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.
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
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.
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.
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.
When the authorities have requested copies of patrons borrowing records, the libraries almost always refuse to provide it without a search warrant!
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
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!
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?
The only problem is that it isn't completely accurate. It portrays libraries as quiet places where people will glare at you if you make too much noise. In the past, that used to be true, but not any more, at least here in Arizona. Now, kids run wild, and people chitchat on their cellphones at full volume in library common areas, and librarians don't do anything about it because it's become futile.
It'd be nice to live in a civilized city where people really were quiet in libraries.
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
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
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.
A 10 year limit is probably a bit short for books, but anything greater than 1/2 of the average expected lifespan of the people is too long. Something created the day I was born should be in the public domain by the time I have matured. If it remains copyrighted throughout my entire lifetime, then it is effectively an unlimited term, which in the U.S. is contrary to the constitution.
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
The problem I see there is one of risk/reward. If someone is required to expose themselves to a great degree of financial risk, then the rewards should also be there.
Unfortunately, the way the financial world is currently constructed, you have to get bigger or perish (Walmart is the perfect poster child for this), because along with increased throughput comes the ability to apply a great degree of pressure to ones suppliers. Unfortunately, this has a trickle down effect where the supplier lowers their prices under pressure, then, their employees either take wage cuts or the labor is moved overseas.
The business world is almost like the U.S. political process; it's almost a first past the post winner takes all (I know, I know, this is a horrible over-simplification).
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....
To me, this raises a more interesting issue: where would you be if you didn't have the library when you were younger? How would it have shaped your life to not-have access to books at a young age? Maybe you wouldn't be able to afford them now.
It's in society's best interest to make books and educational materials as available as possible. That's why we have libraries in the first place. That relatively small investment in getting little TheWizardTim access to books has now turned him into a successful [whatever-you-are], which provides a huge return on investment.
We may someday see arguments that stricter copyrights are good for the economy because it allows more profits for publishers. What we shouldn't forget to include in those calculations is all the economic waste of having little TheWizardTims everywhere grow up to be poor stupid criminals instead of upstanding and productive members of society.
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.
I'd copy a car if I had a matter duplicator, though.
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.