Slashdot Mirror
Publishers vs. Libraries, round 2
CBNobi writes: "CNet's News.com has an article about book publishers' attempts to block the public from accessing free material from - where else - libraries. Publishers fear their copyrighted materials will be freely distributed in a digital form." Nice article. We've covered this before, but it isn't going away - publishers want a pay-for-use library system so that you won't go there to escape high prices elsewhere.
To us, to anybody who really worries about ethics, the content providers' reaction is severely limiting. Sure, we want to pay the providers, the people who wrote the stuff in the first place. But we also want to feel free to help each other (and probably ourselves, too, yeah...)
In fact, the situation you suggest is NOT ON, because it leads directly to the sort of situation in which, let's say, lending books is illegal - but not everybody can afford them.
Now, say you need to use the government sanctioned books to learn the highway code - you can't use your dad's copy, cos he's not allowed to lend it out. Or you need to look something up in a text book at university, but your friend isn't allowed to lend you his copy and (whoops) you have no money. Put yourself in this situation. You know it's illegal to read your friend's copy... but you need to, to pass your course. Most people would do the better thing, ie. let their friend read that book... but not you, THB, writer of this comment, maker of compromises and short of sight. Congratulations.
Strange. I usually get at least a form letter back. Although it usually takes several months to even get that. What's worse is when the return letter shows a complete lack of comprehension of what I was saying, or, more likely, they didn't even bother to read it.
I sent a letter to my rep regarding Napster. Now, in that letter, I didn't say I supported Napster. In fact, I specifically stated that I didn't support what they were doing, but that I had other issues that I felt needed to be addressed. I got a return letter saying something to the effect of, "Thank you for your opinion. Your support for Napster has been taken in to account, yadda yadda..." THAT WAS INFURIATING!
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Ten years down the road, when print and real-world formats will (might) go by the wayside, the concerns by the librarians today will be vital, and unless we heed them today, libraries may not legally exist in 10 years.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
What's with this ability for a GROUP of people to all gather around a TV or stereo and all watch movie or listen to a CD without the IP holder receiving additional per seat revenue?
More than one person using an IP playback device of any kind == theft.
We need a law to force manufacturers to make it so their devices can be used by ONLY ONE PERSON AT A TIME. That way, access and our IP can be protected.
It might be funny if it weren't happening today. Various municipalies in Texas have outsourced the drafting to technical laws (e.g. building codes) the 3rd parties, typically contractor's associations. These third parties have copyrighted their work, and claim that citizens must pay to make copies of the law. Although a copy is on file at City Hall, citizens are not allowed to make copies of the master document. Citizens of course _can_ be put in jail for violating that law.
Peter Veeck (son of the late baseball maverick Bill Veeck) is fighting this through the courts at the moment.
sPh
In the process, the scientific and academic communities (along with the poor) lose access to source materials, lose basic free speech "fair use" rights, and we all wind up forced to pay again and again for the most basic information one needs to be an informed citizen; in perpetuity. I can't imagine anything more destructive to the fundamentals of democracy than destroying libraries for the sake of publishers profits. A great deal for the plutocracy, a rotten deal for us rabble citizens.
Write your congressman, write the President, MAKE A STINK!
--Maynard
Anyway, on another note, this marks the further progress of a disturbing trend. Some time ago, like, say 1997, copyright holders were reactive. That is to say, they waited until Napster was in use, and was allowing people to trade songs. Now, they seem to be going after parties that they suspect may one day plan to engage in something less than total protection of their copyrighted material. In other words, they're on the offensive.
However, the more aggresive they become, the more reviled they'll be. I expect that if anybody engages in a large scale legal assault on libraries, they'll have the public up in ferocious arms. After all, libraries are one of the few things that people (without a finiancial or religous interest at odds with their purpose) almost universally support.
Inaction is tantamount to assistance. If our government lets private consortiums lay our libraries bare, they'll be no better (and arguably a good deal worse) that governments like China. At least they don't pretend to be fair.
Yes, I'm still a junky. Are you still a bitch?
There's still defensibility in the "one copy in use" idea; why not make this on the web? Make a server that will display a work to one user at a time, per the number of that work that the library posesses/licensed. You'd get the fast turn-around of not having to wait for someone to physically return the book while still protecting the publisher. (Maybe this's the way to do music sharing too?)
--- The reclining dragon deeply fears the blue pool's clarity.
When was the last time you could buy a book, read it, and then return it for a full refund because you thought it wasn't worth the cost of printing it in the first place, much less what you paid for it?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Actually it's more like various bodies write building codes (one excellent example being the National Electrical Code written by the National Fire Protection Association) and then governments sort of cut and paste them into the local ordinances instead of re-inventing the wheel. The bodies which write these codes go to condsiderable expense to create these codes and have every right to copyright their work and expect you to pay for your copy. If you don't like it tell your local government that you want them to develop their own and make it available for free. Don't expect a positive response. Very few communities have the size and money to duplicate the level of expertise of the NFPA for example, and all the manufacturers of electrical supplies (wire, conduit, sockets, switches, etc) adhere to the NEC anyway, so it's easier to agree with the code that 15 amp receptacles should be wired with commonly available 14 gauge or larger copper wire instead of making a law calling for 17 amp circuits and 13 gauge wire, which would have to be custom made at a horrible price premium.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Even if those codes weren't enshrined into law, they would still be useful and widely used. Insurance companies would demand them. Or structure their rate schedule so as to accomplish the same effect.
These things have to be created and kept current and the cost of doing so has to come from somewhere. The only choice is how directly or indirectly the end consumer pays. You can pay the electrician who buys a copy of the NEC a little more, or you can pay the insurance company a little more, or you can pay a little more for electrical supplies, or you can pay higher taxes so that government can cover the cost, or maybe you can think of some other scheme to hide from the consumer the fact that they are paying for this, but one way or the other, they will be the ones to pay for it, the money will not materialize out of thin air. Ain't no free lunch on this one.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
see also: "preaching to the converted"
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
If libraries can no longer offer information for free, we've created a social divide, those that have money to get the information, and those that don't.
One of the major points of the Telecom Act of 1996 was to provide reduced/free internet access to libraries and public schools (E-rate and universal service), trying to provide lower income individuals access to the information on the internet. Why would the US government allow publishers to charge for books which are currently free, creating an even bigger information divide?
Since when do 160 albums or 233 books constitute a "huge" collection? My father-in-law has about that many books, and I've always thought of him as an illiterate slob.
Rule of thumb: it's not huge until it starts affecting the placement of furniture in three or more rooms. And paperbacks don't count.
Damn it, what ever happened to pleasing the customer?
It's never been an issue in those cases where the customer is willing to take the abuse. If you keep buying abuse, they'll keep selling it. The same thing happens with women's clothing.
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
The most disgusting part of that industry is that the one who gets the bigger profit (50% of the final retail sale price) is (of course) the one who does the least work: the bookseller.
--
Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.
Could be that "Waco types" refers to Tim McVeigh, and I think he could be labeled a terrorist. OTOH, I never knew that McVeigh had been one of the leaders of the Radical Librarian movement, either...
I guess that must be the *real* reason he was put to death.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Have a look at the Baen Books Free Library. They explain their thinking and I agree with them. I own a lot of their books, purely because of their free library.
:-)
I wish more people did this. Then again, looking at my wallet, perhaps it's good that they don't!
---
Come live in my lil village. Artists and geeks are welcome to free housing and food as long as all their works are released open to the public. You won't live in a mansion but I'd make sure you had a better life than most people in this world. :)
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Book publishers can simply learn from the software industry and seal all books in a plastic bag, then stick a EULA inside the bag making anyone who opens the bag and/or reads the book bound by a license. Then the publishers can limit how the book is used (cannot use it as a coaster or prop up a couch with it), charge libraries extra money for a "multiple user" license, charge an annual fee for the right to continue using the book (Book.NET and Book XP), and then make the library or consumer purchase a new book every time they print a new edition. It's easy to see how silly the software industry is if you replace the word "software" with "book" every time you talk about licensing.
== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====
I say we ban Xerox copiers. After all, by the same logic, theyre used to commit the same sort of crimes. Then we can get around to banning cars because they can be used to transport stolen property.
Or, we could just all collectively admit as a group that the 90's are over, and it's ok to tell stupid people to shut the hell up again.
Bowie J. Poag
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
A totally free information infrastructure is unlikely to spell doom for content. I would more likely predict NOT a dearth of content, but rather a dearth of attention.. there would be SO much content flowing around that people will be competing for eyes and ears.
I've seen this meme over and over again, and I simply don't buy it. What is your honest opinion of 99% the drivel created for profit, tailored for the masses, produced by a committee of ad execs, and endlessly tweaked by marketriods with focus groups in hand?
Titanic? Back Street Boys? Britteny Spears? The Home Shopping Network?
Thanks but no thanks.
The entire ancient, dinosaur-like industry is on the verge of collapse, but honestly, I no longer care... Soon they will be complaining that libraries are equivalent to 'THEFT' and 'PIRACY' because they deprive them of "potential" profit. Cry me a river.
The point, is everything will be available in digital for eventually. When that happens, the mountains of garbage legislation the RIAA, MPAA and book publishers have rammed down your throat will have basically made all libraries illegal..
Face it, after reading the crap the RIAA spews about napster, you might be led to think that LIBRARIES are stealing by lending ANY content.
I mean, look at all the money the publishers are losing everytime somebody reads a library book and doesn't buy one at the bookstore.
"ITS ILLEGAL! ITS IMMORAL! ITS PIRACY!"
I am TIRED of their complaints, and I am tired of copyright law.
If we were going to have a modern-day Boston Tea Party, the place to do it would be at book publishers' warehouses or printing facilities. I'd just bring in a firehose or six and wet down the boxes of books thoroughly - no casualties or risk of human life, but it makes all their brand new books completely unsellable.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
Someone here on Slashdot had a rather eloquent quote. I'm sorry, but I don't remember the name. Anyways...
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
I have no doubt that in 10 years time, we'll still have all of the real world formats that you say will have gone by the way side.
I don't know what they said when Gutenberg invented his press, but when the radio was introduced, they said newspapers would die. When TV was introduced, they said that newspapers and radio would die. When cable was introduced, they said that newspapers, radio, and broadcast TV would die. When the Internet was introduced, they said that newspapers, radio, broadcast TV, cable TV, home stereos, bookstores, and malls would die. They haven't.
The utopian idea of a paperless society is still far off. As long as people still like and demand their morning paper, their drive-time morning radio, their mid-morning /. news fix, their evening news, their "get-in-the-mood" jazz CD, and the shopping "experience" content publishers won't be able to force consumers into one all-encompassing format.
Not that we won't move to such a format in the future, but it's still a ways off. Personally, I like the rich diversity of the media experiences that all of these formats provide. I like the sense of completion when I'm done with a newspaper, I feel like I know all of the important news. On the internet, however, I feel a need to check out just one more news site. I like sitting down with a good book and turning the pages as my imagination runs wild. Other times, I like zoning to a movie based on the same book. As long as consumers demand it, there will be someone to offer it.
-sk
We need to show the publishers that we won't tolerate them trying to roll back the clock 200 years!
Let's burn their product! Yeah, that's always a good way to draw attention the cause!
It worked with bra-burning in the 60's.
It worked with draft card burning during the Vietnam War!
Let's all assemble in front of the library and burn a big pile of the publishers' books! They'll get the message!
...no wait, something seems off with this analogy...
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Or, strongly recommend that they come up with a number instead of the open-ended "limited term" language. Judging from the copyright laws as they existed in the early days of the Republic, they'd have probably come up with a 20-30 year maximum.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Freedom can only exist with capitalism. Capitalism is simply free people voluntarily exchanging goods and services. If you forbid such transactions, you have substantially reduced freedom. Abuses such as the DMCA are not failures of capitalism, they are failures of government. Corporations can whine all they want about hackers or libraries daring to exercise their fair use rights, but it takes Congress and the President to enforce their will.
As usual, the Street Performer Protocol would solve this problem without oppressive copyright laws.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
The major problem here is the exact same as as for every other digital version of a phyical product, and that is that once you have your product you can retain a copy and give it to twenty friends, where as with a physical copy only one friend can have it at a time, and you cannot, at least not for free.
A system to sell content online, while letting both the publisher and the consumer have to same rights they do with pysical media is very difficult to find. A completely new model will have to be created, and supported by law. It will require both parties to give up some rights.
Many people believe that they should have all the rights that they currently have under copyright law, plus the publisher should give up more of theirs, but the only way that online content will ever work is if both sides give up something.
Giving up the ability to lend is not that bad if the cost is far less, as it should be without the physical cost. At the same time the publisher must not raise the cost of the content.
> Wouldn't it be funny if the government decided to copyright every law it passed, and then didn't allow anyone to publish them?
/rant >
a ct
Canada already partially does this with their tax law! The government (Revenue Canada) *REFUSES* to officially publish the Tax Act (their excuse is that it is constantly changing and would be out of date)
< rant on stupid government laws >
Hello McFly, how about ONE RULE: a FLAT 5% tax ON EVERY Goods and Service. Nah, that would be EASY to follow now!
<
i.e.
http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca/about/faq-e.html#tax
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/note.html
Fortunately there is no law that requires a person to have a SIN (Social Insecurity Number)
~~
A government is as corrupt as the number of laws it has.
This is becoming more and more obvious everyday: If something is technically possible and profitable, someone is going to want to do it. It is profitable to use the legislation to restrict other people's freedom in ways that allow you to sell more.
I don't begrudge authors and publishers a living. I actively support it by buying an enormous number of books, including printed books of material that I can get online.
The publishers are feeling threatened by technology. Sharing of books online is easy and cheap. It takes less time than buying a physical copy and costs less. Electronic copies of texts allow you to cut and paste what you want to quote with ease. If they are on the Web, they permit hyperlinking to the full version.
The problem here is that we don't have an acceptable model for how content is to be sold online. Subscriptions and broadcasting offer excellent models for information that is time-critical such as news,weather, stock quotes, even video feeds of live sports. Neither model is good for books.
We have grown used to buying a copy. When I purchase a book, I don't own the rights to the words, but that single physical copy is mine. I can read it, sell it, give it away, loan it to a friend, mark up the pages with notes, or destroy it. I have the right to read it today, next week, next year, or on my death bed 500 years from now when nanotechnology can no longer rebuild my failing body. My right to read it does not require paying an ongoing license fee, and is not subject to the continued availability of special hardware or software to make the pages readable.
Who would want to give up that flexibility and receive nothing in return?
Here is an email address of the AAP (Association of American Publishers):
amyg@publishers.org
Send them a note to leave librarians alone. They are also offering rewards for turning people in (must lead to an arrest).
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Instead of writing a reply here, write one (on paper) here:
Senate Address Lookup and House of Representative Address Lookup
We heard about it, read about, whined and cried about it. What about doing something about it? Like singing to the choir we complain about how the government is letting big business get away with.... Everyone is taking our rights....yada yada yada... If we do not care enough to actually put pen to paper, we are not really serious. If we are not serious why should we be taken seriously?
Wake up, smell the JAVA and act!
I invented a time machine then went to get a patent on it and found out that someone had patented it 10 minutes before I got there. Damn the bad luck!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Step 1, invent time machine.
Step 2, bring a copy of Slashdot articles like this one back to 1780.
Step 3, find Thomas Jefferson and get an amendment made that allows unrestricted access, irrevocably and permanently, for all non-commercial private usage.
Step 4, know that I won't have to entrust my content to companies who lock my content then go out of business and take the keys with them.
Screw the temporal prime directive...
- JoeShmoe
-- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
- Online piracy -- while it is definitely illegal and immoral -- is, as a practical problem, nothing more than (at most) a nuisance.
- Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a book usually engender.
- Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market is far worse than the disease.
And he puts his money where his mouth is. He has 3 complete novels online, along with 15 other authors.// TODO: fix sig
The publishers have already changed copyright law. It's called the DMCA. What happens when libraries can only loan out encrypted copies, and people have to visit a publishers web site and buy a decryption key tied to their physical hardware and time-stamped to only allow access for a certain time period in order to read the material? And if libraries did anything to bypass the encryption, they'd be breaking the DMCA. It's totally filthy.
This was at a time when the United States was in a struggle for its own survival as a colony in the harsh American wilderness. Freedom of information, Franklin understood, was the only way that people would quickly learn the things they needed to know.
The same principles apply today, though with some modification. Now there is so much free information that the embarassing pay-for-knowledge era of our history is nearly finished. The internet brought back what Ben Franklin started.
What does this have to do with libraries?
Well, as the vast number of books published each year eventually forces libraries to go all- or mostly-digital, some of that content is going to find its way online in one form or another. It will leak out, or users will leak in.
It's coming. Publishers will try to fight it, of course, but they have no chance. They're just trying to keep their jobs for as long as they can.
Got Rhinos?
This really isn't all that bad by itself, the real problem is that copyright terms are far too long. So perhaps this is the compromise, fee per use, but for a limited time like the constitution promises. I'm sorry, but 90 some odd years is not limited -- if a book released now will not become public domain in my life time (or possibly even my children's life time) then it is not limited. Heck, books that were written when my grandparents (who are all dead now) were children are not even in the public domain due to the Sonny Bono Act!
We are slowly but surely descending back to the dark ages. Instead of a tyrannous monarchy, we are allowing corporate despotism to limit the free flow of ideas for the sake of a piddly profit.
It's a sad time to be human.
dd
We've already seen articles (on /. even) on digital paper. Onve this technology is created and marketed how long until you can buy a "book" that you can plug a chip, disc, or other media in and the text appears? Personally I'd love a device like this, as much as I love normal books, I'd love to carry fifteen of them in my pocket and be able to pop one of them in my "paper book" at any time to read them. The look and feel of a normal book would be there with the convenience of a digital format.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Who can blame them? Clearly libraries will be the only place to go now that book prices are skyrocketing.
this isn't a warning knell, this is stupidity. Libraries are a basic functioning piece of our country (U.S.), in what few pristine areas of 'original implementation' that exist. Blocking books from library usage is digging into the depths of corporate clout that until recently was only the domain of Coca-Cola schemes
-shpoffo
And what do the video rental places or libraries do in this case? Do they photocopy or dub the whole thing cause they bought it once and they can? Well, no, they don't. They get another copy to keep up with demand. And if the demand radically drops after the initial popularity has passed, they sell an excess copy or two. Or they institute a reserve system or a speed read/new release standard for new popular titles. They certainly don't just give it away to whoever wants it to keep forever.
Thank you, btw for your excellent demonstration of the Slashdot Entitlement Attitude. I may keep this post on file to demonstrate it to others.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Of Thomas Jefferson: So, it's OK to buy and sell people, but not ideas. Just so we're clear on all that.
OK, repeat after me class:
People: OK to own them if they are Negroes.
Ideas: Not OK to own them.
You know, it's funny how wealthy men who profit from the entrenched system of power get all "idealistic" when it comes to the business of buying and selling ideas. It's easy when you've got another source of income.
To such men, the patent office is a hinderence. On the other hand, to a man who has no personal wealth, and only an idea to his name, the patent office shines like a beacon.
Ideas are a gift from God, a birthright. A man who would take your ideas against your will would just as soon take your birthright and make you a slave. This whole "IP is not a natural right" thing is part of a fiction that has been created by the ruling class to help them maintain power.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Don't they realize that by switching from free to paid library scheme, where a book still has to be purchased to loan it out, they will be causing people to copy it and transfer it to digital format?
It might happen regardless, but by charging for access to it at a free library the chances are much higher.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
They came for the Software pirates
I said nothing
I was not a software pirate
They came for the music traders
I said nothing
I was not a music trader
They came for those who registered domains
I sad nothing
I was not a registered no domains
They came for the book barrows
I was a reader
There was no libraries left for people to find out.
Ascii artist &
Napster/Gnutella allow people to pool their resources and all have the file at the same time.
A library on the other hand allows one person at a time to have access to the material, and then they have to return it to allow other people to use it.
If (very theoretically speaking) we had never had libraries until the current day, and someone tried to start them, I think that the newfound libraries would be sued into the ground.
A library does exactly what Napster\Gnutella etc do, or try to do... allow people to pool their resources to have access to a large amount of copyrighted information.
And much like P2P, libraries don't seem to cause a large dent in the sale of books. There are enough realtivly wealthy people around who enjoy owning books and would still rather pay 20-30 dollars a pop then take a trip to the library.
I made this entire point a little bit more humorously at http://ursine.dyndns.org/~mnoelharris/warezportal. html
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
It's not funny at all. There are already a lot of copyrighted laws that cannot be freely distributed. Check this link. Highlights:
* California and 47 other states have building laws that are copyrighted by one of three nonprofit organizations. [and they'll get nasty if you try to redistribute the text.]
* The federal government requires U.S. physicians to use a medical billing code that's owned by the American Medical Association.
This is one of the most insane things I have ever heard of. For some reason it is a little-known fact... probably because it's things like building codes, and not the traffic codes that everyone needs to know about. It's still unforgiveable.
Libraries are how napster got the idea in the first place! Sharing music is like sharing literature. If its illegal for music, it *must* be illegal for books! Watch out, everyone, the internet is next.... then your phone.... then talking to people....
;-)
Moderators, please note the extreme sarcasm in the way I'm typing
--
"That's one small step for man..." "STOP POKING ME!!!!"
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Here is a list of 198 free books. These are all books whose authors have intentionally made them free as in beer or as in speech.
The Assayer - free-information book reviews
Find free books.
Under Title 17 of the U.S. Code, libraries are permitted to lend materials - books, magazines, videotapes, DVDs, CDs, cassettes, CD-ROMs, etc, with certain restrictions. IANAL, but from everything I've seen and everything my local public library's lawyer has said (I'm an employee), the publishers don't really have much of a leg to stand on shy of changing U.S. Copyright law outright.
----------
Something cleverOr, why books and music aren't the same.
Here is the fundamental reason books won't be pirated like music is the difference in HOW we enjoy them.
Music is a fundamentally passive experience for the listener. A person doesn't care how the sound is generated(gramaphone, MP3, CD, etc) as long as it hits the airwaves and they can hear it. Pleasant background noise is the primary reason for most music that get's pirated. In the car, in the office, wherever.
Reading is a fundamentally active experience for the reader. I read in bed at night and I kick back on my sofa to read too. I can listen to music without being active with the media, but with a book, I have to interact witht ehmedia to get the message.
Until tiny little e-books become mainstream, I don't see the pirating of books becoming a problem. Sure I could download the latest novels to read, but no one wants to sit at the computer and read for recreation. It will just be a non-issue until that point and by then either the content industry will have won or we'll have reclaimed our freedom to the point where these kind of draconian restrictions are not tolerated.
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
All the article actually says is that content providers (publishers) don't want libraries to give away the perfect copies of their work, that they would normally charge for, for free. I know, try and keep the shocked gasps down in the back there.
As already pointed out, this doesn't say anything whatsoever about traditional books.
The concept is that if publishers offer digital media and that media is freely duplicatable, then potentially libraries could become a means for people to avoid paying for the service. They just don't want libraries to become the book equivalent of Napster.
If everyone'd stop getting in to a flap, it's actually not that serious... If a digital book is distributed as a CD, disc, memory card, secure file, whatever, with adequate copy protection, this isn't even an issue - it still goes out to one user at a time and then the user hands it back.
Yes, potentially publishers may be stupid enough to distribute via a totally unsecure medium (as happened with CDs) but realistically, they're watching the music industry and holding back until they have secure systems themselves.
So, the whole flap is that libraries might become digital book Napsters if publishers start publishing without security. As libraries already tend to carry music and haven't turned in to Napster clones, and as digital publishing is some way behind digital music, it's unlikely to become an issue anyway.
And it still doesn't effect the traditional model of libraries anyway - just in case anyone's still missed that point.
Only the paranoid may survive, but what do their offspring look like? Weasels, I betcha.
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
---
Those people are idiots. There is nothing like getting a honest to goodness hard copy of a great story, sitting down next to a fire and reading it to my children. The warm glow of my CRT nor the soft glow of a flat panel will never replicate that experience. Anything that promotes the idea of reading is good for the publishing industry, even distrubting there books in PDF.
Burn Hollywood Burn
I live in a college town were we get a LOT of bands coming though via the University. For every band that comes into town, the Student Government donates their most recent CD/LP (they keep both) to the public library. As we have one of the largest and most complete compilations of Punk/Pop/whatever that exists...
Burn Hollywood Burn
We don't need any record of what mankind has done freely available to anyone, nope...
We need what the big publishers say is what we should see and do, and forget about the past. It's unimportant anyway. In fact, just give your money to the publisher now, so they'll send you more of what they just published because it's popular.
We're at war with EastAsia, We've always been at war with EastAsia...
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
This is nowhere in the article. If a library has an e-book, what do the publishers think is okay for the library to do with it? I think a one person at a time per license agreement seems reasonable, provided the license is a one time cost, good forever, and transferable to another body.
Biting the governmental hand that feeds them copyright enforcement in the first place, yeah that's real darn wise.
After I have received the wisdom of good teaching, I will untiringly teach all people. - The Teachings of Buddha
Isn't it funny to think of them referring to library books as content? You know, "Hey mom, Billy and me are just headed over to the library to pick up some content for the trip this weekend." What an age we live in.
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. -Galileo Galilei
The day that public libraries are illegal is THE DAY that we've completely lost our freedom to the corporations.
When information is THAT controlled by the IP cartels, it will be a world where only the very wealthy can afford to read (as per Richard Stallman's scary short story, the "Right To Read"), and only the wealthy elite are educated.
In that world, the masses will only know what they are told, or what they can afford to buy. They will be trained to meekly work for the corporations and be "good" cowed consumers of what the corporations want them to buy.
The scary thing is, our own GOVERNMENT is leading us to this bleak future, the post-Information Age Dark Age, out of their own ignorance and greed.
The DMCA, evil as it is, is only the thin end of the wedge. It is what makes such absurdities as even ALLOWING the discussion of restricting public libraries to be discussed by anyone other than a raving, Oliver Stone believing consipracy theroy raver.
Unfortunately, this is only the beginning. As our current rate of loss of civil rights to big corporation and big government continues to accelerate, the coming Dark Age becomes more real... I predict that unless things change NOW, the world of 50 years in the future will be a cross between the bleak future in Richard Stallman's "The Right to Read" (corporate control of all information) and "Demolition Man" (the ultimate "everything that is not good for you is bad, and therefore illegal" nanny state government).
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Think about it. Isn't this really just the next step in the logical extension of copyright laws? Hopefully this kind of slap in the face will finally wake up the public at large into changing some of the ridiculous laws that are currently "on the books."
Sorry for the rotten attempt at a pun. Except for that, the rest of my comment is quite serious.
If it's supposed to move and doesn't, use WD-40. If it moves and it shouldn't, use duct tape.
Wouldn't it be funny if the government decided to copyright every law it passed, and then didn't allow anyone to publish them? Then you would just have to take the word of the Police, FBI, NSA, etc. that you had broken the law.
I can see it all now:
"Officer, what did I do wrong?"
"You turned left onto Jefferson St. on Friday the 13th. That'll be a $3000 fine, payable to me."
If it's supposed to move and doesn't, use WD-40. If it moves and it shouldn't, use duct tape.
I don't know what the average library is like in the US, but here in the UK, lending libraries are multimedia.
My local library lends books, audio CDs, videos, DVDs and even some (mainly educational) CD-ROMs. Books rentals are free, video rentals cost £1/$1.50 per week (compared to £3/$4.50 per night from Blockbuster), and the cost of the others varies.
But just because people are going to the library instead of the bookshop, authors don't loose out. Each time a book is lent, the author(s) receive royalties of around 5 pence/7.5 cents, capped (I think) at around £35,000/$52,500 per author per year.
For many authors whose books are out of print and/or not readily stocked by bookshops, these payments make a big difference. Not every writer is as sucessful as Stephen King or Nick Hornby, and this pay-per-rental method promotes less popular authors (allowing them the chance to become more popular) and promotes literary diversity.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Publishers afraid to publish books because Publishers fear their copyrighted materials will be freely distributed in a digital form?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
In this context it seems that the actual media publications were printed on was the only thing that made content publishing economically viable.
Now we seem to have an ever-increasing conflict between content publishers and the public who will get information for free if they can. Micro-payments and subscriptions are possible answers, but they seem like very clumsy solutions to this problem.
With easy duplication of information in the so-called information age, and the difficulty the market is having transferring cash value to the content generators, maybe the Internet and easy duplication of information is exposing a fundamental flaw of capitalism?
We all know that information has INCREDIBLE value, yet the free market doesn't seem able to transfer the benefit of this value to the people who create the content. As such, they will have to find another means of making a living which may well be less valuable to society, but yet pays them better...
chew on that for a while.