Slashdot Mirror


HarperCollins Wants Library EBooks to Self-Destruct After 26 Loans

An anonymous reader writes: "HarperCollins has decided to change their agreement with e-book distributor OverDrive [and other distributors, too]. They forced OverDrive, which is a main e-book distributor for libraries, to agree to terms so that HarperCollins e-books will only be licensed for checkout 26 times. Librarians have blown up over this, calling for a boycott of HarperCollins, breaking the DRM on e-books -- basically doing anything to let HarperCollins and other publishers know they consider this abuse." Cory Doctorow, who wrote TFA, says: "For the record, all of my HarperCollins ebooks are also available as DRM-free Creative Commons downloads. And as bad as HarperCollins' terms are, they're still better than Macmillan's, my US/Canadian publisher, who don't allow any library circulation of their ebook titles."

5 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. Why paper books are better by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They work when the power goes out

    They work when the vendor changes formats for newer releases

    They work when civilization collapses and they're found centuries later in a cave

    And the don't magically turn into pumpkins when the clock strikes twelve.

    There is of course, a way to make a normal book stop working when the availability of its content becomes a problem. It's called fire. It's generally bad form to burn a paper book. Why exactly is it socially acceptable to DRM a book again?

    1. Re:Why paper books are better by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They work when the power goes out

      My Kindle can easily last for a week without recharging. If the power goes out completely for longer than that, I think there will be other things that I'll be worrying about.

      (Naturally, I'm talking about fiction books and other literature I read for fun here. A decent hardcover book on survival basics should always be in one's collection "just in case").

      They work when civilization collapses and they're found centuries later in a cave

      Why would I care?

      They work when the vendor changes formats for newer releases

      If an ebook can be read and interpreted by the reader, it can also be converted. I used to own a Sony reader and converted stuff to LRF for it; now I convert it to ePub for my phone and tablet, and to MobiPocket for my Kindle. It has never been a problem.

      DRM is a problem, but that is a different issue.

      Why exactly is it socially acceptable to DRM a book again?

      Now we get to the crux of the matter. You seem to be confusing e-books in general with DRM. It's true that most popular online stores only sell DRM-encumbered books today, but there are still many legal (and even more illegal) ways to get an e-book with no strings attached.

  2. Re:Why paper books are NOT better by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They don't work in the dark.

    They cost a forest and a polluted river.

    They require huge structures to house them, constant vigilance to watch for mold and deterioration, mice and fire.

    Caves are not where you find books.

    They bring jack booted thugs to demand their surrender for burning.

    Books have to be carried around, you can never carry very many of them. Moving house is a bitch.

    Shipping them is expensive. Printing them is expensive. This leads to a artificial scarcity of ideas and knowledge.

    Books out of print may never come back into print. If you didn't buy it then, it may not be possible ever again.

    Long after the copyright has expired, the Physical DRM encumbering books still hinders their distribution and replication.

    ok, I'll get off your lawn now.....

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  3. obRMS by adavies42 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    --
    Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
    -kfg
  4. Re:Unsaid but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OMFG, self-destroying information. What could possibly go wrong? Maybe what we need is some common middle ground. How about we let Harper-Collins decide which information should be destroyed, which should be altered, and which should persist?
    It has become clear to me that the USA simply isn't ready for a digital information age, and whomever should have the power to effect change, cannot (for whatever reason). I think it is time to exclude Americans from the table of countries looking to move forward with this technology, and in a generation or two, they'll "tear down that wall" and catch up.