Slashdot Mirror
Offline Book "Lending" Costs US Publishers Nearly $1 Trillion
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from a tongue-in-cheek blog post which puts publisher worries about ebook piracy into perspective:
"Hot on the heels of the story in Publisher's Weekly that 'publishers could be losing out on as much $3 billion to online book piracy' comes a sudden realization of a much larger threat to the viability of the book industry. Apparently, over 2 billion books were 'loaned' last year by a cabal of organizations found in nearly every American city and town. Using the same advanced projective mathematics used in the study cited by Publishers Weekly, Go To Hellman has computed that publishers could be losing sales opportunities totaling over $100 billion per year, losses which extend back to at least the year 2000. ... From what we've been able to piece together, the book 'lending' takes place in 'libraries.' On entering one of these dens, patrons may view a dazzling array of books, periodicals, even CDs and DVDs, all available to anyone willing to disclose valuable personal information in exchange for a 'card.' But there is an ominous silence pervading these ersatz sanctuaries, enforced by the stern demeanor of staff and the glares of other patrons. Although there's no admission charge and it doesn't cost anything to borrow a book, there's always the threat of an onerous overdue bill for the hapless borrower who forgets to continue the cycle of not paying for copyrighted material."
Don't give them any ideas.
The copyright circus is stupid enough already.
Really, too often what's funny is what is true, or at least points at facets of reality that other methods of communication cannot manage to talk about as easily.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
Libraries are nothing but effete businesses designed to rip off the publishing industry and fill innocent victims' minds with confusing, dangerous propaganda! A. Hitler, spokesman, RIAA
Sunlight costs lightbulb makers nearly 100 bazillion dollars!
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Voyeur and amateur stuff abounds! How they came up with the names like "National Geographic" still confuses me, though. Ask for that or the "medical journal" sections. Don't forget to wink knowingly.
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
I always thought books would have been "liberated" first in the digital world because text has a lower bandwidth than music or video. However there is a high entry cost of converting to text. So the system had to wait until it had enough bandwidth to support photos of text which are easy to make.
What happened... the bartender you wanted to interview for his opinion on the latest Ubuntu distro didn't return your call?
I have been loaning books to friends for years. I am posting anonymously to avoid the repercussions.
I am irked by the phrase "advanced projective mathematics." This to me is a red flag warning me of some business school BS coming up.
Where I am they have Videos and DVDs too.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
Apple convinced people to pay for some of their music and cellphone apps with low prices and convenience. I am hoping for a "three-peat" later this year in the ebook world. $10-$15 ebooks are still too pricey.
...you can't sue the government.
Floating in the black seas of infinity without a paddle.
They tore down the libraries. Because lending books is evil.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Just think how much the libraries are costing publishers, OMG!
And with the ability to actually borrow a book for free, nobody will ever need to actually buy a book. That's nothing but the liberals, err socialists trying to take nationalize both the publishing and retail book industries!
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
When the authorities have requested copies of patrons borrowing records, the libraries almost always refuse to provide it without a search warrant!
If I could "own" (even with DRM) a book for $2.50, I would never bother making a trip to a library. Even at lower prices, publishers could increase their profits substantially by bypassing the libraries.
Notorious hacker group "The Librarians" thumbed their collective noses today at the intellectual property industry as they investigated new ways to channel IP into the hands of teenagers.
"I got this great new bag today," said one student, "and realized I needed a few novels to put in it." [Editor's note: we believe the term "bag" is street for a memory storage device.]
One self-proclaimed member of this criminal organization stated "The biggest challenge with kids today is getting access to reading material. Many come from poorer families and depend on the free availability of reading material to supplement their school-provided education." She continued, "That's why today we're announcing a reading competition, with the winner awarded a really wonderful bag to store their materials in."
When pressed for clarification, this member stated "Of course all the reading materials would be provided for free. That is the whole purpose of what we do." Upon further research, it is believed that local and federal funds are being diverted for these activities.
Organizations representing intellectual property owners did not immediately answer calls. [Editor's note: we let the phone ring once, then hang up. If they can't answer their calls in less than one ring, it's not immediate enough for us.]
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
While funny, the point of the article is quite saddening. People have been involved in 'socialist' activities since before we were human and only just recently, has it become something of a curse to help one another out (sharing) at the expense of a Corporation potentially losing a sale opportunity.
Don't get me wrong, Corps have to make money, but there has been an amazing full court press of propaganda that has twisted the case for helping and sharing the burden to some degree as socialism or communism (and for the Republicans out there, I'll add Fascism, since it ends in an ism).
We won't even talk about all the infrastructure that government puts in place because, well, that is a form of socialism too, and its far better to little to no government so everyone can look after themselves.
I wonder who would be best able to take care of themselves in such a scenario, individual voters and their families or large corporations (since they have most of the benefits of being a 'person' but none of the responsibilities)?
This is pretty pathetic, they want to shut down libraries now? Libraries have existed for hundreds of years, this is one of the most rediculous things i've ever heard from the publishing industry, yes let's kill libraries, make poor families pay for books that may be their only chance to escape their harsh world or to learn things.
This is hilarious and serious all at the same time. Love it!
Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/books/19sherlock.html
dear all creators:
no, it does not make any fucking sense that your grandchildren should profit from a story you wrote, a song you sang, a movie you directed, whatever
it simply does NOT make sense. it is an intellectually and philosophically corrupt concept
intelletual property law only deserves to be disrespected, fought, and subverted. intellectual property law is a parasitical drain on our culture. intellectual property law must be destroyed. it is not of any benefit to anyone except certain entrenched well-connected, well-lawyered interests
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
People can borrow books without violating laws. This is what libraries facilitate. Without a way to read books without paying for every one of them, people would either not read as many books, or make a bazillion copies as a matter of course, rendering copyrights useless.
So libraries are not taking away profits (aside from imaginary money that will never be realized). In fact, they facilitate the money that the publishers make now.
What blows my mind is that this guy doesn't seem to know that Libraries just like Video Rental stores pay MORE for the items than normal retail. And I'm not talking a little more either, it's usually pretty dang ludicrously expensive.
I don't see where this is going - I borrow books from my family members to read, go to the library to read, go to used books store to purchase. All of these events had only one original purchase - and I going to have to come up with money because I read someone's original first purchase book???
Get over it already. /end of rant/
what? me worry?
Do you realize that you did nothing more than re-state the summary, in fewer words, as if it were your own idea?
Apparently, you fail at reading comprehension.
It's not the socialist "public authorities" you have to worry about. It's the "peer to peer lending" perpetrated by individuals with no state intervention or support!
the copy ain't so hot. Compare with digital movies, music, books, software, where the copy IS identical to the original, and you NOW see why this is bananas vs apeshit.
This is what happens when a government runs the value of their money to the ground by over-spending/borrowing. The purchasing power of the average family goes down and they start making tough choices about where their money goes. Things like overpriced cable television, unnecessary luxury trips, entertainment purchases (books, movies, music), and other non-essential items don't get purchased. Instead of the Corporations facing this reality and coming up with quality products that have value, they instead blame 'piracy' for their woes.
Sorry Corporations, food and gas to get to work is more important than a $30 Blue-Ray movie, especially when I is delivered a few weeks later at my door via my Netflix queue. Used video games are more attractive (even bargain bin ones) than $60 for the latest greatest, and if I am desperate I can rent for $3 at Hollywood Video. Radio is free and generally will play something worth listening to, so that song better be really good for me to spend even $0.99 on it (Ke$ha need not apply).
These days I use the library, netflix, rentals, borrowing, ebay, or any other legal means to save a buck on entertainment these days. Even if that means just playing cards with the family or going to the park.
Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
This is a bad analogy, as there is a fundamental difference between ebook piracy and library lending...
A library has a single copy of a book and it can be borrowed by only one individual at any given time. Pirating an ebook results in new copies of the same material.
Seriously, is it so difficult to understand the difference between copying and lending/borrowing?
Background: In the "war on piracy", the xxAA organizations attack people who share files. Or at least those who do their file sharing online and can be identified. Many believe that encryption and other anonymization technology will be the next step, making the transfers harder to trace.
But there are other alternatives.
I was at the library recently, perusing their collection of CD and DVD media. And then it occurred to me... The library accepts donations. What happens if I donate EVERYTHING I HAVE? Not that I'm suggesting anyone do this, but how hard would it be to keep a backup copy of everything before donating it? Instead of sharing files online, what if I share them with fellow library patrons? What if everyone else does it?
Now you're just adding to the stereotype that mathematicians have no sense of humor.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Several years ago (before the likes of Rhapsody and other services), I considered writing an application that would allow you to share your music library by allowing anyone using that software to search for songs and stream that file so long as no one else was streaming that same song. Essentially you were just borrowing the song the same way you would borrow a CD from a library. In order for this software to be considered legal, I would have had to implement DRM and I did not trust my software engineering skills enough at that time, so I just let the idea pass, but it was interesting because I'm sure the members of the RRIA would have hated it, yet legally it would be analogous to a public library. I wonder if there will be digital versions of public libraries for books in the future.
but not in the usa
not that that is supposed to mean anything morally, intellectually, or philosophically valid
anything made before the year 2000 should be in the public domain, and that's the way i'm going to act. there is no reforming ip law, it is too broken and too securely in the pocket of deeply vested interests
the only morally valid thing to do is to completely ignore, circumvent, and undermine ip law
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
These are the people arguing against making publicly funded research publicly available. Here's the full article: Pat Schroeder's New Chapter.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
When I was growing up, my family did not have a lot of money. Almost all the books I read were borrowed from a library. As I got older, my mom and dad moved in to better jobs, and some of my books were purchased. By the time I was in high school and college, the only time I went to the library was to do research for school papers.
Now that I make good money, I never to go the library. I buy all my books (from independent book stores if I can).
Like any good drug dealer they need to keep the first "hit" free.
Their "Campaign to Promote Illiteracy" will be mandatory in most schools in the next semester. Students will be treated to videos with titles such as "Johnny Can't Read"; older classes will be subjected to aversion therapy with pop-up books such as "My Pet Goatse" and "Animal Farm-sex".
They'll also be promoting their new android-based phone, which enables illiterates to send "text" messages using only pictures, so that texting becomes a game of rebus. For example, he message "Can I see you tonight?" becomes
"picture of a tin can" = "can", +
"picture of an eye" = "eye", +
"picture of waves" = "sea", +
picture of a female goat" = "ewe", +
"picture of dog poop" = "number 2" +
"picture of a knight on a horse" = "knight"
"can eye sea ewe 2 knight" = "can I see you tonight"
It's hair rendingly stupid. It serves no purpose other than to make people who make the comparison appear brain crushingly thick and who don't understand the first thing about the purpose of copyright.
Just to sum it up for the terminally thick.
Library: pays for one copy. Lends that copy to 1 person at a time. One copy paid for, one copy made. Making unlimited copies of things: One copy paid for (if that). Infinite copies made.
So, just, stop!
Puzzle Daze is now my job
there is an ominous silence pervading these ersatz sanctuaries, enforced by the stern demeanor of staff and the glares of other patrons.
Cut the crap grandpa, it's obvious you ain't been in a library since one of the wheels fell off your walker a decade ago. Libraries now are a cacophonous din emergent from the cross talk between cell phones, online chatter and wailing of ankle bitters jettisoned by their mothers into a free for all day care centre. Librarians caved years ago and carry on loud conversations with all and sundry. I live 3 blocks from Vancouver's main library, I time my foray, plan my entry and exit strategies, and run it like a half back with the game on the line and time running out.
ideopath @ play
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/books/19sherlock.html
its all very confusing, but apparently shoerlocke holmes is still somehow under copyright in some places/ ways. for example, warner brothers made legal agreement's with the copyright holders to make the recent movie
not that the article means anything to me but yet another example of how fucking useless, parasitical, and obstructionist ip law has become. it is everyone's moral duty to ignore or subvert the joke that is ip law
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The former head of the RIAA, Hillary Rosen, actually gave a speech decrying the very idea of libraries loaning out books for free. She seriously wanted to charge for every time a book was read.
No, I have no link. It was probably ten years ago. She resigned in 2003.
Infuriate left and right
In books printed around 1900. The language was startlingly familiar. You were supposedly allowed to use the book for private, personal use only. You weren't allowed to sell it or rent it out.
The first sale doctrine meant that the copyright holders couldn't impose such uses on third parties without entering into a contract. That wasn't feasible in the era when publishers sold to bookstores who had no interest in becoming license brokers. Things are different for ebooks, where it's easy to sell licenses rather than copies. In fact, that's what's behind one of the niftier features of Amazon's Kindle: you can copy your book to your iPhone or Kindle as you like, you just can't resell or lend it.
There's no question that eliminating this nonsense was *good* for book publishing as a whole, because this was a deal which left the public hungry for more of their product. Some individual publishers could have made more money on certain individual works. In the transition to electronic formats, the book publishing industry could easily become the next music industry.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Fact 1: Public libraries are just about the best return on investment for your tax dollar. For every dollar you spend supporting the public library, you get about $8.00 back in services. If you had to pay retail (or even discounted) for every book borrowed from the public library, that's the ROI you would see. Name another government organization that can give you a better ROI. (Note: You can't.)
Fact 2: If you have a recession, usage of the public library goes up. Ironically, the library budget is subject to the recession as much as any other business or government entity. For most businesses, if traffic goes up, so does income. It's the opposite for a public library.
Fact 3: If it were not for public libraries, many books would not be published at all. That's because publishers factor in the public library market in their decision to publish. Larger public libraries buy a given title in the hundreds of copies. There are over 16,000 public libraries in the US. The market is not trivial.
Fact 4: Public libraries are largely responsible for publishers' 'Backlists' of older titles. Nobody else buys them.
Fact 5: It is an established fact that people who use public libraries buy far more books than people who do not. Public libraries help create the market that gives profits to publishers.
Fact 6: Research libraries, especially, are a captive audience for the over-priced, rip-off "scientific" journals that cost hundreds, even thousands of dollars a year that academics "must have." No individual can afford them. If libraries "just said no" those journals would fail in a heartbeat.
Fact 7: Cutting off libraries is a stupid idea. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
and when i'm done, i want you to pay me for building the patio. then i'm going to insist you pay me a small fee every time you use the patio. finally, 80 years from now, whoever you sell your house to has to pay my grandchildren the same small fee
give me a fucking break: it IS a completely stupid argument
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
...you can't sue the government.
But at least in the United States, you can sue the attorney general in his official capacity, especially if you think your "private property [has been] taken for public use, without just compensation".
Libraries are zero sum lending. If a library has bought N copies of a book, only N people can have it checked out at once. Person N+1 has to wait until one of the N finishes reading it and returns it.
Online "lending" is not zero sum. If N people have torrented a book, N+1 does not have to wait for one of them to finish reading.
This is a huge difference, and makes any comparison between online distribution of digital material with offline distribution of physical items completely useless.
Plus, knowing more than a minimum amount of mathematics (and in the US, the minimum is awfully minimal) puts you in danger of violating countless "software" and "business method" patents. Your own brain may become a tool for criminal activity unless you turn it off at every possible opportunity. (We won't even talk about all the copyright infringement that goes on as people copy information from books, movies and songs into their brains.) I think it's clear that the logical next step is to make owning or operating a brain illegal. The potential for abuse is just too great.
Then you should instaurate a tax to compensate the industry for this kind of loses!
Oh wait, if you live in Spain you are already paying this tax over the cds, dvds, mobile phones, harddrives, photocameras, mp3 players, computers (twice if your computer has a harddrive and a cardreader... and probably you are paying it 5 times for your computer... harddrives + ram modules + cardreader + biosrom + ...) .... anything where you can store information or can use to store information, except for your brain, your hands, pencils/pens and paper (they'll fix this with time, don't worry about it!).
Luckily is the state who is collecting the tax, so we at least know where the money is goin.... what? That the state is not collecting the tax? That the Spanish RIAA is collecting it and that their accounting information is secret???
At least the autors are getting compensated for their loses... But it turns out that im an autor myself and never seen a penny from it, weird isn't... well i guess im not important enough... But, what? That the executive board of the spanish RIAA are "ex-autors": they haven't produce a new album in 20 years and havn't given a concert in more than a decade... and they are driving around in ferraris and living in mansion?!?!?! No way, i mean they must have been very famous before... what? That they produced one song and are trying to live from that for their whole live? And they are collecting the taxes? And making the copyright laws? Aren't they a bit impartial on this one??
I'm sure not, they are at the top so they must be very good people with very good intentions doing what's best to incentivate the production of culture in the world.. Moreover, everybody is innocent until proven otherwise (something that with no accounting information is kind of difficult) but wait... innocent until proven otherwise... that reminds me of something.... nooo, it can't be an article of the constitution cause the tax they are collecting states that everyone will use every storage device at their disposition for storing stealed copyrighted content and... doesn't that mean that anyone is guilty? Well, at least i'm sure that if you can prove otherwise they'll give you the tax back right? What? That they don't??!! Mthfuckers...
This is not flamebait and never should have been moderated as such. The post is simply making a logical argument that is opposed to the prevailing pro-piracy, anti-copyright view of Slashdot.
Libraries are funded by taxes, and those tax dollars are used to pay for content. Libraries do not rip off e-books and download music from P2P networks.
You spelled his name wrong; that's GNU/Stallman
They meant to say $100 bajillion dollars.
Their "Campaign to Promote Illiteracy" will be mandatory in most schools in the next semester
This campaign also goes by the name "public schools"
In Europe libraries pay a fee to the publishers per book they lend. A couple of cents, I believe.
I'm actually not clear that I believe corps have to make money. I think we could have a perfectly functional economy with everything run non-profit. Any additional profits should go to the employees
/. Without trying to flame you, are you a communist? If you are not, then how do you explain your gross oversight regarding the current owners? Are you actually suggesting that we "take" the profits from the current owners and "give" them to the workers, who rightfully deserve them? Why should the workers get the profit when the investors are the ones who started and built the company in the first place? (ie: without investor money, there is no company and investors only invest if they think there will be profit)
/. You are not an owner....so it's OK to take from other owners "because it's the right thing to do". There's a lot of that line of thinking going around and it's high time for it to be challenged. The workers should have NO right to the profits of a company if they are not investors/owners of said company. If you disagree, then take some of your hard earned salary, go buy some shares and become an owner. Then you get a say on things just like the rest of the owners/investors/shareholders.
I can't believe this shit gets modded up on
Get this through your skull: ALL private companies in the US are owned by someone. And those "someones" are real people like you and me. You act like you can just take whatever profits are there and give them to the workers. Well, that's all great and good in Candyland but in the real world....why do you want to fuck over the current owners by redistributing their rightful profit to non-owners?
Your post is so typical on
BTW, is it your expectation that life is "fair"? If so, I can't help you. I am sorry. It just doesn't work like that.
Forget libraries, I decided to copyright the alphabet in all known written form. Now, anytime any single letter is used without express permission, I must be paid. While I was at it, I had done the same for the entire numerical system (including imaginary numbers).
Therefore, if you wish to write anything down, please remit payment ASAP.
Has anyone considered that in addition to libraries, schools circulate copyright material for free to the students. An argument against this as unlawful may include the exposure of the fact that a very small percentage of the recipients actually read this text and a large percentage of the books suffer irrepairable damages. Still, it might add a few more pennies to their losses. Woe is the publishing industry.
ps - hooray for treason!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
it was your greatgranddaddy aaron that subverted the constitution ;-)
(i'm just teasing)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Over $500 per year from my property tax bill goes directly to my local library. In 2009 I borrowed 50 CDs and read 10 books. My library bought those books and CDs, but if they hadn't, I most likely would not have listened to that music or read those books. If I like something, I buy it. If I have a passing interest, I put my tax dollars to work.
Geez, don't tell anyone that my friends and I borrow each other's video games and DVDs.
(looks around suspiciously)
You guys are all shouting about how you don't want libraries to disappear. And yet you also say you'll switch over to e-books if the price is low enough.
I'll assume you understand that as soon as more money is made from e-books than real books, the real books go away. And the day after that, the libraries go with them because the only DRM allowed will be pay-per-read.
Far fetched? Just wait....
And the follow-up campaign will be "Baaaahhhh! Goat, sheep, it's all ewes to me, you nanny, I mean ninny :-)"
Special video on how to milk just the "mommy cow", and not the "daddy cow", at no extra charge.
But WAIT - THERE'S MORE!
For a limited time, we'll throw in this educational video (that we stole off youtube) at no extra cost!
... or for those whose religious views condemn such things, we can substitute ...
"Why squirrels hide their nuts - transgenderism in the animal kingdom!"
"It's only a sin when others do it! - the Fundamentals of Fundamentalism for Fundamentalists."
They own the books. They have the right to do whatever they please with them, with or without the publisher's permission. Copyright restricts publishing, it says nothing at all about already produced artifacts. Lending very well can lead to copying and redistribution. There's absolutely nothing stopping someone from memorizing a library book and reciting it to their friends, other than the effort. There's no DRM on dead trees.
Copyright made perfect sense in the days where the cost of a printing press meant adding a bit to the cost to pay authors wasn't a burden. That isn't the case today; everyone can (and must) copy things in their day to day lives, with zero to negligible cost involved. We can't just tax that nothing the way we did with the printing press.
It's time to move on. Copyright once served a purpose, but things have changed.
Granted, but publishers really do think like this. There is serious antagonism from publishers about libraries and has been for decades. Librarians are not really welcome at publisher conventions. I've experienced this first hand. Authors can get sucked into this, too. "You mean I could have earned royalties for this many check-outs? I'd be rich!" No, actually you wouldn't because libraries helped create your fan base.
In some countries, such as Australia, there is something called a 'Public lending right' where the government pays publishers a fee to compensate for publishers' 'losses' because libraries check out books to more than one person. Every time a new media comes out (VHS, CD, DVD) the publishers of those formats, having not encountered the situation before, raise a big stink. With the digitization of books and the rise of Kindle-type reading, I believe the library will be presented with even greater challenges.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Just like the music and movie industry, now the book industry is embarking on the same path, to come up with absurd numbers when crunching to see how much they have lost. However, I can tell you from first hand experience, being a software developer and having 1 book title cost as much as 80$ per book, depending on the press or size of the book....I never, EVER,EVER...would spend that much on a book!!!
If I look at the many ebooks I have acquired over the years, and look at my library of real books, I can tell you, there was a time I would a book or 2...but never the amount of ebooks that I have. Also, needing some references is cool, although I can just as easily
scan the internet and see a lot of code examples for the stuff I need, so did I really need that book I bought, not really.
Anyways, they never factor in the fact that of the many books pilfered , there is almost only 20 to 25 % of that whole number, where the person still would have bought the book....where as the rest could do without, and never would pay for an overpriced book. This is the reality that they never to stop and consider.
There is a reason why places like iTunes make money, no one wants to pay 22$ for a cd....are you nuts...especially if the artist only has 1 good song on there...so go to iTunes and get that song...do they say that places like iTunes cost the industry a lot of potential money they could consider as a loss....?
Would be nice to see Virgin or Geffen take Apple to court over lost revenue...i mean, isn't that like stealing , by making it possible for someone to bypass the desired paying model, and still get what he wants at a lower price then the company is willing to give out themselves?
In Europe, libraries are mandated to pay a per-loan fee to authors' lobbies such as CEDRO (books) or SGAE (music) in Spain. In practice, the users don't notice it because it's the governments that pay, but it's there.
To do list for Windows
Way back when, there was a company called Borland that brought out a compiler called, "Turbo Pascal." (Obviously I'm not telling the gray-haired Slashdotters anything they don't know already.) Software publishers were as interested in licensing and usage restriction as they are today, except back then they were generally using even klutzier methods of DRM, then called "copy protection." Into this realm of expensive software, expensive compilers, copy protection, and general mess Borland brought "Turbo Pascal" for a remarkably low price and a most bizarre software license.
The Borland Turbo Pascal license said basically, "Treat this software like a book." Use it yourself, loan it to a friend or two. Just don't do both at the same time. You can loan a book to a friend, but while he has it, you can't read it. Treat this software just the same way.
Well, it looks like dream of the Borland dream is finally coming to pass - software and books are getting equal treatment. But rather than software being treated like a book, books are being treated like software.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
They own the books. They have the right to do whatever they please with them, with or without the publisher's permission.
Yes, you are correct. However, if what you desire to do with the book is make a copy and give it to someone else, whoever you've given the book to does not own the book. They have not purchased the book from you and they have not purchased the book from the author. They do not, legally or morally "own" the book. In fact, if you had a shred of morality, you would feel cheated because the person who now has your book has taken something from you with absolutely no remuneration. So to eliminate the sting that you feel for cheating yourself, you in turn cheat the publisher and author by making and retaining a copy.
If you got past the first grade and didn't learn this lesson, many, many people have failed you in life. Either that or let me know where you live so I can come and take your stuff while you try to figure out how to copy it.
with the idea that if i make a movie derived from the works of jk rowling, that jk rowling deserves a cut. that's ip law that makes sense to me
my problem is with the idea that i have to pay to watch that movie off the internet. of course i should pay when it is in a theatre: that's physical space i am renting. but you can't control the flow of bits anymore in the internet world, so you need to give that up, rather than punitively punishing random consumers out of your futility and panic at the changing technological landscape
ip law makes sense to me when it is amongst creators. that deals with 95% of what you have written above. ip law meanwhile does not make sense to me when it foisted upon consumers
the technological model changes, therefore, the consumption model changes. therefore, creators should adapt. and they are adapting, or they will adapt. however, the only ones really resisting the technological change are the DISTRIBUTORS
see the big lie that you buy into is that ip law serves creators
ip law serves distributors. it was extended by distributors. in a way, that sir arthur conan doyle's works are still private is a side effect of disney's desire to retain ownership of the image of a certain mouse, and paid sonny bono to do that. that's the thrust ip extension, not protecting creators. anything extra creators get, that isn't gobbled up by one-sided distributor contracts foisted no small-time creators, is just legal cruft, a pointless after-effect, from the distributors point of view, from the main game of retaining revenue streams against all common sense
you go ahead and ask any one hit wonder from the 80s: they signed contracts where they gave up most of their rights in return for a year or two of limo rides and hotel rooms. the only artists from the 80s still making good money are the big sustained acts that were able to muscle in on the distributors turf and sign real agreements with them
the war against ip law is not a war against creators. creators stand to BENEFIT from the new world because they can distribute works directly to consumers. its free advertising. like radio airplay. meanwhile, ancillary streams of revenue: endorsements, real world gigs, personalized content, etc.: that's how artists make their money in the future. and it can be quite successful, and it can last a long time. and they can make a lot more money than when the bulk of their income goes to a corporation whose only value-added part of the equation: pressing cds, has become defunct. now the distributor is only a parasite with a bully club of lawyers and paid for legislators to retain their income stream. an income stream which in no way benefits the artist or the consumer
the only issue that causes problems in the new world of no ip law on consumers is THERE IS NO NEED FOR A DISTRIBUTOR IN THE PICTURE. and that's the source of ALL of the heat and friction on ip law. there is no conflict between artist and consumer. only between consumer and distributor now (there always has been a conflict between artist and distributor)
the reality is that +internet, -ip laws = creators benefit, consumers benefit, and distributors DIE. not gracefully, at least
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
this is stupid....where do they come up with these "statistics" ? I'm thinking directly from their asses....cause that's what they are.
How would giving something away and still having it at the same time be cheating myself?
"Flamebait" has little to do with the content. It's all about the tone.
Most "logical" arguments don't have to resort to "terminally thick", "stupidest comparison", "brain crushingly thick", etc.
In summary, contrary to what a lot of you "hey, don't mod me down just because I disagree with your groupthink!!1" types want to believe, most Flamebait mods are because you're being a jackass. Not because of WHAT you're saying, but HOW you're saying it.
The GP is 100% textbook Flamebait.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
That's nothing. The Economist once had a cover with two copulating camels (the female didn't look to happy).
She was probably getting dry-humped.
Thank you, I'm here all week.
(Take the 45% you just saved; buy more books. Take the 45% you just saved; buy more books. Repeat until funds=0.)
That converges to 1/(1 - 0.45) = 1/.55 = 1/(11/20) = 20/11 = 2 - 2/11, or 1.8181(81)...
For 50%, it's exactly 2. For 55% it's 1/.45 = 2 + 1/9 = 2.11(1).... /me is a math geek ;)
That sir would be quite epic.
I do what I must because of what I must do.
Well actually it does. It's in Section 109.
So yes - you do have permission as explicitly given by section 109 of the US Copyright law (aka "First Sale Doctrine").
As for the rest of your post, there is "DRM on dead trees". Because the amount of effort to memorize and recite a library book would deter the average people. Sort of like digital DRM would deter the average person. Both forms of DRM can be circumvented if someone is determined to do it.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
TQ's demo crashed my entire computer on exit, which meant I didn't even attempt to buy it until Steam offered it and expansion for $10. I assume they'd worked out the bugs by then.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
That would be sad... but its the same as buggy whip manufacturers, right?
So the library business model must change.
Any law that legalizes DRM could also mandate it in a form that allows "lending" of material for a limited amount of time from authorized agents.
Don't get me wrong: DRM is generally bad IMO... but ebooks don't mean the death of libraries. Or at least they don't have to...
Word game?
You appear to have developed your silly idea by only considering silly books. It's quite common for academic publishers to have separate pricing schemes depending on who is doing the purchasing. If you want a print subscription to The Lancet, a library will pay about five times the price that an (undiscounted) individual would- and more than ten times what a student subscription costs. This is common in academic publishing.
If all you want in your library is the latest in angsty teenage vampire fiction(i.e. silly books), the libraries get a good deal. For serious academic works, the reverse is true.
...this dipshit is SERIOUS!
The Scourge of Public Libraries .
Yes, being on a waiting list for a DVD from the Boston Public Library (in my case) is JUST LIKE a "Soviet breadline".
Is there no end to Libertarian douchebaggery?
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
if what you desire to do with the book is make a copy and give it to someone else, whoever you've given the book to does not own the book. They have not purchased the book from you and they have not purchased the book from the author. They do not, legally or morally "own" the book.
To own something, one must buy it, yes? Making paper from wood pulp I take from a tree in the woods is morally wrong, because I should purchase my paper in a store? Or to use your example, if my friend had paid me for his copy, he would then legally own it? Interesting, proceed.
In fact, if you had a shred of morality, you would feel cheated because the person who now has your book has taken something from you with absolutely no remuneration.
So you have given this copy to your friend. But he has not paid you for the gift! So he cannot truly own it. Go on.
So to eliminate the sting that you feel for cheating yourself, you in turn cheat the publisher and author by making and retaining a copy.
He has cheated you, because in response to your gift, he did not give you a gift of equal value. That is how I feel every Christmas. You return the book to its original owner (we're still talking about the library, yes?) after cheating the author and publisher by making a copy of an already-purchased book. I think I'm having a little trouble following you here. I thought that if they had gotten paid for their book then the library owned it?
If you got past the first grade and didn't learn this lesson, many, many people have failed you in life. Either that or let me know where you live so I can come and take your stuff while you try to figure out how to copy it.
Yes, someone with this kind of thought process is clearly the product of some significant failures. I support your suggestion that the GP should have his home invaded and robbed. You have given him such insight, and has he repaid you? Not a dime.
Of course if all possessions were as easy to perfectly duplicate as a digital book, maybe the GP wouldn't actually object to you having a copy of everything he owns.
You have certainly given me a lot to think about, thank you.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
That's really just explicitly laying out that it says nothing about artifacts.
Until a century or two ago, books were mostly recited out loud. If in a group of people recitation may have been for entertainment. Or if alone or in a church you barely vocalized it. In that era authors designed their books to be read out loud. Their prose may have sounded more majestic or poetic than now. I fact I find it hard to read a poem silently and get it.
Besides the quiet, silent reading enables speed reading. If you volcalize, you slow down to a few hundred words a minute at best. A speed reader can reach 500, 1000 or more.
Many languages have two words for the act of reading. The older word has the connotation of reading out loud, kind of like English "recite". The newer word means silent reading.
Not only that but it is tax payer funded in many cities.
We don't have one of these, er, book 'lenders' in our town so I pay a little money ($5) to join the 'library' in the nearby city were I can, ahem, 'borrow' books. Sometimes I just read them there though...
You'd like to think that nobody would ever pirate that, wouldn't you? But the fact is, not only do they pirate it, they pirate it because they're too ashamed to go into a store and buy it.
For the sake of your own sanity, do NOT go here. Just don't. And the sad thing? A link like this is NOT hard to find. It's right out there, where any kid can find it...
"From what we've been able to piece together, the book 'lending' takes place in 'libraries.' On entering one of these dens, patrons may view a dazzling array of books, periodicals, even CDs and DVDs, all available to anyone willing to disclose valuable personal information in exchange for a 'card.'"
Oh, it's so much worse than that. It's a vast, dare I say, network, of libraries, through which you can request material at one location, and have it delivered to you locally (they call this "interlibrary loan"). Usually this is at minimal or zero cost -- certainly far less than the price of the product they are distributing. It's a vast, carefully-organized conspiracy to steal product from publishers and allow the public access to materials at far below actual cost. And much of the system is government funded too!
Clearly, traditional libraries are a gateway to many of the same types of on-line stealing that happen on the intertubes. Sometimes libraries even provide free access to the intertube system itself, making them a true nexus of evil when it comes to IP robbery.
When I borrow a book in a library, it is mine for a limited time. When I pirate, it is mine forever.
When I borrow a book in a library, I can't sell it or destroy it. When I pirate, I can sell it (to a silly noob) or do whatever I want with it.
When I borrow a book in a library, I can buy it in a bookstore if I really want to keep it. When I pirate there is no need to ever buy anything because I have it already.
A library is no threat to publishers in any real fashion. There are a limited number of books that can be lent out and the library buys them. Pirating, on the other hand, involves no purchases (other than the first) and there are an unlimited number of copies that can be obtained.
While a library might be useful for some, there is no real revenue threat. Piracy is a complete revenue threat with the object being the destruction of revenue from digital goods. If everyone can download for free, why would anyone buy? Talking about differences in quality or the "experience" of the original vs. the pirated item is silly - the entire operation of "piracy" involves the original item. We aren't talking about the original song vs. a high school band trying to imitate the original. It is the original, it is just free for everyone.
But its a serious threat to our way of life as eventually they really will target libraries, and used book sales.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So only insightful articles on technology, et. al. can come out of Silicon Valley?
"Powers. I have them."
So you're a big Ronnie Barker fan then?
Thanks to the public libraries, the public school system of Mexico and UN's UNESCO is that I earn a good paycheck and, instead of cleaning windshields like many poor uneducated people does here or joining the half million people in Mexico that works for the drug lords.
Now I pay USD$13,000 yearly in taxes, perhaps I already paid around USD$70,000 in all my productive years. I no regret it, but really loathe the stupid clowns/corporate lap dogs politicians that have made Mexico the damned hell hole that it currently is.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
The book industry discovered that people borrow books for free at Public Libraries in exchange for giving up personal information and getting a card. In other news, the music industry discovered today a device called a Radio which allows people to listen to music for free in exchange for also listening to commercials.
I'll buy the ebook as soon as they are cheaper than my average fine for turning the book in late at the library ...
The abusers this time are publishers, not book burners. Publishers take most of the money. They give authors only a very small percentage.
Publishers should be eliminated. In the age of digital book preparation and copying, publishers aren't needed. In fact, they are destructive.
This is not particularly a new phenomenon. Something like 30 years ago I recall discovering a place in the middle of Burbank in an industrial warehouse that billed itself as a "library" for phonograph records. I was able to go there, ask about a particularly obscure record, and obtain a cassette dup of it for about $5. They wouldn't let anyone's hands on the actual source disk, they ONLY provided tape dups. They had a huge selection of stuff that would otherwise be really hard to find (this was way before eBay). It appeared that they did this service for the "entertainment" industry who needed ready access, so I suspect that the powers-that-be turned a blind-eye to it. Perhaps you were supposed to erase the tape after listening to it, though I don't think anything was said about it. I don't remember how I found out about it, possibly via a friend of mine who worked for Motown studios, or another friend who was an assistant film editor. I went once to get a tape of a very obscure disk I wanted to hear and never got around to going back again-- I lived in LA at the time, but the weren't very conveniently located or I might have spent more time there...
I wouldn't say big - I need to lose 5 pounds, but that's normal after Christmas.
The one you uploaded to two others has become three copies. And those two each share it with two others, making seven copies. And those four with eight more for fifteen copies.
So books shared in a library spread linearly. The author might sell less than if sharing were impossible, but he'll still sell a number proportional to the public's interest in his work. Books shared online spread exponentially. The author might receive no more compensation for a book that a million people read than for a book that ten people read. In fact, the more popular book will be easier to find and spread for the sharers.
Responding to a cousin post, the Founding Fathers didn't institute copyright to compensate publishers for the cost of materials. They made copyright to give the creators an incentive to create. Buying and sharing still compensate creators in proportion to the value of their creation. Copying does not.
why can't the internet be one big library where any can be accessed through a monthly connection fee. oh wait, it is. now the lawmakers and content industry must come to terms with that harsh reality. i'm sorry, but if entire industries have to be rebuilt from the ground up, so be it.
...
That's right. Governments are letting people freely access bodies of water and are even delivering via pipes, for a nominal charge water to consumers around the world.
This is seriously impacting the business of companies such a Perrier, Evian, Imsdal, Peligrino and others who charge $5-$6 per half liter of this refreshing liquid. Companies like Coca-Cola are getting all the water they need to produce billions of liters of their drugs without paying these water sellers a single bloody red cent.
I've calculated and if every human on the planet (6 billion or so) consumes an average of 2 liters of water per day, then each would have had to pay $20-$24 per day to these firms for a total of $120,000,000,000 per day in lost revenues for these water vendors. That's $432 trillion of lost revenues for these firms over the same period these book sellers are claiming.
The catch is, people have been using this liquid without license or royalties for 10,000 years (if we believe the christians or figure that due to population growth, the previous X number of years of water consumption by the smaller population would pad out the lower number of people over the following 10,000 years). So, we'd have to figure that it's $4.320 quintillion is lost revenues for these firms all because water bodies are available to everyone free of charge.
Additionally, there's a direct theft issue to consider. The bodies of water owned by the bottled water vendors suffer from theft by evaporation all day, nearly every day. Their premium water is stolen from them and there's nothing they can do about it. The water is then distributed (via rain) across "lesser" water bodies which are freely available to everyone. The only compensation they get in return is to have their superior water stock diluted by the rain generated by evaporation of lesser water sources around the world which they would have access to free of charge anyway (if they wanted it).
THIS HAS TO END.
I recommend we, as supporters of these companies that have been so clearly robbed of sales opportunities unite and lobby our governments to close off all free or unlicensed access to all water sources, fresh or desalinizable to the general public and we formulate a compensation plan which would guarantee these water companies 25% of each countries GDP until this debt is resolved.
that would be can i see nanny tonight
a ewe is a female sheep and female goat is a nanny
I can get ebooks from my Library too. And CDs and DVDs etc... Library's have been moving with the times. They are not going anywhere anytime soon. Just like real books.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
in europe, thanks to publishing lobbies the companies gets paid to compensate allegedly lost sales.
in italy at least this is paid directly by the government, so that end users haven't noticed, still I think it's a shame that libraries, which for thousands of years have been the place that could freely spread culture are now considered 'lost sales'
it's directive 92/100 from 1992 (in several languages).
here is an explanation.
press release from 2002 that says that many countries have not adopted the directive yet (italy did in 1996).
wikipedia says this amount is in reality not very high, however the principle itself is chilling.
You're a day late to the party - you didn't see my follow-up post -=- I'll save you the bother of clicking on it.
It's *supposed* to be a campaign for illiteracy. I'm a bit disappointed that others didn't run with it and redo things like "pi = 3", etc. ;-)
I'm getting tired of all this crap about "we're losing x amount of money to piracy". The fact is, most people who borrow/copy things would never purchase the product anyway. It's all just marketing/business bullshit.
ip law, going back to the 1800s, starts with the assumption that distribution is expensive, and distribution can be controlled
every single philosophical assumption in ip law has therefore been made null and void by the internet
it would be nice if you could work within the existing ip legal framework to work your way to the new world, but you can't since the new world exists in fundamental tension with the foundational philosophical assumptions of existing ip law
therefore, not because i'm some hot head, but as a simple logical consequence of irreconciability, the entirety of ip law must be forfeit
i am of course, tlaking about it as it only applies to creators and consumers. not amongst creators. one on one agreements: to make a book into a movie, to record a song written by someone else, still applies, ip law still has value there
but consumption of media is hereby bereft of all legal framework
look, when the spanish came to the new world, they encountered the incans, the aztecs: well-entrenched, long living power structures going back decades and centuries. and they destroyed these existing social constructs in a matter of weeks. its called disruptive technology, and that is exactly what the internet has done with ip law. there is no reconciliation, there is only destruction
now i know, for some who have invested in the pre-internet media distribution structure, that a lot of investment is hereby rendered as nothing. as if the incan rulers or aztec rulers are owed anything by us? its a quirk of history, a fate beyond anyone's control: all ip lawyer and existing media distribution personnel have brought into a framework which due to bad timing, history has rendered extinct in front of their eyes. the only thing that can be done with them is to tell them to just deal with it already. go open that restaurant you always wanted. but all existing ip law and media sitrubtion channels are dying before you, with no possibility for preservation. i'm sorry, that's just technological progress at work. its not always accretionary, its sometimes disruptive. bad timing if you've bought into the previous, now extinct and archaic structure
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Canadian libraries pay publishers for each lend.
There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
Baen Books at webscription.net sells a five-pack or six-pack of e-books for $15 every month. They also have over six dozen free e-books, contemporary, in print, at baen.com/library . Furthermore, they sell *without* DRM, in multiple formats, and if you change devices later, you can download your purchases in your new preferred format.
There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
and when i'm done, i want you to pay me for building the patio. then i'm going to insist you pay me a small fee every time you use the patio. finally, 80 years from now, whoever you sell your house to has to pay my grandchildren the same small fee
that's what ip law says, you moron
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The article is supposed to be a parody, but in truth it's far too close to something publishers might say to be truly funny.
Take it out of the industry altogether-- explain how people cooking at home cause losses for restaurants and we might be getting a bit closer to the true level of ridiculousness that usually accompanies claims of lost revenue.
An older, similar article about newspapers here:
http://chimptron.com/?p=30