14 ms·

Book publishers won't stop until libraries are dead

323 points by webmaven 4y ago

mintaka5 4y ago
a document-based blockchain would curb publishers hard. the CDL is sadly a lousy way to implement lending, as it doesn't offer reassurance that people borrowing documents aren't replicating them. everyone lost their minds making silly useless NFTs of shitty artwork, but did any of those "geniuses" in the dying publishing empire bother to implement any NFTs of their publications? no instead they bitched about libraries being the number one cause of their profit losses (which is an absolute LIE). the problem isn't lending books (in whatever medium) the problem is a lack of an effective brain trust in the upper echelons of industry to embrace tech and use it to innovate and prosper. there is no reason why books can't be woven into a blockchain, and then license the usage to libraries for lending. everyone wins!
- coldacid 4y ago
  I'm sure that being an NFT will prevent me from downloading the next monkey JPEG I come across.
  - mintaka5 4y ago
    could you prove true ownership of that download?
- rasz 4y ago
  >doesn't offer reassurance that people borrowing documents aren't replicating them in contrast to the system libraries all over the world use to prevent paper books from being scanned/photographed
  - anticensor 4y ago
    Does that exist?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - 988747 4y ago
      [dead]
  - mintaka5 4y ago
    have you ever scanned an entire book at the library? i love the effort here, but it seems an overly simplified comparison.
rob74 4y ago
> With CDL it’s a scan of that book, but the scan is tied to the physical copy, so that if a digital copy is loaned out, no one else can take out another copy. Er... how exactly does that work? DRM? Or can you simply make a copy of your "loaned out" digital copy before returning it? Because I can see why publishers would take issue with that. I mean, of course you could do that with a real book too (copy/scan it), but it's orders of magnitude more effort...
- matwood 4y ago
  There are lots of 1 book/1 user DRM schemes in the library world. That's how all checkout based digital systems work today.
- bonzini 4y ago
  Yes, it's DRM. Both "normal" e-book lending and CDL use the same DRM and to be honest it's the only use of DRM that I don't object to. Controlled digital lending however gets rid of the publisher's license to make loans (where the library pays per checkout or for a fixed amount of time); instead, the library buys the hardcopy book, prepares a self-made ebook version, and pinky-promises that they will abide by the 1 copy-1 loan rule so that they can claim fair use. It's certainly dubious, but it's not out of this world either. And what's even more dubious, are the publishers' attempts at eroding the first-sale doctrine. (Adobe Digital Editions is a fairly trivial DRM to bypass by the way—I won't even say crack because on macOS the private key used to be hidden in plain sight in DER format—but it seems to be okay for publishers to use it when they make money out of loans. So the weakness of the DRM is not the issue).
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    It's even easier to just download a pirated copy than to bypass the DRM. The mere fact that someone is using CDL is strong evidence that they are following the rules and not trying to make an illicit copy.
  - dublinben 4y ago
    It’s only dubious from the publishers’ perspective. It’s not much of a stretch to apply modern technology like streaming video, interactive screen sharing, or virtual reality to the established concept of a reading room, and wind up with something like CDL. There’s no technical reason why a patron shouldn’t be able to virtually ‘step into’ a reading room, and peruse something in the library’s collection. This would have been possible one book at a time using 20th century cable television broadcast and a telephone line. The internet just multiplies the number of ‘channels’ or books available concurrently to different patrons.
jmclnx 4y ago
When Amazon(?) deleted 1984 from everyone's electronic book reader years ago, it is another indication of the control publishers want over what we read. They said it was a "mistake" and only when people when after them did the do something to correct that "mistake". So yes, publishers want Libraries gone. If you ask me, the publishers want to move to a "rent model" like many software companies and even some Auto makers are moving towards. That means every time you read you electronic book, you pay them a small amount. With Libraries gone, that could be the next step. Plus its seem, just by accident, they are getting help from extremist in many US States. Those extremist are also conducting their own war on Libraries, but for different reasons. If they "win", the results will be close to what publishers want. From what I have seen, none of the big publishers have come out against the extremists (are there any small publishers left?).
- wazoox 4y ago
  "You'll own nothing, and you'll be happy about it". Klaus Schwab, head of the WEF, in the book "The Great Reset".
  - barbazoo 4y ago
    Is this actually from the book and if so, what was the context in which it was said?
    - wazoox 4y ago
      No he said it while talking about the book, but I don't think it's in the book.
  - chaghalibaghali 4y ago
    Actual context is described in this Reuters article "Fact check: The World Economic Forum does not have a stated goal to have people own nothing by 2030": https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-wef-idUSKBN2AP2T0 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-wef-idUSKBN2AP2...
- briandear 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
glofish 4y ago
FYI in scientific publishing there is an entire subculture of publishing expensive books >$150 - with mostly useless content that one can read for free in published papers. Scientists write them for free, to embellish their resumes (often their grad students do the work) - the publisher sells a thousand copies, mostly to libraries across the world. Rinse and repeat.
- stametseater 4y ago
  After the nukes fly, who knows... maybe those physical books will be the only copies which survive a temporary global disruption of digital technology and industry.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > After the nukes fly, who knows... maybe those physical books will be the only copies which survive a temporary global disruption of digital technology and industry. The problem with that idea is that there would be very few copies, concentrated in the urban areas that are likely to get nuked. A book like one of those is also likely to be extremely specialized, so it would be unlikely to be used if that specialty ceases to be of practical values for a generation or more. Even physical books need care to be preserved for long periods, and wouldn't survive in an abandoned library with a leaky roof and flooded basement.
    - stametseater 4y ago
      University libraries may be clustered around urban centers, but a lot of those are in places that might plausibly not be subjected to bombardment, such as South America. Also, university libraries are far more numerous and disperse than the factories which manufacture computer hardware. I also assume that preservation of books will be a priority for at least some people even in near-apocalyptic circumstances, and that material conditions would improve markedly after only a few years. Even the continuation of many governments seems likely to me. Also you can't eat books and they have little value to looters, so that should help.
cpcallen 4y ago
If I understand correctly, the linked article is grossly misleading. Yes, it could well be that publishers would like to kill libraries and controlled digital lending—but AFAICT this suit[1] is about UNCONTROLLED digital lending: during the pandemic, archive.org began lending out more copies of eBooks than they actually owned, on the (IMHO morally justified but legally tenuous) basis that, because libraries were closed, it was reasonable to allow people to access electronically books that they were unable to access physically. I think it would be great if the law allowed that, but I'm fairly sure it doesn't, so while I think the publishers are being jerks here, they seem to be legally in the right, and while I'm concerned that the Internet Archive's liability will be devastating to that organisation's future (losing web.archive.org would be an abhorrent consequence), claiming that this suit is about CDL or trying to shut down libraries seems to be rather disingenuous. [1] https://publishers.org/news/publishers-file-suit-against-internet-archive-for-systematic-mass-scanning-and-distribution-of-literary-works/ https://publishers.org/news/publishers-file-suit-against-int...
- jcranmer 4y ago
  > AFAICT this suit[1] is about UNCONTROLLED digital lending Yes and no. The publishers didn't file a lawsuit until the policy of uncontrolled digital lending was temporarily enacted, but the lawsuit is targeting controlled digital lending as well. You can read the complaint itself to find this out, helpfully linked by the plaintiffs themselves in their own press release about the lawsuit. Were it only about uncontrolled digital lending, the suit would have been tossed as moot two years ago.
  - misnome 4y ago
    > Were it only about uncontrolled digital lending, the suit would have been tossed as moot two years ago. You don't think that publishers would have had any case at all against deliberate mass-copyright infringement under flimsy pretences? I don't think "we stopped doing it when ordered to by a court" is much of a sign of good faith...
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  The lawsuit is unquestionably about controlled digital lending. It was filed after the start of the National Emergency Library, but all the contents of the lawsuit are attacking CDL with the pandemic actions only a way of showing the Internet Archive is an organization that can't be trusted. You can see this in the filed paperwork, where amusingly they also attack the IA by saying they've occasionally incorrectly labeled things as in the public domain, which was clearly done maliciously. If this lawsuit was only seeking damages over the National Emergency Library, nobody would be writing stories about it. And publishers were openly hostile to CDL before the pandemic, you could see them preparing for this lawsuit in 2019.
RedCondor 4y ago
It makes sense though. It's similar to the dismantling of universal healthcare in Canada. There's too much money to be made. It's very silly to imagine one can be a staunch proponent of privatizing everything, especially all the popular things, but then try to carve out a niche exception for books and a couple of other impopular things. The only reason America has any kind of large-scale public property at all is because it was forced to by external circumstances (legacies from feudalism or the pressure exerted by rival socialism). All of it is alien to capitalism, like bolted-on patches. https://redsails.org/concessions/ https://redsails.org/concessions/
AuthorizedCust 4y ago
Who cares? Libraries are already in a death spiral. Circulation is way down and still plummeting, and there’s no realistic future that changes that. The traditional function of librarians and libraries has been obsoleted by technology for common use cases. Look at what your local library does now, and you’ll find far much more than ever has nothing to do with physical books or even books at all! The future of libraries is a ground-up reinvention of their purpose. Also, no matter your concern about tech, warehousing physical books and providing staff to help us organize books and locate information isn’t the answer.
- cableshaft 4y ago
  > Look at what your local library does now, and you’ll find far much more than ever has nothing to do with physical books or even books at all! And they're better for it too. My local library has a makerspace in the basement, with 3D printers, multiple sound studios, computers with Adobe suite (and other things) on them, embroidery machine, sublimation printer, and soon to get a Glowforge laser cutter. It's great. And I have another friend in charge of library events for young adults (20s/30s). She hosts geek movie nights, board/video game nights, "how to adult" sessions (like buying your first home, money management, etc), craft nights, adult coloring, open mic nights, trivia nights, cookie decorating, karaoke, "art therapy" nights (actually one of the more popular ones), etc. If you're not in the habit of checking the events and facilities at your local library as you assume it's all book related, give it a try. It might not be anymore.
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    So you don't support libraries either. You support something entirely different which you are calling a "library"
    - Loughla 4y ago
      It's almost like the model, that was outdated, was updated and the concept of library has appropriately changed? Words and concepts are not static; they can and do change often?
newsclues 4y ago
Libraries and librarians need to back to having one political cause: freedom of information. It seems like this concept of "don't censor books" and "make all the information open to the world" have become openings exploited for activists to push their agenda.
- giantrobot 4y ago
  How is "don't censor books" in any way not freedom of information?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  FWIW, idea is just a tool, a key to use on an individual that may be receptive that idea. I know what you are trying to say and I am glad there is some awareness that this is happening ( it gives me some hope for the future ). I like all ideas challenged. I don't like books burned.
sirodoht 4y ago
Let’s kill book publishers instead. Free publishing for everyone. https://laniakeabooks.org/ https://laniakeabooks.org/
imchillyb 4y ago
I think it's high-seas time again for the planet. It's time to kill these greed-monsters. The only way to do that is to copy and pirate them out of business. Yo-Ho, Yo-Ho, it's the Disney-Life for me! Time to change the channels on these modern day robber-barons. It's time they felt the wrath of the populace, and the righteousness of the Freedom of Information.
jrm4 4y ago
It seems so many of these debates have strayed away from some VERY core ideas. Learning is good, knowledge is good. Giving people the ability everywhere to learn at their own pace is important. More important that paying authors. I'm not saying MUCH MORE, it is very good to compensate (actual) creators. Now, people can get just about as much knowledge as they want for a very cheap price, and the barriers to that are so utterly artificial. An E-book reader can contain just about as much knowledge as one might ever need. Priority ONE, enable learning. All other priorities fall WELL below that, law be darned.
- memonkey 4y ago
  Learning is good to whom? Knowledge is good to whom? Even if all the research says it is good for economies and countries at scale doesn't deter others from saying otherwise.
- toyg 4y ago
  > some VERY core ideas. [...] Priority ONE, enable learning. That's your core idea. The core idea of capitalism is "Priority ONE, get all the money". Those core ideas are not the easiest of fellows.
  - tm-guimaraes 4y ago
    No. Core idea of capitalism is that everything has value, you have a right to own and trade value, and we should quantify that value to enable efficient transactions of valuables. It's about freedom of ownership (and ownership rights) including transferring that ownership, capital is a measure of what you own. Capitalism doesn't have a core value of "getting more capital", capitalism has a core value of "being able to freely use my capital". The distinction from what GP is saying is that somethings should not be "owned" or "fully owned", ie, not have all the kind of rights that you would expect when you say "I own this". In the particular scenario of publishing, is questioning if "owning distributing rights" make sense (in the way of, I have the rights, you don't. I can do what I want as it is mine, you can do what I allow because it's mine not yours). In which he claims that "easiness of learning" is more important than profit, which in this scenario means that your freedom of doing what you want with your ownership, ie: selling rights to very limited used of your valuable (book, etc) is less important than sharing/acquiring knowledge, ie: i should be able to lend you or maybe even give you a copy of a book. The dilemma is incentives to publish/share knowledge: Capitalism works in hand with incentives due to everything having "value", so you can own things like "intellectual property" and have rights over it, so can sell it, or sell its use, giving you an incentive to "produce knowledge", the drawback is that anyone else has to use "value/capital" to access it. (same applies if you decide it's the governament that subsidies, still, something is giving back that "value/capital". Also, because of your rights to own, you can also share it without need to be rewarded, as it is your inherent right. But, the thing about all this is "measure". Not everything is easily measurable, but to facilitate using ownership rights and their transaction/use, you have to measure. That the big problem of capitalism, plenty of things can't really have a price tag, and value of anything is not only subjective, but also hard to know for sure without full info, so "easy" measures are used. This notion of "hard to measure value" is also a reason for not everything to have full ownership rights, using the current example, it's hard to measure to value of lending a book, including it's secondary effects (author getting more famous, a person getting more knowledge and its implications), so treating all these very hard to measure things the same way as more easily measurable things can and does have nasty effects. This is basically the issue of our current ways to measure value is mostly "what are you able to trade it for", ie: tossing into a free market, which can and suffers the "tragedy of the commons" and other issues like trading with someone with lacks the necessary knowledge to give a decent assessment of value.
josephcsible 4y ago
> This book may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If I were in charge, the punishment for copyright holders who lie about the law like this would be forfeiture of the entire remaining copyright term of the work in question.
- pnemonic 4y ago
  nobody with that type of outlook will ever be in charge, which is the problem. I wish you were in charge.
mejutoco 4y ago
If some of the billionaires of today created libraries instead of rocket companies to cement their legacy, that would be great.
- kerpotgh 4y ago
  [dead]
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - superkuh 4y ago
    Ah, sure. Let me just go back in time and make sure my parents are rich to get the small millions dollars loans I'll need to start the capital accumulation ball rolling and provide me the positive liberty needed to risk and fail a handful of times till it sticks. That said, I am providing a vast online digital library to the public already. Digital libraries don't need massive amounts of capital or real estate. I just host a tor onion website with a directory listing and now anyone can read the books I have. And that is the kind of thing the book publishers are trying to stop here.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      People have built libraries for thousands of years. My neighbor runs a small library using donated books. Your local library could do with donations. It does not take a billionaire to build a library. That you are giving me this excuse that you can't do anything because you are not rich is just an excuse. And had you researched this, you would see that most of the top billionaires DO contributes millions to building libraries. Gates alone has built a significant amount around the world.
      - superkuh 4y ago
        I guess we're ignoring the part where I explained I've been running my own digital library for the public (for almost 20 years now) and how the original article is about digital lending and how publishers are trying to kill it. But re: building a physical library, most of us (myself included) don't even have the capital to own the places where we live. Buying (or renting) another space is totally out of the question. Tiny libraries (essentially large mailbox size) in people's yards are cool and I've put some books into them before. Saying "Just build a library." is out of touch. And even if it was a community project (time is money) that succeeded we'd have the publishers come in with legal attacks to try to shut down digital lending.
allturtles 4y ago
The Internet Archive model of CDL to everyone on the Web, not just local library card members, is a particular threat. There are many books for which a single CDL copy is probably sufficient to satisfy the entire global demand for that book. They will be referenced from time to time by academics or independent researchers and almost never read cover-to-cover. If every college/university and big city library needs to own a copy so that their members can get access to it, that's not such a big problem, you can still sell maybe 1,000 copies. But if everyone can share a single copy, that is a big problem.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > If every college/university and big city library needs to own a copy so that their members can get access to it, that's not such a big problem, you can still sell maybe 1,000 copies. But if everyone can share a single copy, that is a big problem. And if they can do that, it probably means that copy will never be written, or priced at $20,000 or something.
- Kalium 4y ago
  If it's that large a problem, they should have no difficulty at all showing that the Emergency Library did them major financial harm. Right?
  - allturtles 4y ago
    What I'm talking about has nothing to do with the emergency library, it's true even under controlled digital lending (which is what the suit is about).
    - Kalium 4y ago
      The Emergency Library is relevant because it's the matter currently in court where the publishers have an excellent chance to prove exactly how much this is hurting them. What I was implying is that they can't prove any such thing. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I am not the only skeptical party: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/book-publishers-with-surging-profits-struggle-to-prove-internet-archive-hurt-sales/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/book-publishers-...
Freak_NL 4y ago
That (now withdrawn) copyright notice Mike Masnick shows which is part of (some editions of) The Awakening (Zodiac Academy #1) by Caroline Peckham and Susanne Valenti is really shocking to anyone who even remotely likes books: > This book is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. > This book may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it wasn’t purchased for your use only, then please return to your favorite book retailer and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author. They apologised after getting criticized¹, but as Mike notes, someone consciously put that text there. Was that some experiment by their publisher? To get young adult readers to get used to such silly stipulations in order to turn it into law later? If I was one of the authors I would be pissed at the publisher² for slipping that in and damaging their reputation. 1: https://www.facebook.com/100063768668342/posts/pfbid02WRJwn8DqHxSRTu18LkSHd1dSkTG3QWD99xJ3xHSzM2Uja8htQfgTo5WMuuwL2PyQl/?mibextid=cr9u03 https://www.facebook.com/100063768668342/posts/pfbid02WRJwn8... 2: I am hoping this was not actually put in at the author's behest.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > They apologised after getting criticized¹, but as Mike notes, someone consciously put that text there. Was that some experiment by their publisher? To get young adult readers to get used to such silly stipulations in order to turn it into law later? If I was one of the authors I would be pissed at the publisher² for slipping that in and damaging their reputation. My bet it was put there by the author (who blames their "formatter"), because wording and sentiment are amateurish. I'm also getting strong vibes that that book is self-published. For one, it's a looks like it's a trashy romance novel, and I understand self-publishing is pretty common for those, and the apology Facebook doesn't mention a publisher and makes it sounds like the authors are running the show. In any case, the inclusion of that example give me a poor opinion of this article. The author isn't above digging up stupid stuff done by some random ignorant boob to fuel the outrage machine.
alfor 4y ago
But they are also killing books. Youtube is free, instant, fast. I love books, when people spend their life condensing information and you spend a few hours to get the most important parts, but controlling access more and more mean that books will get less and less important. Books and publishing industries are a result of a technology: paper, printing, binding. Now in the digital age an ebook should cost close the the amount the author get 1$-2$/book. If they were this price and easily downloadable we would have a massive shift to digital books, completely disrupting the industry. But what we have is stagnation and regulatory capture.
- heffer 4y ago
  > Books and publishing industries are a result of a technology: paper, printing, binding. Now in the digital age an ebook should cost close the the amount the author get 1$-2$/book. This is a very technocratic view of book publishing. I think you're leaving out a lot of what goes into creating, marketing and distributing a book which is not labour of the author. Even in the digital age. Sure, authors could contract those services out using their (expected) revenue on a book. But at some point you'll inevitably get companies offering to manage that process for authors because it creates overhead that distracts from the creative process or thought process: Publishers. There are lean alternatives to big publishers out there, so it's easy to get self-published. But the weight a big publisher can put behind a release, the distribution network they have, can - even in the internet era - still affect a book's success heavily.
  - alfor 4y ago
    There is a bundle value in the offering. - editor, marketing, graphics - brand if the value created by the author is worth 1-2$ I don’t think the rest of the work on the actual content is worth more. Leaving much of the rest on the brand. I think that the brands have successfully commoditized the authors witch is the valuable portion of the book and have mostly monopolised their position. Now they will use their excess capital to keep their position because that is what is most valuable to them. At the same time they act as a filter judging what is worth putting in a book with their name on it, creating a standard of quality.
afrcnc 4y ago
GOP "deregulation" capitalism at its finest
mhypoq3vc7ajn2 4y ago
Creating a throwaway to post this. I used to work for a big player in the digital books space. This article is riddled with unsubstantiated claims. I can tell you for a fact that as digital library lending grows, publisher (and author) revenue declines on a per sale/borrow basis. It is not the same as physical lending. The difference in friction is massive, customers love painless instant book delivery. Imagine being an author and seeing your units increasing but your earnings not. Something fundamental needs to change with digital library licensing, it is on an unsustainable path. Macmillan tried windowing (ie for the first x weeks new releases can only be purchased, kind of like movies only being available in theaters at first) but the backlash was fierce and they abandoned it looking like a bully as COVID swept the globe. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/81688-editorial-why-we-are-boycotting-macmillan-e-books.html https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/l...
- cpymchn 4y ago
  > Something fundamental needs to change with digital library licensing What do you recommend? The artificial scarcity model they have now is broken. Pay-per-use seems better if the cost per read is adequate enough. All-you-can-eat-at-fixed-price (Oyster and Scribd) have the economics upside down.
  - mhypoq3vc7ajn2 4y ago
    I really liked the windowing approach that Macmillon wanted to try, which would funnel demand to purchases for new releases. Libraries already pay quite a lot for licenses, but I think there needs to be more scarcity too. The trouble is substitution ... customers just build a queue of free borrow options and read whichever comes available. Maybe tighter limits on the library side, instead of 25 concurrent borrows per library card make it 1. Or some way to introduce friction because instant wireless delivery is just so excellent. Don't have a good answer, I'm an engineer not an economist :)
xhkkffbf 4y ago
Book publishers? As an author, I feel like the real problem is the EFF, the IA and the tech community here (who will mod this down as they always do). Remember, if the authors go bankrupt -- which is what happens when they don't get paid -- only the independently wealthy and the secretly paid will be able to generate books. No authors means no books. That's another way to destroy the library. Authors deserve a right to make a living with their work product. Carpenters, plumbers and the like get the right to sign over their work product in perpetuity to any customer. Book authors only get the term of copyright.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  << Authors deserve a right to make a living with their work product. Sure, but your right stops at my device. At that point, I do whatever I choose to do with it. << EFF, the IA and the tech community here Really broad brush. You will find a lot of discussion here about both groups on this forum and while sentiment appears mostly positive, not everyone is of single mind. HN is a big herd of cats. << No authors means no books. Somehow I doubt that with the amount of humans on this planet that will ever come to pass. Case in point, I am writing something now ( passion project though so different rules may apply; I certainly do not expect to see a dime from it ). << Carpenters, plumbers and the like get the right to sign over their work product in perpetuity to any customer. Book authors only get the term of copyright. Hmm. I might be misreading it so please correct me as needed. Would you rather the roles are reversed ( plumbers and carpenters getting royalty for each performance on their repair/build ) and you having to write a new book each time for a one time payment of $299 plus tax? I genuinely do not understand your complaint here. If anything, your legal position is much better than that of a carpenter or plumber. You get to claim copyright over stuff that was already done. As a society, we artificially protect it ( and I personally argue for way too long ).
elijaht 4y ago
Not smart enough to comment on the actual IP discussion, but I do wonder about the sustainability of digital lending I say that as a user who LOVES reading digital books from the library. I got a Kindle ~a year ago, and have read around 25 books, all but one borrowed from the library. I would have paid for those books before, but now get them instantly, for free. It's amazing! Even getting/managing holds isn't a hassle- I check for my next book a few days before I finish my current book, and that usually results in getting off any waitlist by the time I'm ready to read it. Obviously, I could get the physical books from the library before, but I didn't find myself doing them- the logistics were slightly annoying, if I'm reading a physical book anyways, I tend to want to just grab a copy for my collection, with Amazon I can get a book the next day. Digital book distribution does feel different in a tangible way to me. So as a result, I am now not spending $250+ a year on books. I suspect I'm not the only one in the situation. Currently- I love it. But I'm wondering if it is sustainable.
- ptman 4y ago
  Where I live, libraries pay royalties based on loans, similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Lending_Right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Lending_Right
- kristopolous 4y ago
  That's probably different. It's the gatekeeping by default, even for things that have been out of print for 50 years. It greatly hinders research unless you have the luxury of constant plane flights to arrival libraries and purchasing things on Abe books.
- 35208654 4y ago
  >but now get them instantly, for free. It's amazing! You know this already, but just a kind reminder that you didn't get them for free. You paid for the library with your tax dollars, and continue to do so. Which means you are absolutely right to utilize this! I make this statement to remind others that libraries are public goods that you pay for and should utilize. This sends a market signal. This matters!
  - 4y ago
Kon-Peki 4y ago
There is a nationwide project now that aims to get collections of curated independent eBooks into public libraries: https://indieauthorproject.com/iap-select/ https://indieauthorproject.com/iap-select/ It started in Illinois in 2014 and is now in 17 US states and Canadian provinces and growing. Book publishers just might innovate themselves out of business. Libraries aren't going to die :)
nfriedly 4y ago
FYI: the Internet Archive is a nonprofit organization that runs on donations - https://archive.org/donate/ https://archive.org/donate/
ticviking 4y ago
Once again we have ample evidence that many companies are lying to us when they say they are "Selling us" things. They are merely collecting the first payment of some recurring revenue stream they imagine us to be.
timwaagh 4y ago
it makes sense. Libraries are a form of copyright infringement. Philosophically at least. Of course it will suck when everyone realises that but that doesn't mean it's not true. I'm making a game. Perhaps it will be bought by a library and that could be the only copy I sell. Now that's just me getting screwed. But what if you are a publisher with 1000s of authors, many employees and everyone's pension depending on you?
- lp0_on_fire 4y ago
  > Libraries are a form of copyright infringement. Philosophically at least. Libraries as a repository of knowledge and prose as a concept have existed for millennia. Copyright is a modern device that was originally designed to protect authors, not publishers. Copyright law being expanded over and over again for the benefit of the publishers, long after the death of the author is far more out of whack, philosophically, than libraries having a few copies of a book on the shelf (IMO).
  - timwaagh 4y ago
    Copyright is also old. Not as old as the library of Alexandria but old. public libraries seemb to be at best a few centuries older than copyright.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    I like this perspective. The idea that Copyright is some kind of natural law or is inherently good needs to die. Copyright is a compromise between the goals of society and the need of authors to eat, but business models like "books as a service" maybe mean we should re-visit the compromise so commercial interests don't supersede those of human progress and well-being.

323 points by webmaven 4y ago

a document-based blockchain would curb publishers hard. the CDL is sadly a lousy way to implement lending, as it doesn't offer reassurance that people borrowing documents aren't replicating them. everyone lost their minds making silly useless NFTs of shitty artwork, but did any of those "geniuses" in the dying publishing empire bother to implement any NFTs of their publications? no instead they bitched about libraries being the number one cause of their profit losses (which is an absolute LIE). the problem isn't lending books (in whatever medium) the problem is a lack of an effective brain trust in the upper echelons of industry to embrace tech and use it to innovate and prosper. there is no reason why books can't be woven into a blockchain, and then license the usage to libraries for lending. everyone wins!

coldacid 4y ago
I'm sure that being an NFT will prevent me from downloading the next monkey JPEG I come across.
- mintaka5 4y ago
  could you prove true ownership of that download?
rasz 4y ago
>doesn't offer reassurance that people borrowing documents aren't replicating them in contrast to the system libraries all over the world use to prevent paper books from being scanned/photographed
- anticensor 4y ago
  Does that exist?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - 988747 4y ago
    [dead]
- mintaka5 4y ago
  have you ever scanned an entire book at the library? i love the effort here, but it seems an overly simplified comparison.

rob74 4y ago

> With CDL it’s a scan of that book, but the scan is tied to the physical copy, so that if a digital copy is loaned out, no one else can take out another copy. Er... how exactly does that work? DRM? Or can you simply make a copy of your "loaned out" digital copy before returning it? Because I can see why publishers would take issue with that. I mean, of course you could do that with a real book too (copy/scan it), but it's orders of magnitude more effort...

matwood 4y ago
There are lots of 1 book/1 user DRM schemes in the library world. That's how all checkout based digital systems work today.
bonzini 4y ago
Yes, it's DRM. Both "normal" e-book lending and CDL use the same DRM and to be honest it's the only use of DRM that I don't object to. Controlled digital lending however gets rid of the publisher's license to make loans (where the library pays per checkout or for a fixed amount of time); instead, the library buys the hardcopy book, prepares a self-made ebook version, and pinky-promises that they will abide by the 1 copy-1 loan rule so that they can claim fair use. It's certainly dubious, but it's not out of this world either. And what's even more dubious, are the publishers' attempts at eroding the first-sale doctrine. (Adobe Digital Editions is a fairly trivial DRM to bypass by the way—I won't even say crack because on macOS the private key used to be hidden in plain sight in DER format—but it seems to be okay for publishers to use it when they make money out of loans. So the weakness of the DRM is not the issue).
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  It's even easier to just download a pirated copy than to bypass the DRM. The mere fact that someone is using CDL is strong evidence that they are following the rules and not trying to make an illicit copy.
- dublinben 4y ago
  It’s only dubious from the publishers’ perspective. It’s not much of a stretch to apply modern technology like streaming video, interactive screen sharing, or virtual reality to the established concept of a reading room, and wind up with something like CDL. There’s no technical reason why a patron shouldn’t be able to virtually ‘step into’ a reading room, and peruse something in the library’s collection. This would have been possible one book at a time using 20th century cable television broadcast and a telephone line. The internet just multiplies the number of ‘channels’ or books available concurrently to different patrons.

jmclnx 4y ago

When Amazon(?) deleted 1984 from everyone's electronic book reader years ago, it is another indication of the control publishers want over what we read. They said it was a "mistake" and only when people when after them did the do something to correct that "mistake". So yes, publishers want Libraries gone. If you ask me, the publishers want to move to a "rent model" like many software companies and even some Auto makers are moving towards. That means every time you read you electronic book, you pay them a small amount. With Libraries gone, that could be the next step. Plus its seem, just by accident, they are getting help from extremist in many US States. Those extremist are also conducting their own war on Libraries, but for different reasons. If they "win", the results will be close to what publishers want. From what I have seen, none of the big publishers have come out against the extremists (are there any small publishers left?).

wazoox 4y ago
"You'll own nothing, and you'll be happy about it". Klaus Schwab, head of the WEF, in the book "The Great Reset".
- barbazoo 4y ago
  Is this actually from the book and if so, what was the context in which it was said?
  - wazoox 4y ago
    No he said it while talking about the book, but I don't think it's in the book.
- chaghalibaghali 4y ago
  Actual context is described in this Reuters article "Fact check: The World Economic Forum does not have a stated goal to have people own nothing by 2030": https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-wef-idUSKBN2AP2T0 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-wef-idUSKBN2AP2...
briandear 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

glofish 4y ago

FYI in scientific publishing there is an entire subculture of publishing expensive books >$150 - with mostly useless content that one can read for free in published papers. Scientists write them for free, to embellish their resumes (often their grad students do the work) - the publisher sells a thousand copies, mostly to libraries across the world. Rinse and repeat.

stametseater 4y ago
After the nukes fly, who knows... maybe those physical books will be the only copies which survive a temporary global disruption of digital technology and industry.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > After the nukes fly, who knows... maybe those physical books will be the only copies which survive a temporary global disruption of digital technology and industry. The problem with that idea is that there would be very few copies, concentrated in the urban areas that are likely to get nuked. A book like one of those is also likely to be extremely specialized, so it would be unlikely to be used if that specialty ceases to be of practical values for a generation or more. Even physical books need care to be preserved for long periods, and wouldn't survive in an abandoned library with a leaky roof and flooded basement.
  - stametseater 4y ago
    University libraries may be clustered around urban centers, but a lot of those are in places that might plausibly not be subjected to bombardment, such as South America. Also, university libraries are far more numerous and disperse than the factories which manufacture computer hardware. I also assume that preservation of books will be a priority for at least some people even in near-apocalyptic circumstances, and that material conditions would improve markedly after only a few years. Even the continuation of many governments seems likely to me. Also you can't eat books and they have little value to looters, so that should help.

cpcallen 4y ago

If I understand correctly, the linked article is grossly misleading. Yes, it could well be that publishers would like to kill libraries and controlled digital lending—but AFAICT this suit[1] is about UNCONTROLLED digital lending: during the pandemic, archive.org began lending out more copies of eBooks than they actually owned, on the (IMHO morally justified but legally tenuous) basis that, because libraries were closed, it was reasonable to allow people to access electronically books that they were unable to access physically. I think it would be great if the law allowed that, but I'm fairly sure it doesn't, so while I think the publishers are being jerks here, they seem to be legally in the right, and while I'm concerned that the Internet Archive's liability will be devastating to that organisation's future (losing web.archive.org would be an abhorrent consequence), claiming that this suit is about CDL or trying to shut down libraries seems to be rather disingenuous. [1] https://publishers.org/news/publishers-file-suit-against-internet-archive-for-systematic-mass-scanning-and-distribution-of-literary-works/ https://publishers.org/news/publishers-file-suit-against-int...

jcranmer 4y ago
> AFAICT this suit[1] is about UNCONTROLLED digital lending Yes and no. The publishers didn't file a lawsuit until the policy of uncontrolled digital lending was temporarily enacted, but the lawsuit is targeting controlled digital lending as well. You can read the complaint itself to find this out, helpfully linked by the plaintiffs themselves in their own press release about the lawsuit. Were it only about uncontrolled digital lending, the suit would have been tossed as moot two years ago.
- misnome 4y ago
  > Were it only about uncontrolled digital lending, the suit would have been tossed as moot two years ago. You don't think that publishers would have had any case at all against deliberate mass-copyright infringement under flimsy pretences? I don't think "we stopped doing it when ordered to by a court" is much of a sign of good faith...
boomboomsubban 4y ago
The lawsuit is unquestionably about controlled digital lending. It was filed after the start of the National Emergency Library, but all the contents of the lawsuit are attacking CDL with the pandemic actions only a way of showing the Internet Archive is an organization that can't be trusted. You can see this in the filed paperwork, where amusingly they also attack the IA by saying they've occasionally incorrectly labeled things as in the public domain, which was clearly done maliciously. If this lawsuit was only seeking damages over the National Emergency Library, nobody would be writing stories about it. And publishers were openly hostile to CDL before the pandemic, you could see them preparing for this lawsuit in 2019.

RedCondor 4y ago

It makes sense though. It's similar to the dismantling of universal healthcare in Canada. There's too much money to be made. It's very silly to imagine one can be a staunch proponent of privatizing everything, especially all the popular things, but then try to carve out a niche exception for books and a couple of other impopular things. The only reason America has any kind of large-scale public property at all is because it was forced to by external circumstances (legacies from feudalism or the pressure exerted by rival socialism). All of it is alien to capitalism, like bolted-on patches. https://redsails.org/concessions/ https://redsails.org/concessions/

AuthorizedCust 4y ago

Who cares? Libraries are already in a death spiral. Circulation is way down and still plummeting, and there’s no realistic future that changes that. The traditional function of librarians and libraries has been obsoleted by technology for common use cases. Look at what your local library does now, and you’ll find far much more than ever has nothing to do with physical books or even books at all! The future of libraries is a ground-up reinvention of their purpose. Also, no matter your concern about tech, warehousing physical books and providing staff to help us organize books and locate information isn’t the answer.

cableshaft 4y ago
> Look at what your local library does now, and you’ll find far much more than ever has nothing to do with physical books or even books at all! And they're better for it too. My local library has a makerspace in the basement, with 3D printers, multiple sound studios, computers with Adobe suite (and other things) on them, embroidery machine, sublimation printer, and soon to get a Glowforge laser cutter. It's great. And I have another friend in charge of library events for young adults (20s/30s). She hosts geek movie nights, board/video game nights, "how to adult" sessions (like buying your first home, money management, etc), craft nights, adult coloring, open mic nights, trivia nights, cookie decorating, karaoke, "art therapy" nights (actually one of the more popular ones), etc. If you're not in the habit of checking the events and facilities at your local library as you assume it's all book related, give it a try. It might not be anymore.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  So you don't support libraries either. You support something entirely different which you are calling a "library"
  - Loughla 4y ago
    It's almost like the model, that was outdated, was updated and the concept of library has appropriately changed? Words and concepts are not static; they can and do change often?

newsclues 4y ago

Libraries and librarians need to back to having one political cause: freedom of information. It seems like this concept of "don't censor books" and "make all the information open to the world" have become openings exploited for activists to push their agenda.

giantrobot 4y ago
How is "don't censor books" in any way not freedom of information?
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
FWIW, idea is just a tool, a key to use on an individual that may be receptive that idea. I know what you are trying to say and I am glad there is some awareness that this is happening ( it gives me some hope for the future ). I like all ideas challenged. I don't like books burned.

sirodoht 4y ago

Let’s kill book publishers instead. Free publishing for everyone. https://laniakeabooks.org/ https://laniakeabooks.org/

imchillyb 4y ago

I think it's high-seas time again for the planet. It's time to kill these greed-monsters. The only way to do that is to copy and pirate them out of business. Yo-Ho, Yo-Ho, it's the Disney-Life for me! Time to change the channels on these modern day robber-barons. It's time they felt the wrath of the populace, and the righteousness of the Freedom of Information.

jrm4 4y ago

It seems so many of these debates have strayed away from some VERY core ideas. Learning is good, knowledge is good. Giving people the ability everywhere to learn at their own pace is important. More important that paying authors. I'm not saying MUCH MORE, it is very good to compensate (actual) creators. Now, people can get just about as much knowledge as they want for a very cheap price, and the barriers to that are so utterly artificial. An E-book reader can contain just about as much knowledge as one might ever need. Priority ONE, enable learning. All other priorities fall WELL below that, law be darned.

memonkey 4y ago
Learning is good to whom? Knowledge is good to whom? Even if all the research says it is good for economies and countries at scale doesn't deter others from saying otherwise.
toyg 4y ago
> some VERY core ideas. [...] Priority ONE, enable learning. That's your core idea. The core idea of capitalism is "Priority ONE, get all the money". Those core ideas are not the easiest of fellows.
- tm-guimaraes 4y ago
  No. Core idea of capitalism is that everything has value, you have a right to own and trade value, and we should quantify that value to enable efficient transactions of valuables. It's about freedom of ownership (and ownership rights) including transferring that ownership, capital is a measure of what you own. Capitalism doesn't have a core value of "getting more capital", capitalism has a core value of "being able to freely use my capital". The distinction from what GP is saying is that somethings should not be "owned" or "fully owned", ie, not have all the kind of rights that you would expect when you say "I own this". In the particular scenario of publishing, is questioning if "owning distributing rights" make sense (in the way of, I have the rights, you don't. I can do what I want as it is mine, you can do what I allow because it's mine not yours). In which he claims that "easiness of learning" is more important than profit, which in this scenario means that your freedom of doing what you want with your ownership, ie: selling rights to very limited used of your valuable (book, etc) is less important than sharing/acquiring knowledge, ie: i should be able to lend you or maybe even give you a copy of a book. The dilemma is incentives to publish/share knowledge: Capitalism works in hand with incentives due to everything having "value", so you can own things like "intellectual property" and have rights over it, so can sell it, or sell its use, giving you an incentive to "produce knowledge", the drawback is that anyone else has to use "value/capital" to access it. (same applies if you decide it's the governament that subsidies, still, something is giving back that "value/capital". Also, because of your rights to own, you can also share it without need to be rewarded, as it is your inherent right. But, the thing about all this is "measure". Not everything is easily measurable, but to facilitate using ownership rights and their transaction/use, you have to measure. That the big problem of capitalism, plenty of things can't really have a price tag, and value of anything is not only subjective, but also hard to know for sure without full info, so "easy" measures are used. This notion of "hard to measure value" is also a reason for not everything to have full ownership rights, using the current example, it's hard to measure to value of lending a book, including it's secondary effects (author getting more famous, a person getting more knowledge and its implications), so treating all these very hard to measure things the same way as more easily measurable things can and does have nasty effects. This is basically the issue of our current ways to measure value is mostly "what are you able to trade it for", ie: tossing into a free market, which can and suffers the "tragedy of the commons" and other issues like trading with someone with lacks the necessary knowledge to give a decent assessment of value.

josephcsible 4y ago

> This book may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If I were in charge, the punishment for copyright holders who lie about the law like this would be forfeiture of the entire remaining copyright term of the work in question.

pnemonic 4y ago
nobody with that type of outlook will ever be in charge, which is the problem. I wish you were in charge.

mejutoco 4y ago

If some of the billionaires of today created libraries instead of rocket companies to cement their legacy, that would be great.

kerpotgh 4y ago
[dead]
vorpalhex 4y ago
[flagged]
- superkuh 4y ago
  Ah, sure. Let me just go back in time and make sure my parents are rich to get the small millions dollars loans I'll need to start the capital accumulation ball rolling and provide me the positive liberty needed to risk and fail a handful of times till it sticks. That said, I am providing a vast online digital library to the public already. Digital libraries don't need massive amounts of capital or real estate. I just host a tor onion website with a directory listing and now anyone can read the books I have. And that is the kind of thing the book publishers are trying to stop here.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    People have built libraries for thousands of years. My neighbor runs a small library using donated books. Your local library could do with donations. It does not take a billionaire to build a library. That you are giving me this excuse that you can't do anything because you are not rich is just an excuse. And had you researched this, you would see that most of the top billionaires DO contributes millions to building libraries. Gates alone has built a significant amount around the world.
    - superkuh 4y ago
      I guess we're ignoring the part where I explained I've been running my own digital library for the public (for almost 20 years now) and how the original article is about digital lending and how publishers are trying to kill it. But re: building a physical library, most of us (myself included) don't even have the capital to own the places where we live. Buying (or renting) another space is totally out of the question. Tiny libraries (essentially large mailbox size) in people's yards are cool and I've put some books into them before. Saying "Just build a library." is out of touch. And even if it was a community project (time is money) that succeeded we'd have the publishers come in with legal attacks to try to shut down digital lending.

allturtles 4y ago

The Internet Archive model of CDL to everyone on the Web, not just local library card members, is a particular threat. There are many books for which a single CDL copy is probably sufficient to satisfy the entire global demand for that book. They will be referenced from time to time by academics or independent researchers and almost never read cover-to-cover. If every college/university and big city library needs to own a copy so that their members can get access to it, that's not such a big problem, you can still sell maybe 1,000 copies. But if everyone can share a single copy, that is a big problem.

tablespoon 4y ago
> If every college/university and big city library needs to own a copy so that their members can get access to it, that's not such a big problem, you can still sell maybe 1,000 copies. But if everyone can share a single copy, that is a big problem. And if they can do that, it probably means that copy will never be written, or priced at $20,000 or something.
Kalium 4y ago
If it's that large a problem, they should have no difficulty at all showing that the Emergency Library did them major financial harm. Right?
- allturtles 4y ago
  What I'm talking about has nothing to do with the emergency library, it's true even under controlled digital lending (which is what the suit is about).
  - Kalium 4y ago
    The Emergency Library is relevant because it's the matter currently in court where the publishers have an excellent chance to prove exactly how much this is hurting them. What I was implying is that they can't prove any such thing. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I am not the only skeptical party: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/book-publishers-with-surging-profits-struggle-to-prove-internet-archive-hurt-sales/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/book-publishers-...

Freak_NL 4y ago

That (now withdrawn) copyright notice Mike Masnick shows which is part of (some editions of) The Awakening (Zodiac Academy #1) by Caroline Peckham and Susanne Valenti is really shocking to anyone who even remotely likes books: > This book is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. > This book may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it wasn’t purchased for your use only, then please return to your favorite book retailer and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author. They apologised after getting criticized¹, but as Mike notes, someone consciously put that text there. Was that some experiment by their publisher? To get young adult readers to get used to such silly stipulations in order to turn it into law later? If I was one of the authors I would be pissed at the publisher² for slipping that in and damaging their reputation. 1: https://www.facebook.com/100063768668342/posts/pfbid02WRJwn8DqHxSRTu18LkSHd1dSkTG3QWD99xJ3xHSzM2Uja8htQfgTo5WMuuwL2PyQl/?mibextid=cr9u03 https://www.facebook.com/100063768668342/posts/pfbid02WRJwn8... 2: I am hoping this was not actually put in at the author's behest.

tablespoon 4y ago
> They apologised after getting criticized¹, but as Mike notes, someone consciously put that text there. Was that some experiment by their publisher? To get young adult readers to get used to such silly stipulations in order to turn it into law later? If I was one of the authors I would be pissed at the publisher² for slipping that in and damaging their reputation. My bet it was put there by the author (who blames their "formatter"), because wording and sentiment are amateurish. I'm also getting strong vibes that that book is self-published. For one, it's a looks like it's a trashy romance novel, and I understand self-publishing is pretty common for those, and the apology Facebook doesn't mention a publisher and makes it sounds like the authors are running the show. In any case, the inclusion of that example give me a poor opinion of this article. The author isn't above digging up stupid stuff done by some random ignorant boob to fuel the outrage machine.

alfor 4y ago

But they are also killing books. Youtube is free, instant, fast. I love books, when people spend their life condensing information and you spend a few hours to get the most important parts, but controlling access more and more mean that books will get less and less important. Books and publishing industries are a result of a technology: paper, printing, binding. Now in the digital age an ebook should cost close the the amount the author get 1$-2$/book. If they were this price and easily downloadable we would have a massive shift to digital books, completely disrupting the industry. But what we have is stagnation and regulatory capture.

heffer 4y ago
> Books and publishing industries are a result of a technology: paper, printing, binding. Now in the digital age an ebook should cost close the the amount the author get 1$-2$/book. This is a very technocratic view of book publishing. I think you're leaving out a lot of what goes into creating, marketing and distributing a book which is not labour of the author. Even in the digital age. Sure, authors could contract those services out using their (expected) revenue on a book. But at some point you'll inevitably get companies offering to manage that process for authors because it creates overhead that distracts from the creative process or thought process: Publishers. There are lean alternatives to big publishers out there, so it's easy to get self-published. But the weight a big publisher can put behind a release, the distribution network they have, can - even in the internet era - still affect a book's success heavily.
- alfor 4y ago
  There is a bundle value in the offering. - editor, marketing, graphics - brand if the value created by the author is worth 1-2$ I don’t think the rest of the work on the actual content is worth more. Leaving much of the rest on the brand. I think that the brands have successfully commoditized the authors witch is the valuable portion of the book and have mostly monopolised their position. Now they will use their excess capital to keep their position because that is what is most valuable to them. At the same time they act as a filter judging what is worth putting in a book with their name on it, creating a standard of quality.

afrcnc 4y ago

GOP "deregulation" capitalism at its finest

mhypoq3vc7ajn2 4y ago

Creating a throwaway to post this. I used to work for a big player in the digital books space. This article is riddled with unsubstantiated claims. I can tell you for a fact that as digital library lending grows, publisher (and author) revenue declines on a per sale/borrow basis. It is not the same as physical lending. The difference in friction is massive, customers love painless instant book delivery. Imagine being an author and seeing your units increasing but your earnings not. Something fundamental needs to change with digital library licensing, it is on an unsustainable path. Macmillan tried windowing (ie for the first x weeks new releases can only be purchased, kind of like movies only being available in theaters at first) but the backlash was fierce and they abandoned it looking like a bully as COVID swept the globe. https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/81688-editorial-why-we-are-boycotting-macmillan-e-books.html https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/l...

cpymchn 4y ago
> Something fundamental needs to change with digital library licensing What do you recommend? The artificial scarcity model they have now is broken. Pay-per-use seems better if the cost per read is adequate enough. All-you-can-eat-at-fixed-price (Oyster and Scribd) have the economics upside down.
- mhypoq3vc7ajn2 4y ago
  I really liked the windowing approach that Macmillon wanted to try, which would funnel demand to purchases for new releases. Libraries already pay quite a lot for licenses, but I think there needs to be more scarcity too. The trouble is substitution ... customers just build a queue of free borrow options and read whichever comes available. Maybe tighter limits on the library side, instead of 25 concurrent borrows per library card make it 1. Or some way to introduce friction because instant wireless delivery is just so excellent. Don't have a good answer, I'm an engineer not an economist :)

xhkkffbf 4y ago

Book publishers? As an author, I feel like the real problem is the EFF, the IA and the tech community here (who will mod this down as they always do). Remember, if the authors go bankrupt -- which is what happens when they don't get paid -- only the independently wealthy and the secretly paid will be able to generate books. No authors means no books. That's another way to destroy the library. Authors deserve a right to make a living with their work product. Carpenters, plumbers and the like get the right to sign over their work product in perpetuity to any customer. Book authors only get the term of copyright.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
<< Authors deserve a right to make a living with their work product. Sure, but your right stops at my device. At that point, I do whatever I choose to do with it. << EFF, the IA and the tech community here Really broad brush. You will find a lot of discussion here about both groups on this forum and while sentiment appears mostly positive, not everyone is of single mind. HN is a big herd of cats. << No authors means no books. Somehow I doubt that with the amount of humans on this planet that will ever come to pass. Case in point, I am writing something now ( passion project though so different rules may apply; I certainly do not expect to see a dime from it ). << Carpenters, plumbers and the like get the right to sign over their work product in perpetuity to any customer. Book authors only get the term of copyright. Hmm. I might be misreading it so please correct me as needed. Would you rather the roles are reversed ( plumbers and carpenters getting royalty for each performance on their repair/build ) and you having to write a new book each time for a one time payment of $299 plus tax? I genuinely do not understand your complaint here. If anything, your legal position is much better than that of a carpenter or plumber. You get to claim copyright over stuff that was already done. As a society, we artificially protect it ( and I personally argue for way too long ).

elijaht 4y ago

Not smart enough to comment on the actual IP discussion, but I do wonder about the sustainability of digital lending I say that as a user who LOVES reading digital books from the library. I got a Kindle ~a year ago, and have read around 25 books, all but one borrowed from the library. I would have paid for those books before, but now get them instantly, for free. It's amazing! Even getting/managing holds isn't a hassle- I check for my next book a few days before I finish my current book, and that usually results in getting off any waitlist by the time I'm ready to read it. Obviously, I could get the physical books from the library before, but I didn't find myself doing them- the logistics were slightly annoying, if I'm reading a physical book anyways, I tend to want to just grab a copy for my collection, with Amazon I can get a book the next day. Digital book distribution does feel different in a tangible way to me. So as a result, I am now not spending $250+ a year on books. I suspect I'm not the only one in the situation. Currently- I love it. But I'm wondering if it is sustainable.

ptman 4y ago
Where I live, libraries pay royalties based on loans, similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Lending_Right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Lending_Right
kristopolous 4y ago
That's probably different. It's the gatekeeping by default, even for things that have been out of print for 50 years. It greatly hinders research unless you have the luxury of constant plane flights to arrival libraries and purchasing things on Abe books.
35208654 4y ago
>but now get them instantly, for free. It's amazing! You know this already, but just a kind reminder that you didn't get them for free. You paid for the library with your tax dollars, and continue to do so. Which means you are absolutely right to utilize this! I make this statement to remind others that libraries are public goods that you pay for and should utilize. This sends a market signal. This matters!
- 4y ago

Kon-Peki 4y ago

There is a nationwide project now that aims to get collections of curated independent eBooks into public libraries: https://indieauthorproject.com/iap-select/ https://indieauthorproject.com/iap-select/ It started in Illinois in 2014 and is now in 17 US states and Canadian provinces and growing. Book publishers just might innovate themselves out of business. Libraries aren't going to die :)

nfriedly 4y ago

FYI: the Internet Archive is a nonprofit organization that runs on donations - https://archive.org/donate/ https://archive.org/donate/

ticviking 4y ago

Once again we have ample evidence that many companies are lying to us when they say they are "Selling us" things. They are merely collecting the first payment of some recurring revenue stream they imagine us to be.

timwaagh 4y ago

it makes sense. Libraries are a form of copyright infringement. Philosophically at least. Of course it will suck when everyone realises that but that doesn't mean it's not true. I'm making a game. Perhaps it will be bought by a library and that could be the only copy I sell. Now that's just me getting screwed. But what if you are a publisher with 1000s of authors, many employees and everyone's pension depending on you?

lp0_on_fire 4y ago
> Libraries are a form of copyright infringement. Philosophically at least. Libraries as a repository of knowledge and prose as a concept have existed for millennia. Copyright is a modern device that was originally designed to protect authors, not publishers. Copyright law being expanded over and over again for the benefit of the publishers, long after the death of the author is far more out of whack, philosophically, than libraries having a few copies of a book on the shelf (IMO).
- timwaagh 4y ago
  Copyright is also old. Not as old as the library of Alexandria but old. public libraries seemb to be at best a few centuries older than copyright.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  I like this perspective. The idea that Copyright is some kind of natural law or is inherently good needs to die. Copyright is a compromise between the goals of society and the need of authors to eat, but business models like "books as a service" maybe mean we should re-visit the compromise so commercial interests don't supersede those of human progress and well-being.