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.

Comments

Do they even read letters?

[Danse]

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!

Next is TVs only one person may watch.

[root]

#include

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.

Re:Next is TVs only one person may watch.

[bl968]

Well grab your seat!!!! They already have single person TV's and I really really really want one :P


--
When I'm good I'm very good, when I'm bad I'm better, But when I'm evil you better run :P

Re:Copyrighted Laws

[sphealey]

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

Democracy threatended by plutocracy

[maynard]

" What's more, as a rising number of copyright owners and software developers turn to licensing models, librarians worry that they'll be forced to pay perpetual rent on a product or lose the work--a possibility that could endanger the important archival role of their institutions."

I can't imagine a better quote which describes how the very foundations of our civil society are under threat by huge media corporations in collusion with government (all three branches, both political parties) to undermine the factual basis of archival history. Of course, that's the eventual outcome -- not the presumed intent. So, from their perspective they can present a "rational" business and economic ethic showing short term gain, and "potential" long term loss if we don't "protect" their intellectual property from these library "thieves." What was Winston Smith's job again?

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

Two things

[laertes]

First, slashdot is being misleading. They're talking only about electronic forms of media. The slashdot article doesn't mention that this doesn't apply to paper books. Nor does it mention that some publishers want to move to all digital forms for libraries.

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.

Re:Two things

[evilquaker]

I also remark that if these content-based industries failed to defend themselves, and collapsed, the content they provide would likely dry up as well - because there wouldn't be any money in providing it.

You're absolutely right... the content they provide (a.k.a. product packaged as art) would dry up, leaving only real art, unsoiled by the need to be packaged for mass-marketing. You think this is a bad thing?

Re:Two things

[duffbeer703]

Printed books have been around for thousands of years. They aren't going anywhere.

How many ebooks have you read???

Re:Two things

[s20451]

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.

Can you blame them? Let's abstract the situation somewhat: a multi-billion-dollar industry has operated in a particular way for decades. Law exists to protect them against a type of theft that is particular to their industry. Suddenly, technology exists to make it incredibly easy to accomplish this type of theft, potentially threatening their industry's existence. Would you expect the people involved to do anything less than vigorously defend themselves by applying the related law, and even sharpening the law?

I also remark that if these content-based industries failed to defend themselves, and collapsed, the content they provide would likely dry up as well - because there wouldn't be any money in providing it. This is what I've never understood about the Napster debate; the pro-Napster arguments do not seem internally consistent.

If you find this to be a troll, I encourage you to refute my claims.

Solution

[jimdesu]

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?)

Re:Write to this address instead of a REPLY!

[unitron]

The phrase is "preaching to the choir", meaning saying stuff to people who are already convinced of what you're saying (although in real life a person's presence in a church choir, even when not a paid performer, isn't an absolute guarantee of the agreement of their religious views with those of the preacher, but I digress and weaken the analogy).

see also: "preaching to the converted"

Lets ban Xerox copiers while we're at it.

[Bowie J. Poag]

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.

A neat discussion

[Mike Schiraldi]

I started an interesting discussion on this over at Joel on Software. Go through the thread, there are some really good insights there. I'd like to hear what the /. crowd thinks about it.

--

Utopian predictions...

[Squirrel Killer]

Ten years down the road, when print and real-world formats will (might) go by the wayside...

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

Let's protest - book burning time!

[coyote-san]

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...

surprise, surprise.

[ravrazor]

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?

Re:surprise, surprise.

[rkent]

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.

You know, it's funny -- you are, and I am, and so are a lot of other people I know. Whether it's books, CDs, DVDs, vinyl records, or whatever, I know people with HUGE media collections. They collect their media of choice either to support the artists, or because they simply can't stand to be without these 160 albums or these 233 books or whatever. These are people who realize the importance of their actions, and voluntarily participate in the system to make it keep going.

This seems less and less satisfactory to the media companies each day. They don't seem to even recognize the voluntary choice of people to help out in this way; it's all about enforcing "THE LAW" against those deviants who don't participate. The problem with this is, it devalues the choices of people who are good participants. If I buy 2 cds every week, how am I supposed to feel when the RIAA tells me I'm not allowed to space shift it, by suing the pants off MP3.com? I'm sickened by their action to reduce my rights to access music I paid for. Legitimately, volutarily.

Actions like this, whether by the RIAA or the American Association of Publishers, insult their valid media buyers. What they really need is an era of "benefit of the doubt" given to the people who pay their bills. Damn it, what ever happened to pleasing the customer? If, instead of extending your hand to your friends, you hold a gun to your enemies, then soon all you'll have is enemies. Extreme excersize of control against any form of rebellion practically insists that the rebellion take place.

---

Write to this address instead of a REPLY!

[Kefaa]

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!

Re:Write to this address instead of a REPLY!

[mikethegeek]

"Free Market Capitalism cannot co-exist with Democratic and Free people"

This is a fallacy. What we have in the USA is NOT free market capitalism! It's more of a pseudo-socialist corporate/government Oligarchy.

In a truly FREE MARKET, these things would be true that are NOT true in the United States of 2001 (though some of them used to be true):

1. Anyone with an invention would be able to bring it to market. Not easily possible today by anyone not a Fortune 500 corporation, thanks to byzantine IP laws, and government-sanctioned monopolies (all corporations are government sanctioned entities, as a corporation is a government created legal fiction).
2. Anyone would be permitted to improve any existing invention or product, both for their own financial gain and the general good. Not able to happen today for similar reasons to #1

3. Copyrights and patents would be limited in scope and duration (as intended by the Constitution), with VERY leniant "fair use" exceptions. The 1990's basically put an end to any fiction that ANY limits on copyrights and patents still exist.

4. The government's role in the economy would be restricted to:
a. Maintaining a sound fiscal policy (ie, not spending more than they take in, so as not to take on debt and inflate interest rates)
b. Busting monopolies whererever they exist.
The US government abandoned these policies forever when FDR became the first US Tyrant.

5. There would be no such thing as a government entity (be it legislative, or by judicial fiat) that has the power to protect "business models" from the advance of technology. Had we our current laws and politicians and courts in the time of Henry Ford, the automobile would have been outlawed as "stealing" from horse farms and coach and buggy makers. Had they presided over the time of Thomas Edison, electricity would have been outlawed as "stealing" from candle and oil lamp makers.

I could go on indefinately, but you get the idea. The USA is rapidly becoming a Plutocracy, rule by merchants (large megacorps), which, while not socialist in the same FORM as communist countries, has the same exact effect on:

1. civil rights
2. freedom of speech, most particulary
3. freedom to learn
4. freedom to buy (or not to buy) products of your choice (try buying a computer at ANY retail store without paying the MS tax) 5. freedom to dissent. In communist countries they roll the tanks over you. In the American Imperial Corporate State, they just sue you into bankruptcy. Eventually it will become tanks.

The American Plutocracy is a fusion of corporation into government, leading to corporate control of government. Communist countries are the same, except that it happened the opposite way, government took control of the corporations.

Eric Flint says it best

[Darth Yoshi]

In the prologue to the Baen Free Library, to summerize Eric Flint:

1. Online piracy -- while it is definitely illegal and immoral -- is, as a practical problem, nothing more than (at most) a nuisance.
2. 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.
3. 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.

History Lesson

[zpengo]

Ben Franklin, I believe, was the first one to institute libraries in which patrons could actually remove books, take them home, read them at their leisure, and then return them.

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.

Re:History Lesson

[kfg]

Ben Franklin WAS a publisher. In fact he was perhaps the most successful publisher in the colonies. He USED his power as a publisher to institute libraries. . .

and overthrow the legitimate government of the time.

KFG

Well, who can blame them...

[Satai]

Who can blame them? Clearly libraries will be the only place to go now that book prices are skyrocketing.

"Thunder in the distance" ?

[shpoffo]

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

Re:What do publishers want?

[KahunaBurger]

One person at a time license agreement? Do you know how annoying it is to go to a library (or video rental store even) and find the book you have been waiting for months to read is still on loan to somebody else?

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.

/. lied in their description of the situation, just like they did on the first "publisher's vs libraries" thread. Rule of thumb if you want to be informed about these issues - /. will tell you that there is something going on. Then they will exagrerate, spin or straight out lie about what the real details are. Always follow the links and read carefully before trusting a word written here.

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

If libraries were invented today...

[Glowing Fish]

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

Libraries - Where Napster got the idea!

[FortKnox]

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!!!!"

PR?

[MWoody]

"They've got their radical factions, like the Ruby Ridge or Waco types," who want to share all content for free, said Judith Platt, a spokeswoman for the Association of American Publishers.

Comparing librarians to terrorists? Lemme guess - Mrs. Platt missed a few lectures in Public Relations school.
---

What do publishers want?

[MarkLR]

The article header states Publishers want a pay-for-use library system so that you won't go there to escape high prices elsewhere.

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.

I know they're talking about digital, but...

[Ambiguo]

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.

Simply put...

[mikethegeek]

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).

Re:Active versus passive material enjoyment.

[mikethegeek]

"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."

This is likely far in the future. I've yet to see any new technology to make an "e-book" that is as comfortable to read and is as practical as a paper book. That's an invention that will be as Earth shattering as the microprocessor itself.

The logical next step

[Smegma4U]

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.

Copyrighted Laws

[Smegma4U]

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."

From the other side of the pond

[WIAKywbfatw]

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.