Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

$200 For a Bound Textbook That You Can't Keep?

Posted by Soulskill on from the because-textbook-buyers-have-had-it-too-good-for-too-long dept.

netbuzz writes: "The worst of DRM is set to infest law school casebooks. One publisher, AspenLaw, wants students to pay $200 for a bound casebook, but at the end of class they have to give it back. Aspen is touting this arrangement as a great deal because the buyer will get an electronic version and assorted online goodies once they return the actual book. But they must return the book. Law professors and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are calling it nothing but a cynical attempt to undermine used book sales, as well as the first sale doctrine that protects used bookstores and libraries."

28 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Because they can. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They aren't in it to make the world a better place. They are in it for the money. And so it is perfectly logical for them to take as much as they can get.

    Vote with your wallet.

    1. Re:Because they can. by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

      yes, except most universities will go along with it and force would be students to buy the books under those conditions or not go into law. This requires more than just voting with wallets.

    2. Re:Because they can. by RDW · · Score: 3, Funny

      They aren't in it to make the world a better place. They are in it for the money. And so it is perfectly logical for them to take as much as they can get.

      The publishers, or the students aiming to become lawyers..?

    3. Re:Because they can. by GodInHell · · Score: 3, Informative

      The law school I am familiar with leaves the choice of text up to the prof. Some of them will avoid these textbooks because of the ethical challenges, some won't. Of course, my school also ran its own bookstore and probably made quite a lot of profit off reselling used books, so there's that too. On the other hand $200.00 is not very much for a law school text.

    4. Re:Because they can. by sexconker · · Score: 4, Funny

      They aren't in it to make the world a better place. They are in it for the money. And so it is perfectly logical for them to take as much as they can get.

      The publishers, or the students aiming to become lawyers..?

      Yes.

    5. Re: Because they can. by Bob+Gelumph · · Score: 3, Funny

      A top Australian university.

      --
      I'm gonna need a spec.
    6. Re:Because they can. by roc97007 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      yes, except most universities will go along with it and force would be students to buy the books under those conditions or not go into law. This requires more than just voting with wallets.

      Photocopier. And yes it may be technically illegal. But sometimes a little civil disobedience is necessary. In fact, as a law student, you could make that your thesis.

      Unbind the book, it saves time. Then re-bind the book or just hand back a stack of loose-leaf -- your choice.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    7. Re: Because they can. by Bob+Gelumph · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What on earth is unethical about using online resources to study? My university has heaps of online resources for legislation, cases, journals, some text books, etc. You do realise what century it is, right?

      --
      I'm gonna need a spec.
    8. Re:Because they can. by hubie · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's because he's Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire.

    9. Re: Because they can. by iNaya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People like you who think we have to PAY TO DO SOMETHING are the reason why society is so fucked up.

      --
      The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
    10. Re:Because they can. by AudioEfex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That actually leads to my question about this - what if you lose it? What if you get robbed, what if you are just forgetful and leave it somewhere, what if your dog eats it....

      There are a million things that could happen. The article makes it clear that you can mark it up, highlight it, etc. do whatever you want to it - they don't care about the condition, just want it back after. So do they charge you a penalty for not returning this obviously used item that seems destined to be destroyed? Do you have to sign a contract to do so? It seems to me that there must be some penalty there, which they would have a really hard time justifying if challenged - I mean, how much is a used, beat-up book worth?

      I also had to kind of giggle at the "lifetime access" to their digital version - I'd want that one in writing, with a refund policy, so in a few years after this doesn't work and they shut down the website, folks would have recourse.

      The whole thing is just so shady. The whole textbook business is, really. Just an industry based around exploiting those already being exploited and signing away their possible future earnings to get an education and a chance at bettering themselves starting life in debt.

      I was lucky - I went to a college that didn't really use textbooks. We had plenty of books, probably many more than the average class at most schools (8-10 books a class wasn't odd), but very few "textbooks" proper - I don't think any of my classes required one - the science or math kids may have used some workbooks, but I went to a private college that didn't believe in such things and I count myself lucky. It was also small enough that the professors and other students kind of knew who could and couldn't afford the required texts and were completely supportive of sharing, reserve shelves (in fact, just about everything was on a reserve shelf if someone really needed) and any other methods we had to use - because it's the learning that's important, stupid, LOL, not supporting various corporate profit interests.

    11. Re:Because they can. by Bushcat · · Score: 4, Informative

      In my neck of the woods, educational institutions are legally allowed to break copyright for educational purposes. So it's fine to take one book and photocopy it a bazillion times. Result is that most books are cheaper than photocopying. It also means found web assets can be incorporated into teaching materials without the hassle of clearing copyright.

    12. Re:Because they can. by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Informative

      heh, do you realize how many professors require books THEY wrote? Conflict of interest isn't high on the list of priorities to worry about.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  2. One can only hope... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That this will create a generation of lawyers and judges who have a fundamental hatred of DRM.

  3. Doubleplusgood! by uCallHimDrJ0NES · · Score: 5, Funny

    How will we change the past if we let these kids keep paper books, eh, comrades?

    --
    Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
  4. I would be laughing... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would be laughing at law students and law teachers and lawyers in general, if I didn't know they'd "recoup" that money by screwing me later.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  5. The textbook industry... by ActionDesignStudios · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've been looking into going back to school and have gotten a more in-depth look at the academic textbook market and I can conclude it is all a big racket. The price of textbooks is already outrageous as it is -- I don't doubt that they would love to DRM all of them and have students give them back afterwards. Even after looking into the used textbook market, I couldn't find a way to save very much and the price they'll give you for a used but still in very good condition book is almost insulting. You would think we would want to make education more accessible and affordable for everyone, but between textbooks, student loans and other like scams it is a sad state of affairs.

    1. Re:The textbook industry... by tylikcat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I keep having conversations with my students where I explain why they shouldn't pirate books, or at least should make sure that the authors are getting paid (for instance, buying a legal copy then pirating / cracking it if it has DRM to get a useful one.) ...and yet I have a lot of trouble trying to work up enthusiasm for telling them not to pirate textbooks.* Particularly problematic, as I've shown a few how to torrent. (Heck, I've shown faculty members how to torrent.)

      * As opposed to professional reference books.

    2. Re:The textbook industry... by tylikcat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This was my stance for a while, though my workaround was to buy hardcopies of the book and then pirate a softcopy (mostly for reference books which I didn't want to haul around). And then I decided I didn't want to devote the space or weight to the hardcopies.

      It's not ideal, but there are too many authors whose work I really like some of whose work is under DRM. (And it's all fine to rant at the authors, but until they're really quite popular they aren't really empowered to fight this on their own.) So I am very loud about preferring non-DRM'd books, and will buy them preferentially. And I do not share non-DRM'd book I have legally purchased... and seed torrents of those I pirated. It sucks, but it's the best compromise in my specs.

  6. Interesting you say that by Mr_Silver · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Whilst it might not be for everyone, here I am sitting at my PC looking at my Computer Science books (purchased between 1995 and 1998) and I don't think I've opened any of them in the past 10 years (looking at you "Unix System Programming" by Haviland and Salama, reprinted in 1994).

    If I get a DRM free digital version after the course has ended and the pricing is right, then this might actually be more useful than a pile of dead wood taking up space on my bookshelf - most of which is probably long out of date.

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
  7. This has little to do with copyright law by l2718 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A manufacturer is attempting to circumvent the secondary market by only lending its products instead of selling them. This isn't an end run around the "first sale" principle exactly because the publisher doesn't plan to sell the books in the first place.

    What they are trying to do should be legal -- but hopefully it won't work because professors will refuse to assign this textbooks.

    1. Re:This has little to do with copyright law by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This isn't an end run around the "first sale" principle exactly because the publisher doesn't plan to sell the books in the first place.

      That sounds like an end run to me. When something looks like a sale, feels like a sale, and smells like a sale, it should behave like a sale, including all of the rights and privileges associated with ownership. And at those prices, this sure as hell looks like a purchase to me, rather than a rental. Unfortunately, we live in a world where the very idea of ownership is being undermined by EULAs, licenses that can be rescinded at any time, and moves like what AspenLaw is doing here. How long until the first sale doctrine stops applying to any form of media at all, regardless of whether it's digital or physical?

    2. Re:This has little to do with copyright law by l2718 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm a professor, actually. In two words, you're wrong . If the book is only used in the class of the professor who taught it, the book will go out of print in a jiffy, and in any case the total harm to a single class of students is negligible. For a book to actually stay in print, many professors in many universities must use it. In this case very few will, and the problem will solve itself.

    3. Re:This has little to do with copyright law by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I go to a car dealer and hand him a small bucket of money. He hands me the keys to a car. I pay a certain sum every month. After a couple of years I get to keep the car.

      But wait! There was a contract that said I was only leasing the car. I have to give it back. Other than that piece of paper, the transaction looked like a sale, felt like a sale and smelled like a sale. That would make it a sale, right? I don't think the courts would agree.

      I pay a fellow a "down payment" for the keys to an apartment. I pay him a certain amount every month. After 20 years I own the apartment outright, yes? (That's longer than many mortgages.) Looked like a sale, smelled etc... but I signed a paper that says it was only a rental.

      I go to a mall. I hand money to a fellow behind a counter and he hands me a pair of shoes. That smells like etc. I go to a bowling alley, hand some money to the guy behind the counter and he hands me a pair of shoes. But that's not a sale?

      Unfortunately, we live in a world where the very idea of ownership is being undermined by EULAs, licenses that can be rescinded at any time, and moves like what AspenLaw is doing here.

      They're being quite up-front in their terms. It's not a surprise at the end of the term to find out the book has to be returned. Do car leases, apartment or house rentals, or the existence of lending libraries also undermine the concept of ownership, or are they simply alternatives to outright ownership?

    4. Re:This has little to do with copyright law by PPalmgren · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is technically incorrect. Put aside that its a bad investment for a minute and think about this: While I'm not a car person and couldnt give two shits about what I drive, to some its an amenity they enjoy, like a big screen TV or a computer. To use an analogy people here would understand, these people are the kind of people that get a new computer every 2 years because they have to have the latest and greatest, and to them, those of us in old clunkers are like the geezers who have a 10 year old comp that's 'good enough.'

      The cost of ownership between lease and own for someone who gets a new car every 3 years is relatively break-even assuming reasonable mileage, mainly due to rapid depreciation and the interest cost associated with the car loan. The big difference is that the owning cycle has more upfront costs to get ahead of the equity chase. That seems counterintuitive, but let me explain. Say you purchase a $30,000 car and put the same down as you would have on the lease, lets say $4,000. In 3 years that car is worth around $18,000, so you have to pay at least $8,000 in 3 years just to break even to buy a new car at full price, which comes out to $230/mo with interest included. Everything over that payment is technically a down payment on a new car in 3 years. On a 5 year loan, the monthly payment would be between $500-$600/mo. The lease for the same car is going to be around $300/mo. Technically you pay a little more for the lease, ~$50-$70/mo, but as you can see the upfront cost is lower. This means you can predictably drive a nicer car continuously for less money on your monthly budget at the cost of spending a little more on the tail end of the 10 year average.

      In short, yes a lease is a little more costly but the difference is much smaller than 'far more' and is useful for someone who treats a car experience as an enjoyment and not a mode of transportation/investment. Car dealerships make relatively little on leases and mainly use them to secure a used car base, they make more in financing interest on new cars and sales of used cars. The salesmen are typically reluctant to focus on offering leases for this reason.

      As a note, I absolutely abhor wasting money on cars and will prob drive my paid off car until it falls apart. Just playing the devil's advocate. I have worked with what I like to term 'car people' and they have a completely different mindset when it comes to cars than I do. I think its a giant waste of money, but they think the same way of all my tech stuff. To each their own.

  8. A consideration for professors by l2718 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a university faculty member I consider the cost of textbooks whenever I choose one for a course. I try to never require students to buy the book (I'm not always in charge of the course I teach, so I can't always do this), and I prefer books that are available on SpringerLink (whole-book DRM-free PDFs are available to all our students since our university subscribes). I doubt many faculty members will actually assign this textbook.

  9. Re:University is just a market anyhow by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I disagree that it is ALL of them trying to suck you dry. There are some out there who are interested in providing education over just taking your money. They might be hard to find, but they are out there.

    But, let's face it. With all the easily available student loans out there that are federally backed, sucking money out of students is a profitable business. The very program that makes federal loans so readily available has artificially increased the price to the point where a 4 year degree can cost a $100K. My tuition was under 5K a year some 20 plus years ago. My whole education cost under $20K for a 4 year degree. Now we are paying $25K a year, 5 times the price? Something is wrong here.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  10. Re:What happens if... by bobbied · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh that is easy. You charge them a deposit, refundable upon return of the book.

    Oh wait, this is a law school... You just sue them to get it back...

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101