broken for them by virtue of being already broken on the last game it was released with) is pointless. The only real function of DRM is to to tie the game to the first user as tightly as possible so that when they attempt to resell it on the used game market, it's worthless.
Re:Dammit... (Score:2, Insightful)
also, photocopying a book is established to be a violation of copyright when the book is still protected by copyright and the copying does not meet the conditions of fair use (in the US).
e.g.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter7/7-d.html [stanford.edu]
http://www.kasunic.com/article1.htm [kasunic.com]
even some "educational" uses are not fair use, as was found in the more recent Kinko's case discussed in the second link.
Re:Dammit... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not the same. The way I see it, you have a good point, but TheRaven64 has a good point too. There is some kind of disconnect going on.
The concept of "copyrights" makes perfect sense in a world post-printing-press and pre-Internet. Before the printing press, copyrights were completely unnecessary. After the Internet, copyrights become problematic-- not nonsensical, just problematic. These works are constantly being "copied" in that they're cached, stored on several devices, backed up, etc. The idea of "selling a copy" that made so much sense 20 years ago doesn't work anymore. Now we have to sell "licenses", and that gets pretty hairy.
The point I try to make in these discussions is that it's just not as simple as "copyright is good" or "copyright is evil". Copyright was an invention, not an innate right. It was invented during a specific historical period in the hopes of achieving certain goals. However, inventions sometimes need to be updated and sometimes go entirely obsolete. We don't calculate using abacuses anymore. We don't start our cars with cranks. Somehow or another, the invention of the "copyright" needs to be updated in a way that achieves its intended goals, given the realities of our current historical period.
Re:Dammit... (Score:2, Insightful)
Big difference (Score:3, Insightful)
When I borrow a book in a library, it is mine for a limited time. When I pirate, it is mine forever.
When I borrow a book in a library, I can't sell it or destroy it. When I pirate, I can sell it (to a silly noob) or do whatever I want with it.
When I borrow a book in a library, I can buy it in a bookstore if I really want to keep it. When I pirate there is no need to ever buy anything because I have it already.
A library is no threat to publishers in any real fashion. There are a limited number of books that can be lent out and the library buys them. Pirating, on the other hand, involves no purchases (other than the first) and there are an unlimited number of copies that can be obtained.
While a library might be useful for some, there is no real revenue threat. Piracy is a complete revenue threat with the object being the destruction of revenue from digital goods. If everyone can download for free, why would anyone buy? Talking about differences in quality or the "experience" of the original vs. the pirated item is silly - the entire operation of "piracy" involves the original item. We aren't talking about the original song vs. a high school band trying to imitate the original. It is the original, it is just free for everyone.
Re:Dammit... (Score:3, Insightful)
So we do the Creative Commons thing. Make it free and the class can get the book any way the want. Once these "book printing machines" become more common, people will even be able to buy a hard copy if thats what they want.