Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Offline Book "Lending" Costs US Publishers Nearly $1 Trillion

Posted by Soulskill on from the oh-the-humanity dept.

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."

21 of 494 comments (clear)

  1. Dammit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't give them any ideas.

    The copyright circus is stupid enough already.

    1. Re:Dammit... by jc42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't give them any ideas.
      The copyright circus is stupid enough already.

      Too late. The publishing industry has been thinking and talking along this line for a long time already. There's a conventional statistic among publishers, to the effect that every book sold is read by four people. This is usually mentioned in a context that makes it clear that there's a problem. Often they don't bother mentioning how this multi-person readership happens, but it doesn't take much questioning to learn: libraries. And the point is always that the publishers are "losing" 3/4 of their potential sales to the multi-reader "problem".

      One of the reasons that a lot of publishers have developed an interest in e-books is that they see it as a way of limiting readership. After all, people won't much loan out their e-readers, and so far, few libraries have experimented with supplying electronic copies of books to their members.

      (I wonder why this is? Are they such Luddites? Or are they just ignorant of the technology? Or perhaps they don't see a way to collect overdue fines. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    2. Re:Dammit... by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      not exactly - many of them would see library vs. unauthorized download as a completely different beast.

      Amongst other things, you can't load the same book out twice at the same time. Waiting lists could enough to get someone to buy something they wouldn't have gotten already.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    3. Re:Dammit... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't lend a book out more than once at a time, but a popular book may be lent several hundred time by a library before it's replaced. I own books that have been borrowed by over ten people. If I lend a book to ten people, then copyright law considers that fine. If I put something on a P2P network and two people download it, I get a statutory fine of several thousand dollars (well, I would if I lived in the USA). There seems to be some disconnect there.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Dammit... by qengho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I lend a book to ten people, then copyright law considers that fine. If I put something on a P2P network and two people download it, I get a statutory fine of several thousand dollars (well, I would if I lived in the USA). There seems to be some disconnect there.

      Not defending the publishing industry, but there is a material difference: your copy lent to ten people remains a single copy and returns to you (you hope), but the one you uploaded to two others has become three copies. Still, I don't doubt the publishing industry is inflating the losses.

    5. Re:Dammit... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (I wonder why this is? Are they such Luddites? Or are they just ignorant of the technology? Or perhaps they don't see a way to collect overdue fines. ;-)

      Actually, I think it's because most new e-books come with EULAs which specifically prohibit lending. And they have the DRM to back it up.

      Publishers fought like hell against the public lending library concept when it first started becoming widespread ~150 years ago. Fortunately for everyone, they lost the battle. Now they see a chance to fight it again, and in the current IP-philic legal environment, they have a good chance of winning.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    6. Re:Dammit... by Chyeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

      May not screw too much with the recording (audio and video) companies other than pointing out the ridiculousness of their monetary damages claims. But it really should be shoved in the face, and hard, of the video game industry and the bunch of whining assholes who keep pushing DRM on physically sold games under the banner of preventing piracy but actually just to fuck over people who peruse the used game market.

      Seriously, name one game released since 2000 (and sold more than 10 copies) where the copy protection has prevented it from being pirated. One.

    7. Re:Dammit... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I lend a book to ten people, then copyright law considers that fine. If I put something on a P2P network and two people download it, I get a statutory fine of several thousand dollars (well, I would if I lived in the USA). There seems to be some disconnect there.

      The disconnect is in your comparison. When you lend a book, you don't expect it to be copied and redistributed. When you put something on a P2P network, you expect it to be copied and redistributed, because having copies distributed throughout the P2P increases efficiency. So while you may only observe that two people downloaded your copy, you can't tell how many people downloaded copies originating from those 2 downloads...

      Now your comparison makes sense if you were distributing source material that required some DRM mechanism to read, and there was some DRM server that only allowed a certain number of copies to be "checked out" at a time. Checked out in this case means having the ability to read and/or use. I've used electronic libraries that had this kind of DRM in place.

      However, I do not think you intended to promote the use of DRM in your posting.

      The other problem with your comparison is that libraries have permission to lend books, while nobody gave you permission to publish a book in digital form on the P2P network.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    8. Re:Dammit... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The other problem with your comparison is that libraries have permission to lend books

      Since when does anyone need "permission" to lend out an item that they own? I lend books to people all the time. I neither have, nor require, permission to do so.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    9. Re:Dammit... by steelfood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The other problem with your comparison is that libraries have permission to lend books

      Yeah, I was up to you until that point. It's the other way around. Nobody "gives" people permission to lend or even copy books. Instead, the government grants authors and "content creators" the ability to restrict this right of copy for a limited time. That's copyright.

      The right to use information is among the inalienable right granted by our Creator (whomever this might be), the right of liberty. It is enshrined in the first amendment, the right to free speech, because the written word is a manifestation of speech.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    10. Re:Dammit... by DarthVain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am pretty sure no one has pirated this one yet:

      http://www.amazon.com/Barbie-Horse-Adventures-Riding-Nintendo-Wii/dp/B001AZ7RMS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1263932887&sr=1-1

    11. Re:Dammit... by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it's not the same. The way I see it, you have a good point, but TheRaven64 has a good point too. There is some kind of disconnect going on.

      The concept of "copyrights" makes perfect sense in a world post-printing-press and pre-Internet. Before the printing press, copyrights were completely unnecessary. After the Internet, copyrights become problematic-- not nonsensical, just problematic. These works are constantly being "copied" in that they're cached, stored on several devices, backed up, etc. The idea of "selling a copy" that made so much sense 20 years ago doesn't work anymore. Now we have to sell "licenses", and that gets pretty hairy.

      The point I try to make in these discussions is that it's just not as simple as "copyright is good" or "copyright is evil". Copyright was an invention, not an innate right. It was invented during a specific historical period in the hopes of achieving certain goals. However, inventions sometimes need to be updated and sometimes go entirely obsolete. We don't calculate using abacuses anymore. We don't start our cars with cranks. Somehow or another, the invention of the "copyright" needs to be updated in a way that achieves its intended goals, given the realities of our current historical period.

  2. I've been saying this for years! by bbbaldie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  3. As a mathematician by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. And they keep secrets! by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When the authorities have requested copies of patrons borrowing records, the libraries almost always refuse to provide it without a search warrant!

  5. this is what is wrong: by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    His adventures in books, plays, television shows and movies continue to pay dividends for the heirs of his creator, Arthur Conan Doyle. Holmes's latest appearance on film, directed by Guy Ritchie, has sold more than $311 million in tickets worldwide, and on Sunday won a Golden Globe award for its star, Robert Downey Jr.

    At his age, Holmes would logically seem to have entered the public domain. But not only is the character still under copyright in the United States, for nearly 80 years he has also been caught in a web of ownership issues so tangled that Professor Moriarty wouldn't have wished them upon him.

    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
  6. Re:Excellent satire by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Should be a red flag that it was a JOKE by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  8. Re:will Apple be the "game changer"? by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any ebook that's more expensive than the corresponding paperback is INSANE.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  9. Libraries? Forget 'em, they're already gone. by professorguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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....

  10. Re:The First Book Is Free. by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.