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."
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.
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.
Not only hilarious, but it might open the eyes of a few "what should I care, doesn't affect me" people. Libraries are a cornerstone of learning. If they start trying to crack down on them, I'd guess the anti-copyright front gets considerably larger.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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)?
In related news it has been discovered that the contents of textbooks, which often sell for $200 or more, are largely made up of information and ideas developed by previous authors. The previous textbook authors are starting to complain that they aren't getting any royalties from new textbooks and are now calling new textbook authors "seagoing murdering thieves" (pirates). Others are wondering why books mostly inspired by previous works, have more than a hundred year copyright, when the Constitution only authorizes copyrights for limited times, not a trillion years.
I'm starting an oxygen supply company- I wonder if there's anything I can do about this 'atmosphere' that people are currently getting their oxygen from?
Practically obligatory reading on this issue, by some guy named Stallman:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I am officially gone from
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.
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.
One System I've seen (Small high school system) kept track of the last borrower on an item, so that if it was damaged, they could find out who did it.
It wasn't an item in the primary menu, and you had to know the 'secret keystroke' to get to that screen.
Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
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
You would need to put everyone in a suit filled with inert gas like Argon and then charge them for both the noble gas and the o2.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
I've read a few histories of the development of public libraries, mostly in the 1800s, and the authors generally mentioned the opposition from the publishers. After a few decades, publishers started figuring out that sales were better in areas with public libraries, and slowly learned to accept the idea.
This has also been mentioned in the various articles on the 20th-century battles over "Intellectual Property". They generally have included long lists of all the technical advances in sound-recording equipment. Every new technology has been attacked by the recording industry on the grounds that it makes it easy for people to make free copies rather than buying from the publisher. Eventually the companies realize that they're selling even more to the users of the new technology, so they back off, only to do the same thing with the next new device.
The battle to block free access to books in public libraries was merely an early example of the same phenomenon. Today we see an article written from such a viewpoint as obvious satire. Back in 1820, it wasn't satire. It was a serious effort to warn the literate public about the dangers of providing literature and education free to the great unwashed masses.
(Note that in the early 1800s, it was widely illegal in the US to teach a negro - or sometimes any non-white person - to read. This gives you a clue to how bad it was back then.)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats 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
I would say it is well past the experimental stage:
http://wiki.mobileread.com/wiki/EBook_Lending_Libraries
It just isn't to the widespread stage yet (presumably because not all that many people have ebook readers).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Now for some real irony...
Back in the day (pre-Internet), I worked with a few starting (not starving) authors to get their books published. This was not any kind of vanity press but DIY and how-to books. Without exception, each one saw the library system as a desirable purchaser. It involved no little cost (libraries at that time insisted on hardback which cost up to 4X what paperback editions did) but libraries were willing to pay, were a guaranteed minimum audience and any readers of the books loaned from the library were likely to purchase it for themselves.
There is something quite soiled about the American dream lately. There used to be an attitude that saw public lending libraries as a source of information and learning for all so that all may prosper - a "rising tide that lifts all boats". Now they are seen as a thousand little leaks in rich men's yachts.
How can he know the person hasn't scanned the book?
And if he loans it out to 10 people that's still 10 people who are no longer going to buy the book.
mine even has video games. but they charge $1 per rental.
I see a continuum of possibilities...
If I have a copy of a book on my hard disk, and I've never read it, then does it really count as being out twice?
If I have a copy and read it, and then two weeks later someone else reads a copy of the book and I'm not reading it, does it count?
If I'm reading the 113th page of the book and other people are reading the 7th and 211th pages, does that count?
If I'm reading the third word of the 4th sentence and another person is reading the 8th word of the 12th sentence on the same page, does that count?
If the library has a copy of the book and it sits there unread and then two people read it on the same day, how about that? (happens a lot with reference books when a paper is assigned and the book is on special reserve status).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Go to those libraries' sites, and notice what's missing?
Kindle.
This is kind of like an ISP saying "you can access any site you want through our network, as long as it's not Google." Note that I'm not blaming the libraries for this, at all -- it's strictly Amazon's fault -- but it's still the elephant in the living room for e-book lending.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
My county library also dumps the logs from it's card catalog lookups AND it's public access Internet system every night at midnight. I know because I set it up.
I believe it has already been done in Spain [http://noalprestamodepago.org/]. I'm not aware of the current status of the idiocy, but as far as I recall, the libraries there were going to charge a lending fee for the books for the "benefit of the authors". It is crazy that governments would allow to do this, and that people would not go "en masse" to the streets to oppose this abuse. The libraries were instituted to grant access to knowledge to everyone.
There needs to be a balance between protecting private interests and the public interests. The balance needs to be restored urgently, or nasty things may happen. Humans seem to have a propensity to ignore growing problems until they reach a boiling point, and then, the consequences tend to be most unfortunate for all parties involved.
I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
Funny thing; I just finished writing another reply in which I mentioned the publishers' opposition to public libraries in the early 1800s. So now I suppose that one or the other (or both) of us will be modded "redundant". ;-)
Maybe it's time to also bring up the very early history of copyright, which was invented primarily to limit the publication of bibles and other religious texts to only "approved" publishers. The purpose wasn't monetary; it was to prevent publication of documents opposed by the officially-approved religion, by limiting the publishing to officially-approved publishers. It was also to control the distribution, so that only members of the approved priesthood could access the texts. The rest of the population was intentionally kept illiterate, so that the priesthood could be the only religious authorities.
So things could be worse. The "Intellectual Property" people could be actively campaigning against literacy. They could be pushing for laws banning access by "the masses" to their products. They could get laws passed making it illegal to teach your children to read. People like them have done such things in the past. Such things were among the real reasons that the legal concept of copyright was originally developed.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
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.
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...
When I loan a book to 10 people, I don't necessarily know how many people they loan the book to. I don't even know if someone copied the whole book and distributed it.
Anyway copyright laws weren't intended to place limits on who could read books, so there's nothing wrong if I lend the book out to hundreds or thousands of people. They were intended to protect authors from publishers as well as protecting publishers from other publishers.