eBook Lending Library Launched

An anonymous reader writes "The Open Library has launched an eBook lending program. Patrons of this Internet Archive-led group of libraries may borrow up to five books at a time, for up to two weeks. Like print books, the eBooks may be on loan only to one patron at a time. The organization perceives this model providing more bang for the libraries' bucks. The books are mostly 20th-century titles. Some librarians have books that are too fragile or rare for lending and will scan them for eBook lending."

Comments

Yawn

[hsmith]

Can we stop applying old world methodologies to current technologies? Libraries could only lend one title out at a time BECAUSE IT WAS WHAT THEY HAD. There is not a single reason to "only lend one digital" copy out at a time, other than to force some insane business model down the throats of people. Ok, fine I can settle with the "You need to read the books in 14 days" kind of thing to entice people to read it or buy it, but that is even stretching it.

Re:Yawn

[Americano]

I have an honest question: How is an author going to be paid for their time writing the books if we allow one person to purchase the book, and then lend it to an infinite number of people at once? Musicians can go out on tour and perform live, and make a reasonable living doing that, making their studio recordings less critical a part of their income. Authors can't (generally speaking, I suppose some poets and spoken-word types could) go on tour and perform their craft for a live audience.

Yes, they're forcing a business model down peoples' throats, and it seems dated and silly given that you can make infinte lossless copies of a book with a close-to-zero cost. The real (and earnest) question is - what's your proposal for a better solution, specifically for the publishing industry, which will allow authors to - at the very least - make a comfortable middle-class living? Most authors do not write books that sell at volumes that would allow "2 cents per electronic copy" to be a maintainable business model. Do we tell those writers, "tough shit, start waiting tables and give up the writing thing if you're not popular?" And bear in mind that if you actually would suggest that, you've just neatly gutted the bulk of the sci-fi and fantasy genres, which I believe tend to be pretty popular around this part of the intartubes.

Re:Yawn

[godrik]

As we used to fund art before with Patronage ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage ).

I actually am pretty serious. I do not see how one can expect to fund a production per copy when cloning such a production is a virtually free operation. The funding needs to be done beforehand. I would totally chip in a few hundreds bucks a year to fund arts I like.

Re:Yawn

[denzacar]

Authors can't (generally speaking, I suppose some poets and spoken-word types could) go on tour and perform their craft for a live audience.

Sure they can. It's called "a reading".

"tough shit, start waiting tables and give up the writing thing if you're not popular?"

And that is different from the current business model how exactly? Sure, it ain't as bad as in music industry, but still...

Unless you are selling at least tens of thousands of each book - you're not going to be making a living from writing alone.
At 10% royalty a $20 hard copy owned by a publisher and a $2 self-published, self-marketed e-book make the same amount of money per book for the author.
Granted, minus the advance, promotion and various other services that the publisher would provide. Also, minus any copyright limitations.

If anything, authors need to demand a larger piece of a smaller cake for the e-versions of their books.
Most of the publisher's costs are non-existent for e-books, just as most of the risk. Author would probably be better off self-publishing through amazon.

Re:Yawn

[JustinOpinion]

Alternative models include:

- Patronage, where a wealthy person/group funds the creation of art. This was common before copyright. Although some of this funding will be purely altruistic ("just make great art for everyone"), this model also leads to self-indulgent or propaganda-like art.

- Donations, as is done with street performers, and non-profits both large and small (e.g. Wikipedia).

- Grants for the arts. Similar to donations, though the provenance of the funds may be different (e.g. in many countries governments set aside grants for artists).

- Merchandising, where the author creates the work as a way to sell trademarked paraphernalia (the "concert T-shirt" model, also used by many webcomics).

- Value added, where the author provides special things to paying customers, such as first access to the work, interviews with the author, etc. (e.g. Slashdot is free to read yet some people still subscribe).

- Sampler + Bounty. Author releases a 1st book (or first chapter of book), generates interest. They then start a funding campaign along the lines of "Volume 2 is almost finished and will be released for free to all when donations reach X dollars". Fans pay to support the artist they like.

I'm not necessarily saying that these are better than the current copyright system. I'm just saying that alternatives exist. Each mode has pros and cons. The downsides and upsides of copyright have been discussed at great length on Slashdot. But there are certainly alternatives, and if copyright were abolished, many artists would no doubt find other ways to make a living doing what they love. Of course many middle-men would be out of a job, and there's no guarantee that the same number of artists would be supported under an alternative system. Then again, it's possible that the alternative systems would actually support more artists and encourage more artwork. (See this previous comment, where I list a variety of creative things that are not protected from copyright and yet generate both a thriving industry and plenty of creative output.)

Re:Project Gutenberg with DRM

[Ancantus]

And I thought the days of Advertising on ./ were behind us..

When did you start thinking that? A few hours ago?

Re:Project Gutenberg with DRM

[gad_zuki!]

Not exactly. It looks like a competitor to the Overdrive system many libraries use. Overdrive is a sharepoint-like portal that delivers DRM'd ebooks (usually PDFs) to library patrons. Its kinda kludgy but popular and the defacto standard for this kind of thing.

Gutenburg is only public domain books, this system would deliver purchased ebooks and most likely apply its own DRM like Adobe's PDF DRM. If it didn't use DRM the library using it would most likely get in some kind of trouble.

Oh well, anything that competes with Overdrive is good with me.

Re:If it's really fragile...

[vlm]

... then it's old enough to be OUT OF COPYRIGHT

You'd be surprised how fast acid paper decays. Yellows, cracks, falls apart. You can actually buy cheap paperbacks at physical barnes and noble stores that have started to decay.

In my opinion copyright law should be short enough for it not to be an issue, but, it most certainly is not.

The other failure mode is heavily used books that are out of print. Go ahead, try to get some newly printed Leo Frankowski. Good Luck. Doesn't have to be ancient to get worn out.

Re:Project Gutenberg with DRM

[MarkvW]

I don't think you RTFA. They're talking about 20th Century books--books that are subject to copyright. This is a very good thing.

Re:Project Gutenberg with DRM

[Fizzol]

It's not a competitor to Overdrive at all since its non-PD loans go through Overdrive.

Re:Project Gutenberg with DRM

[blue trane]

I'm of the opposite opinion. The reason libraries have to put time limits on lending is because the resource is scarce. But books can be replicated digitally for practically nothing. Putting lending limits on e-books is a clear case of creating scarcity where none need exist. Technology has given us the tools to provide information for free to all, but our psychology limits us to thinking in terms of scarcity and imposing it if it doesn't exist.

Re:out of print

[TaoPhoenix]

I love the Out of Print scam.

They moan "oh, it costs too much to reprint it" - but skies alive help you if you get a private backer and do it yourself, they'll drill you with a copyright lawsuit.

YAY! Take the future and make it suck!

[Arancaytar]

This is a winning concept. Take the best aspect of digital information and remove them. Next up: Slowing computers to one operation per second and adding the soothing clicky noise an abacus makes, then make a few cell phones without batteries that can only be used while connected to a power cord.

Public Lending Right as a model? (UK)

[fantomas]

In the UK, we have the Public Lending Right (also in some other countries). This gives authors a micro payment for every time one of their books is loaned in a public library, something like 5p. a time.

I am not sure how the figures are worked out but the intention is that authors are compensated for public loans that might impact their sales. It's not tied to the number of copies of their books that are stocked by the libraries, but the number of times their books are borrowed. It's summed up and given to them as a payment each year.

I can't see why this couldn't be carried over into the digital realm, indeed it would surely be easier to implement and track than how its managed by recording paper issues at the moment.

Mind you it is a government funded scheme to support the arts so YMMV, some countries might not be able to afford this and some might see it as a dodgy communist plot etc., depends on whether your people feel this is what your nation's government should be doing. Wikipedia article notes some criticisms as well as arguments in its favour...