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.
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?
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
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?
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!
- 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
---