7 ms·
If a book (even an ebook) is in the library, it's already bought and paid for so the author gets whatever compensation they get as if it is a normal sale. I don
by dfxm12 4y ago
If a book (even an ebook) is in the library, it's already bought and paid for so the author gets whatever compensation they get as if it is a normal sale. I don't think arguing morals makes sense because of how subjective one's morals are, but, by using libraries, you are supporting the arts, whether you liked the book or not, and this is not a silly distinction.
- elil17 4y agoIf my local library already owns the book and it is not checked out, what is the difference between driving there to check it out and downloading it illegally online? The impact to the author is the same: absolutely nothing.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 4y agoArguably, the environmental impact of downloading it is less than driving to the library to check it out.
- komali2 4y agook swap out driving there for using libby / overdrive to check out the ebook from the library
- bitxbitxbitcoin 4y agoArguably, the carbon footprint of those companies having to exist in the first place…
- akerl_ 4y agoLibraries use checkout frequency to determine which books to stock and which books to stock more of. The more an author's books are checked out of a library, the more likely that library is to buy more copies of that book, as well as more copies of other books by that author.
- hodgesrm 4y agoAs the previous commenter has already said, the author has been paid already in the first case. That's a material difference.
- notch656a 4y agoIt blows my mind that in a hypercapitalist society like the US, that copyrights still exist. Copyrights are a massive violation of property rights, criminalizing merely observing something and independently reproducing it with your own private materials for your own non-commercial use. IMO it shakes to the core free market, capitalist, and founding principles of our nation.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> It blows my mind that in a hypercapitalist society like the US, that copyrights still exist. Copyrights are a massive violation of property rights, Ah, you’ve mistaken capitalism (which had been developing for centuries earlier) with 18th century liberal economic theory, which is not its foundation but instead a rough ex-post-facto rationalization for large parts of the way it had developed. What capitalism is, though, is the systematic prioritization of the interests of the mercantile (which became, as legal property rights coalesced around their interest, capitalist) class as the organizing principle of society.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y agoI think GP was using this definition: >an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market[0] >which had been developing for centuries earlier The use of capital has existed for thousands of years already. One could make the case that there is no such thing as capitalism but rather the desire for the realization of interests. The ruling class "before capitalism" was also capitalist: the lords' power was derived from their capital- the land. The only real difference between the mercantile class and the landed gentry was the respect they commanded when it comes down to it. [0]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism
- dfxm12 4y agoIn addition to the sale, a popular library is a library that buys more and more books and doesn't get shuttered.
- googlryas 4y agoIf 100 people all see it is not checked out and then download it, there would be no contention If 100 people all try to check it out, there would be a huge waiting list and the library would try to order more copies.
- ZoF 4y agoIt's nothing in isolation of your single act. Maybe. In aggregate it of course deprecates the library(they have e-checkouts already but you're talking untracked piracy). I like libraries; I think they're mostly performative in small towns and providing social services in cities rather than functioning as actual libraries. Kinda sad. I pirate all my books btw, just saying if everyone did it ofc there'd be(already is) impact. Easily smartphones+kindle is worse though.
- Ensorceled 4y ago> I like libraries; I think they're mostly performative in small towns and providing social services in cities rather than functioning as actual libraries. Kinda sad. The library in the small town I grew up in is still lending lots of books and ebooks in addition to lending movies and music and providing computer access, training and other services. The library down the street from where I live now is the same. Libraries are more vibrant and active now then when I was a kid. Where are you that libraries have become "performative"?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 1123581321 4y agoNo, the impact is different. The library doesn't pay for the ebook just once. When the library buys the ebook, they're allowed to lend it a certain number of times before they have to buy the book again. Or they pay for a number of lends per day and payments for the books checked out are distributed to the appropriate publishers. The relationship between physical book checkouts and author/publisher revenue is less direct, but the ebook contracts are an attempt to emulate decay and damage to physical books that require periodic repurchases. Arguably you are hastening the end of a physical book's life and its need to be repurchased, or need to stock more copies, by checking it out. Please don't misunderstand my explanation to be an endorsement of standard ebook lending contracts.
- Rimintil 4y ago> The relationship between physical book checkouts and author/publisher revenue is less direct Indeed. The publisher charges universities etc. a one time lump sum to purchase N copies of a book. The author gets next to nothing. Source: am an author of technical books. Royalties will buy me a few cardboard boxes.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y agowhy do we need "publishers" in today's market?is not like you have to have 4 intermediaries to sell on amazon or even digital copies? i'd be more forthcoming to pay $10 for a book that i know 50-70-90% proceeds go to the author than 2-4-5% which the rest take up? publishers, printers, yada yada must've been important to sell books 50 years ago but are they really necessary today?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> why do we need "publishers" in today's market? Distributing and marketing a book still takes expertise.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y agoah, so the one who is supposed to make money from his/her skill is given pittance while distribution and marketing people take the cake. fine. edit: if onlyfans can allow questionable skills be monetized and give millions to the um, performers, surely an author can find a way to sell their own books themselves
- kazinator 4y ago> it's already bought and paid for Three copies, for the a metropolis of several million. :)
- lxgr 4y agoNot my experience at all. I regularly lend e-books from my city's public library, and they usually have hundreds of "copies" available for popular titles, and even for less popular or even niche titles I rarely have to wait more than one week. It is a bit ridiculous that "buying copies" and then imposing artificial scarcity on these is the best mechanism that libraries and publishers have figured out to compensate content producers, but I'm optimistic that they'll eventually figure something out.
- Normille 4y ago>I regularly lend e-books from my city's public library... No. You 'borrow'. The library 'lends'
- thayne 4y agoSo essentially, we have a system where a public entity (public libraries) is compensating authors for creating works that are popular. But going through a middle man (the publisher, and possibly one or more distributors) that takes a considerable cut. In the digital age, why not cut out the middle man? Have a publicly funded e-library that pays authors directly based on how often their content is downloaded.
- jonp888 4y agoThe publisher will have signed an agreement with the author, and also spent plenty of money on editing, typesetting, marketing. You can't just arbitrarily decide that only one party "deserves" to make money from the book, and doing so would probably lead to a lawsuit.
- thayne 4y agook, so don't bypass publishers for existing works, but set it up in a way so that authors can publish books in this library themselves if they so desire (and pay for editing, marketing, etc. themselves).
- jrm4 4y agoSure, but that whole deal of "publisher signed an agreement with the author" only exists because publishers used to be necessary. They're not now. Yes, you shouldn't arbitrarily decide anything. You can today, however, meaningfully conclude that "publishers are kind of useless, how are they still in business when much of what they do isn't necessary?" You'll find the answer is probably old law. So, yes -- bring on the lawsuits. Let's see what happens.
- visarga 4y agoNew ways of using books are coming up - you put 1TB of books on your SSD, index it for search and use a neural net on it. Ask a question or pose a task, the model retrieves passages and then computes the reply. For this to work what is needed is a blanket license for search and snippet use. Can't buy a whole library for such a sparse use case, ain't gonna read it in the classical sense. This approach can guarantee the generated text will not replicate the source material, just use it for reference, with citations. - DeepMind RETRO - https://www.deepmind.com/publications/improving-language-models-by-retrieving-from-trillions-of-tokens https://www.deepmind.com/publications/improving-language-mod...
- mysecretaccount 4y ago> I don't think arguing morals makes sense because of how subjective one's morals are [not related to OP] I have a similar feeling every time someone moralizes in any discussion: we could argue about morality, but we need to start with a common moral framework and define what "good" and "bad" are first. Everyone assumes these are generally agreed upon but the devil is in the details when discussing something like the OP.
- faeriechangling 4y agoEnd the intellectual property monopolies, and instead give organizations the right to distribute creative works so long as downloads are tracked through some robust means, and then compensate authors accordingly. Don’t outlaw libraries just because the internet now exists or legalize them but only with absurdities like fucking wait lists.
- anhner 4y agoYes, I am sure the author is glad that he received 30% of a book sale that is shared between hundreds of people...
- harshreality 4y agoThe price per read (most people don't re-read most books they buy... if they even read them through once) is dramatically lower even for ebooks which have separate licensing. In the case of printed books, because the right of first sale keeps primary and wholesale markets roughly in line between readers buying retail and libraries buying retail, the price per read is even lower... propped up only due to the incidental problem of books wearing out on average after 10-20 loan-outs. If people took better care of physical library books, the price per read would approach zero. Perhaps more importantly, the cost of books in libraries is not assigned based on the number of books checked out or read. It tends to be people in lower and lower-middle economic classes who use libraries more, even while they pay less than the per-capita average cost to keep those libraries running and their shelves stocked. Libraries are communist entities. Even worse than that, from a capitalist perspective, although checking out books requires you to be connected with the tax base or funding source for the library, you can generally go to any public or academic library and read books on-site even if you're from another country or planet and aren't entitled to check anything out.