4 ms·

More modern libraries also offer ebooks, so the comparison becomes closer as libraries modernize.

matt_morgan 11y ago
It's not a modernization question, it's a political battle. See http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/opinion/e-books-libraries-and-democracy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/opinion/e-books-libraries-... for example. Some points from there: 1. It's only been in the last couple years that all of the big publishers would actually sell eBooks to libraries. 2. It's not selling, it's licensing, with severe restrictions. 3. They charge higher rates for the eBooks to Libraries than they do to the general public. 4. Some publishers only offer eBooks to libraries when the books have been out for six months. Not in the article, but also important: publishers claim that libraries cannot simply digitize and loan out e-versions of their existing book catalogs--they claim that the eBooks are a different product, and that libraries have no license to do that. That would probably not stand up in court, but libraries aren't eager to antagonize the publishers, from whom they are still trying to get regular eBooks at regular prices. The article is kind of ill-informed on this, too, I'm afraid. The difference between filesharing and public libraries is that public libraries operate within de facto and legal restrictions that don't apply to filesharing. A much better comparison, that fits the author's claim that the only difference is efficiency, is home taping and CD-copying.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
Except ebooks come with licensing terms. You can't just buy one copy of a book and give it out infinite times. They have limits on use. Its modeled very closely on the physical book system.
- dublinben 11y ago
  >You can't just buy one copy of a book and give it out infinite times. You very much can though, that's the beautiful power of digital media. Publishing companies with outdated business models are relying on archaic laws to prevent you from doing this. But it can be done!
- kethinov 11y ago
  Funny how we work so hard to simulate old models of scarcity rather than be brave enough to adopt new models that accept post-scarcity as the way forward.

It's not a modernization question, it's a political battle. See http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/opinion/e-books-libraries-and-democracy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/opinion/e-books-libraries-... for example. Some points from there: 1. It's only been in the last couple years that all of the big publishers would actually sell eBooks to libraries. 2. It's not selling, it's licensing, with severe restrictions. 3. They charge higher rates for the eBooks to Libraries than they do to the general public. 4. Some publishers only offer eBooks to libraries when the books have been out for six months. Not in the article, but also important: publishers claim that libraries cannot simply digitize and loan out e-versions of their existing book catalogs--they claim that the eBooks are a different product, and that libraries have no license to do that. That would probably not stand up in court, but libraries aren't eager to antagonize the publishers, from whom they are still trying to get regular eBooks at regular prices. The article is kind of ill-informed on this, too, I'm afraid. The difference between filesharing and public libraries is that public libraries operate within de facto and legal restrictions that don't apply to filesharing. A much better comparison, that fits the author's claim that the only difference is efficiency, is home taping and CD-copying.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

Except ebooks come with licensing terms. You can't just buy one copy of a book and give it out infinite times. They have limits on use. Its modeled very closely on the physical book system.

dublinben 11y ago
>You can't just buy one copy of a book and give it out infinite times. You very much can though, that's the beautiful power of digital media. Publishing companies with outdated business models are relying on archaic laws to prevent you from doing this. But it can be done!
kethinov 11y ago
Funny how we work so hard to simulate old models of scarcity rather than be brave enough to adopt new models that accept post-scarcity as the way forward.