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.
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!
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)?
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
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.
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 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?
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.
You wouldn't steal a car! You wouldn't steal a DVD! Don't steal books either!
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"
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
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
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.
You spelled his name wrong; that's GNU/Stallman
mine even has video games. but they charge $1 per rental.
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....
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.
I'd copy a car if I had a matter duplicator, though.
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.
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.