Libraries Are Fighting To Preserve Your Right To Borrow E-Books (cnn.com) 117
Librarian Jessamyn West writes for CNN: For the first two months after a Macmillan book is published, a library can only buy one copy, at a discount. After eight weeks, they can purchase "expiring" e-book copies which need to be re-purchased after two years or 52 lends. As publishers struggle with the continuing shake-up of their business models, and work to find practical approaches to managing digital content in a marketplace overwhelmingly dominated by Amazon, libraries are being portrayed as a problem, not a solution. Libraries agree there's a problem -- but we know it's not us. Public libraries in the United States purchase a lot of e-books, and circulate e-books a lot. According to the Public Library Association, electronic material circulation in libraries has been expanding at a rate of 30% per year; and public libraries offered over 391 million e-books to their patrons in 2017. Those library users also buy books; over 60% of frequent library users have also bought a book written by an author they first discovered in a library, according to Pew. Even Macmillan admits that "Library reads are currently 45% of our total digital book reads." But instead of finding a way to work with libraries on an equitable win-win solution, Macmillan implemented a new and confusing model and blamed libraries for being successful at encouraging people to read their books.
With print materials, book economics are simple. Once a library buys a book, it can do whatever it wants with it: lend it, sell it, give it away, loan it to another library so they can lend it. We're much more restricted when it comes to e-books. To a patron, an e-book and a print book feel like similar things, just in different formats; to a library they're very different products. There's no inter-library loan for e-books. When an e-book is no longer circulating, we can't sell it at a book sale. When you're spending the public's money, these differences matter. [...] Their solution isn't just unsupportive, it doesn't even make sense. Allowing a library like the Los Angeles Public Library (which serves 18 million people) the same number of initial e-book copies as a rural Vermont library serving 1,200 people smacks of punishment, not support. And Macmillan's statement, saying that people can just borrow e-books from any library, betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how public libraries work. Macmillan isn't the first of the "big five" publishers to try to tweak their library sales model to try to recoup more revenue, but they are the first to accuse libraries of being a problem for them and not a partner.
With print materials, book economics are simple. Once a library buys a book, it can do whatever it wants with it: lend it, sell it, give it away, loan it to another library so they can lend it. We're much more restricted when it comes to e-books. To a patron, an e-book and a print book feel like similar things, just in different formats; to a library they're very different products. There's no inter-library loan for e-books. When an e-book is no longer circulating, we can't sell it at a book sale. When you're spending the public's money, these differences matter. [...] Their solution isn't just unsupportive, it doesn't even make sense. Allowing a library like the Los Angeles Public Library (which serves 18 million people) the same number of initial e-book copies as a rural Vermont library serving 1,200 people smacks of punishment, not support. And Macmillan's statement, saying that people can just borrow e-books from any library, betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how public libraries work. Macmillan isn't the first of the "big five" publishers to try to tweak their library sales model to try to recoup more revenue, but they are the first to accuse libraries of being a problem for them and not a partner.
Is there such a right? (Score:2, Troll)
I'm not aware of such a right... Could some, please, refer me to the relevant document?
First Sale Doctrine (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That certainly applies to tangible goods, including books, but not to electronic files, where the very concept of "original copy" is meaningless...
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, but the same logic also proves that any restrictions whatsoever are nonsensical and malicious.
Re: (Score:1)
My goodness, how will we enumerate the laws pertaining to each? I give up.
Re: (Score:1)
first sale doctrine must be preserved for digital content. i should be able to give the 'key', even, for drm-ed digital content to a buyer and sell my purchased file. i *bought* the title, i didn't fucking rent it, or buy it only for use on this particular device just to need to buy it again when i replace it with whatever comes out next (but does the same fucking thing). and i shouldn't have to sign my life away, or even just personal info, in order to complete the transaction and transfer.
further, sellers of drm-ed content, should have to put the 'keys' in escrow or set up a trust to fund authentication servers long-term in case they go out of business or just 'disappear'... or the library of congress (who oversees copyright protection exceptions in the u.s.) needs to add permanent exemption to allow 'breaking' drm-ed content that the keepers of the keys no longer exist or support the authentication of the product, as well as jailbreaking devices that are no longer actively supported by their manufacturer.
I think you are way too lenient. Copyright is a temporary protection to rights holders, granted by the public (us), where we help the copyright holder monetize the work. In exchange for this protection, we are supposed to get the entire work when the time period is up and then the copyright holder no longer have any claim on it.
DRM is another way to protect a work. I think copyright and DRM should be mutually exclusive, just as patents and trade secrets are. If you patent something you need to tell the worl
Re:First Sale Doctrine (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's not forget that the first-sale doctrine was a hard fought win at SCOTUS after publishers were demanding continuing royalties of physical books.
The fact is the media has changed, but the tactics really haven't.
Re: First Sale Doctrine (Score:3)
No, the previous poster was correct. The first sale doctrine originated in the courts. Later it was codified by Congress, but that just means there are two parallel and largely overlapping first sale doctrines.
Re: (Score:2)
If Congress made a serious attempt to reign in first sale, I think it would in short order be discovered that it wasn't really a common law exception but one based on a constitutional principle, like fair use. It is, after all, one of the top two exceptions, and courts have gone to extraordinary lengths to protect it before, as in Kirtsaeng.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Is there such a right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, Mr. Spin, that's not a paraphrase of my question. Incorrect.
I'm simply asking, why shouldn't a creator enjoy unlimited rights over his creation. Don't like a particular creator's conditions? Don't get into a contract with him — free country.
Amazon does not control my library. If you let them control yours, that's your problem — or not a problem, whatever the case might b
Re: (Score:2)
I'm simply asking, why shouldn't a creator enjoy unlimited rights over his creation. Don't like a particular creator's conditions? Don't get into a contract with him — free country.
Because, in the United States, that is not what copyright is defined as. It is a limited right.
According to the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8
“To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
Further Title 17 of the US Code, Chapter 1, Section 108 [cornell.edu] specifically provides exemption to copyright for libraries to make and distribute copies to patrons.
There are
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not talking about law, but rather morals and ethics. If, without him, the things wouldn't get created at all, why shouldn't he (and his descendants) own it in perpetuity?
Wouldn't it have been great, if the ability to create useful/beautiful things gave a more pronounced evolutionary advantage — giving the kin of the wheel's inventor, for example, more means against the rapists [sciencedirect.com] and invaders?
Same question about Shakespeare's bro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not aware of such a right... Could some, please, refer me to the relevant document?
First you gotta fight for your right to party, then, the libraries will fight for your right to borrow e-books.
I'm too old for e-books. (Score:2)
Re:I'm too old for e-books. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The form factor of the phone is easier to hold when I'm eating or relaxing, I can read afew pages while I wait for the kids, or in line at the checkout. If I'm driving I just turn on the TTS engine and let the computer read the book to me. When I'm not driving I can switch to reading myself in the same place.
I read alot!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I'm too old for e-books. (Score:5, Interesting)
I felt the same way as you for a long time - until I had shoulder surgery a few years ago. I had three months where I basically wasn’t allowed to do *anything* with my right hand and arm. Holding a book and flipping pages one-handed was possible, but awkward - I dropped my book and lost my place on multiple occasions.
Finally I said “what the heck” and bought a Kindle - and found I didn’t hate it after all. After a few days it didn’t seem any different than reading off paper. Except for one thing... I could adjust the type size to make it easier on my old eyes.
Now I routinely checkout e-books from my local library. I occasionally go back to paper, but generally only if I can’t get a book in digital form. I am still wary of Amazon - when I purchase e-books, stripping the DRM is the first thing I do - but I’m definitely a convert to the digital medium.
Re:I'm too old for e-books. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a large collection of paperbacks that I rarely re-read anymore, but I might be tempted more often if every one of them was in my Kindle. And it would free up six bookcases of space in my den.
---
Re: (Score:2)
I do wish the image handling were better on the Kindle. I usually load up maps on my laptop or my iPad so I can easily move them around and zoom in/out.
Apropos of the GP: the last paper book I read was earlier this year - Donald Kingsbury’s “Psychohistorical Crisis”, an unofficial (and thinly-disguised) sequel to Asimov’s “Foundation” series. It wasn’t available digitally at all (except as a very poor PDF on archive.org), and it wasn’t in our local library
Re: (Score:2)
That way I can manage metadata and tweak the layout or convert the format on my workstation and grab books off my cloud server wherever I am.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a large collection of paperbacks that I rarely re-read anymore, but I might be tempted more often if every one of them was in my Kindle. And it would free up six bookcases of space in my den.
Back in the early days of cable, when I was on @home and it came with DejaNews, it was easy to leech masses of ebooks. That sort of thing is a treasure. I would be surprised if you couldn't find downloads for every book you own, although some of them may have annoying scan errors. Almost all of my books are in storage, but I can still read 'em...
Re: (Score:2)
Stallman - The Right to Read (Score:5, Insightful)
Stallman - The Right to Read, from 1997: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html [gnu.org].
Re:Stallman - The Right to Read (Score:4, Interesting)
Stallman nailed it as usual. He's a bit of a prophet.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Libraries could stop "buying" e-books (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Based on what I am hearing these days in faculty lounges, profs are at least stating their opposition to Cengage books, and there is a groundswell against assigning them. This could of course be simple posing, or either conformation or selection bias on my part.
I have always marked any mail from them as junk.
Re: (Score:2)
Boycotting Cengage e-book rental might be practical for life-long learners, not so much for incoming freshmen taking introductory level courses.
Re: (Score:2)
By libraries doing this, e-book publishers might find their income reduced more than the OP proposal. Of course, library users would need to carry around the more bulky product called a book.
If they wanted to do that, they'd be doing it already. In fact, what most library users seem to want these days is audiobooks, then ebooks, and finally paper books as a last resort. You don't even have to go to the library, and almost everyone has some digital device to read them on. Paper books are for old people who find tablets confusing.
I don't actually believe that, but now I only want to own paper copies of exceptional books. I find massive possessions to be an inconvenience, especially ones which are
I do like e-book lending (Score:5, Interesting)
But on the other hand, since my local library didn't have enough copies of a book I wanted to read, I just found someplace I could download it. Now I have it forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is a solved problem. Ever hear of backing up your computer? The home server that holds my ebook collection (among other things) is m
Re: (Score:3)
as well as software availability or changes may prove the undoing of the digital readability.
Since .epub files are just zipped containers of HTML, style sheets, and a .jpg of the cover art, I doubt the ability to read them will be lost anytime soon.
---
Re: (Score:2)
Almost all of my paper books are in storage where I can't access them. All of my ebooks are on a HDD next to me, where I can access them. (and in another one too)
Re: (Score:1)
Expiring content access makes history disappear. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is not preserved is not remembered.
Bestsellers or lost sales (Score:4, Interesting)
I recall an interview with a reasonably success author who said a lot of authors and publishers have a love/hate relationship with libraries. On the one hand if every public library in the US bought just one copy of an author's book it would be a massive best seller. On the other hand, it's hard to realize that not everyone who borrows it there is not automatically a retail customer for their own copy. One's natural tendency is think that when one is on the receiving end of the royalties, even though it isn't true.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
if every public library in the US bought just one copy of an author's book it would be a massive best seller.
wonder how big a role tax-funded libraries play in the large amounts of money many politicians get from book sales, which can be the source of almost all their wealth
the world according to Raj (Score:2)
The average author would need to take out a second mortgage on the home they don't own to afford to pay retail for all the books they themselves borrow from their local library.
Some famous author once said that to write a book, you must first read one hundred. Might have been Virginia Woolf.
As an author, you will get something around 10% of the cover price. Do the math: 1
idiots (Score:5, Interesting)
These publishers are idiots. And that's putting it lightly.
I have an entire room dedicated to my books in this house. They made up a considerable part of the weight when we moved. I spent over 10k just on the shelves they're in and I've bought several rare books that cost three digit figures - off the press, not because they're antiques. I have the full set of everything ever published by several different authors. I've had a stack of books to read next for 30+ years.
And all of that started in the local libraries when I was a kid.
Limiting libraries is shooting yourself in the foot, then the other foot, then both knees. It's about the most stupid thing you can do when you're in the business of books. I actually can't think of anything more stupid than that. Even burning down your print shop comes in a distant second.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But they're not in the business of books. They're in the business of making their numbers for this quarter. Books are just the "stuff" this particular business uses to make their numbers. The MBAs were taught that the quarterly numbers matter, not what a particular company might happen to actually do.
The idea of investing in their customers' interests as children in order to benefit from that interest over the customers' entire adult life, is so utterly strange to the MBAs' way of thinking that they won't
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually a very good and very, very sad point right there.
Yes, the true damage the financial industry is doing to the world is not the last or the coming financial crisis. It's this pattern of thought.
We're fortunate to have libraries at all. (Score:5, Interesting)
If libraries had somehow never existed, and were only invented this decade, the first one to open would be instantly sued out of existence. The only reason we have them is that they are inherited from a time before the publishing industry was so influential. Compare with the video or DVD rental situation, for example: You can get those from libraries too, but to be legally in the clear they have to buy special 'rental' editions that cost a great deal more than the standard edition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
to be legally in the clear [video rental stores] have to buy special 'rental' editions that cost a great deal more than the standard edition.
In which country?
In the United States, video rental store chains such as Family Video are allowed to rent out the retail version of a movie or console game. Rental stores negotiate with movie distributors for stripped-down "rental" editions for two reasons: lower price per copy, and a guarantee that the distributor won't tell retailers not to sell to specific people who happen to run video rental stores. The only restrictions on "rental, lease, or lending" pursuant to 17 USC 109 are on phonorecords (such as
perpetual copyright was not the deal (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember how the original copyright term was 14 years.
Then this happened : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The fuckwits basically said congress gets to do what they want, even though the constitution EXPLICITLY calls for limited term for copyrights. The idea is that it is a deal. you get copyright protection, and a monopoly on publishing, for a LIMITED time, and then we get the work in the public domain.
An unfortunate example of "both sides do it", the mickey mouse protection act passed, and survived the legal challenge and now immortal corporations will end up with perpetual copyrights since it will simply be extended again and again.
Fuck copyright. Once they decided to screwed us over like that, they abandoned all legitimacy to enjoying copyright protection.
so download those e-books and torrent them please.
thanks.
Authors Guild opposes another extension (Score:2)
and now immortal corporations will end up with perpetual copyrights since it will simply be extended again and again.
I doubt it. The Authors Guild has gone on record as opposing another extension, as reported in "Why Mickey Mouse’s 1998 copyright extension probably won’t happen again" by Timothy B. Lee [arstechnica.com].
"Borrowing" makes no sense here (Score:1)
When it comes to purchasing books and other physical media it tends to work adequately. The data is never copied; it's simply moved around. The complexities of copyright don't matter too much.
When we have pure digital copies, the metaphor collapses. We are are own publisher. We can't move data. We can only copy it. We can simulate moving
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'd be happy with 14 years total length. Maybe even a bit longer. It would still allow for a robust public domain, and allows an author some say over sequels and adaptations while the work is still current. Anything that hasn't made a profit in that time is going to have been abandoned by publishers. anything still in print will have made many times its initial cost.
Borrowing data? (Score:2)
You can borrow/buy an e-book at anytime (Score:2)
Have the kindle software installed on your phone? That book is always with you.
With library e-books, you can only have 1 copy. Meaning, you can not have it on every mobile device. But where a library is only open during specific hours for the borrowing o
Data point (Score:2)
The library market for print books isn't nearly as simple as this article would have you believe
Many of the physical books at your library, particularly the new releases, are likely to be leased from the publisher. The library holds onto them for a set period of time and then returns or destroys them in exchange for new books. The lend/lease books usually have a sticker on the spine of the book jacket.
"The more you know..." (TM)