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."

8 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 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.

    3. 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...
  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. 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.