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."

17 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 mrcaseyj · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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. In other news... by srussia · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sunlight costs lightbulb makers nearly 100 bazillion dollars!

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
    1. Re:In other news... by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sunlight costs lightbulb makers nearly 100 bazillion dollars!

      Only if you invest for the short term. Personally, I invest for the long term. I'm quite sure that my lightbulb investments will prove profitable in 5,000,000,000 years.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  4. 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.

  5. 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!

  6. oh, when will the 'socialism' end?? by AB_Rhialto · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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)?

  7. Re:And the PORN!!! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's nothing. The Economist once had a cover with two copulating camels (the female didn't look to happy). For a brief moment in history, economists figured out that 1 + 1 = 3. If you don't know where the extra one came from, you haven't spent enough time in the "medical journal" section.

  8. 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.

  9. You think this is a joke? by phliar · · Score: 5, Informative
    Here's Pat Schroeder, then the incoming president of the Association of American Publishers, in the Washington Post of Feb 7, 2001. She was interviewed at the meeting of the AAP, hence the "brie-eating mortgage holders".

    "We," says Schroeder, "have a very serious issue with librarians. ... Technology people never gave their stuff away, but now folks are saying, 'You mean the New England Journal of Medicine is charging people?' ... Markets are limited. One library buys one of their journals," she explains, pointing to the Brie eaters. "They give it to other libraries. They'll give it to others." If everyone gets a free copy, she says, the publisher and the writer and others involved in making the book go unpaid. "These people aren't rich," she says of those in the room. "They have mortgages."

    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.
  10. Facts bout public libraries by mschuyler · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  11. typo by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

    You spelled his name wrong; that's GNU/Stallman