4 ms·
> But to pretend that there are only a few copies of this book we can borrow is asinine. Is it really "borrowing" under the reforms you propose? And to take y
by jawns 5y ago
> But to pretend that there are only a few copies of this book we can borrow is asinine.
Is it really "borrowing" under the reforms you propose? And to take your argument a step further, why should there be a due date? If your borrowing a book doesn't prevent anyone else from borrowing it, then why should you need to "return" it at an appointed time? Boiled down, your proposal is really just a license to read the book, paid for by the library.
I actually don't mind maintaining the artificial scarcity and pretending that digital assets are like physical assets, because: (1) it's no worse than the system we have in place now with physical books; (2) it doesn't require us to entirely revamp copyright law; and (3) it allows libraries to make the argument that once they buy a digital asset outright, they can "lend" it just as they do with physical books, under a set of principles commonly called Controlled Digital Lending. This is a better option than the status quo, where libraries have to pay highly marked up licensing fees for ebooks.
- leokennis 5y agoI'd say the correct analogy is movie rentals. * In the past, I rented a VHS tape of which there were 3 copies. Now I rent a movie from iTunes, there are infinite copies and I rent the right to watch it (as often as I'd like) within a 48 hour period. * In the past, I lended a physical book of which there were 3 copies. In my proposal I rent a book from Libby, there are infinite copies and I rent the right to read it (as often as I'd like) within a xyz day period (or I pay per day I lend it, some books take longer to finish than others).
- NanWilder 5y agoYou don’t pay enough in taxes to fund this model — not even a significant fraction of it. If you want to switch to a user-pays-to-rent model, there are iTunes/Netflix-alike options out there — go nuts. But our societies and our literature would be worse off if we all did.
- ViViDboarder 5y agoIt’s not a pay-to-rent mode they are proposing. They are proposing getting rid of scarcity and allowing folks to borrow for a period of time, as many times as they’d like. An option to keep it longer than the allotted time is akin to a late fee. In what way would more access to literature make society worse off?
- wisty 5y agoThere's near-infinite access to free literature, it's called the internet. Any author who wants to make their work freely available can just put it online.
- pempem 5y agoWe (I'm assuming you and I have jobs and aren't independently wealthy or multi millionaires) pay enough taxes, they just arent directed to libraries.
- troyvit 5y agoOne additional thing I like about scarcity and forcing returns of ebooks is that it forces me to pick it up and read it instead of just grabbing it and forgetting about it.
- pempem 5y agoNearly every book i'm trying to get from the library has a queue over 10 weeks long. Some are legitimately 18 weeks. Libby already automatically returns them even if downloaded locally and thats fine. The user experience has a lot to be desired.
- canuckintime 5y ago> (2) it doesn't require us to entirely revamp copyright law; Actually there’s no reason Congress couldn’t just make an exemption to copyright law for libraries in regards to electronic media
- TheCoelacanth 5y agoI would be okay with applying the existing laws to digital assets if we actually applied the whole thing. The first sale doctrine somehow disappeared with digital assets. The copyright holders gets strictly more rights with digital assets and concedes nothing to make up for it.