5 ms·

Unfortunately, books aren't abandonware. Legally, sitting on the rights to something is allowed. The odds of such a thing being allowed are low, particularly in

by Mezzie 4y ago

Unfortunately, books aren't abandonware. Legally, sitting on the rights to something is allowed. The odds of such a thing being allowed are low, particularly in this age of reboots, adaptations, etc. One of my favorite book series is basically book abandonware and the rights have always been retained so that things like graphic novels, shitty TV shows, etc. are a possibility. Allowing out of print, difficult to get books to be lent or shared freely means that you can't reprint them to turn the money machine back on, or try to modernize them. It's the age of books as "IP" instead of books.

vba616 4y ago
Used books appear to me to be largely unaffordable these days due to the internet creating a global market. If an obscure out of print book costs $500, because (my hypothesis is) it is priced for the single most desperate buyer in the world, then the market for used books no longer has any relationship to my life or needs. On the other hand, if there are only a dozen people who would buy it at say $5 then it's not in anyone's interest to reprint it. And if someone did reprint it but didn't do the labor intensive part of editing the scan, it would hardly be worth it - so I'm sure even free isn't cheap. So, I mean, I will do without. Just like I did without Napster back in the day. But people should ask themselves if this is the dystopia we want, and who is serving who. If the Patent and Copyright Clause verbiage in the US Constitution meant what it said, and if markets serve society too.
- beej71 4y ago
  In addition, there's this crazy effect: "How A Book About Flies Came To Be Priced $24 Million On Amazon" https://www.wired.com/2011/04/amazon-flies-24-million/ https://www.wired.com/2011/04/amazon-flies-24-million/
  - vba616 4y ago
    I think I remember that, but I don't see it as a problem, just an amusing glitch. I don't see how it could be economically rational.
blackoil 4y ago
My thoughts are publishers won't be interested in suing such a library. Courts would be lenient and public support stronger. But once you start sharing bestsellers economics changes for everyone.
- Mezzie 4y ago
  15-20 years ago, I would have agreed with you. Now I absolutely disagree. The primary thing keeping them from suing would have been the optics of the situation: Suing the local library or the small group trying to keep knowledge alive would look bad. That's less of a factor now, and suing the small guys in order to ram through judicial precedent they can wield like a cudgel later would be too tempting.

by Mezzie 4y ago

vba616 4y ago

Used books appear to me to be largely unaffordable these days due to the internet creating a global market. If an obscure out of print book costs $500, because (my hypothesis is) it is priced for the single most desperate buyer in the world, then the market for used books no longer has any relationship to my life or needs. On the other hand, if there are only a dozen people who would buy it at say $5 then it's not in anyone's interest to reprint it. And if someone did reprint it but didn't do the labor intensive part of editing the scan, it would hardly be worth it - so I'm sure even free isn't cheap. So, I mean, I will do without. Just like I did without Napster back in the day. But people should ask themselves if this is the dystopia we want, and who is serving who. If the Patent and Copyright Clause verbiage in the US Constitution meant what it said, and if markets serve society too.

beej71 4y ago
In addition, there's this crazy effect: "How A Book About Flies Came To Be Priced $24 Million On Amazon" https://www.wired.com/2011/04/amazon-flies-24-million/ https://www.wired.com/2011/04/amazon-flies-24-million/
- vba616 4y ago
  I think I remember that, but I don't see it as a problem, just an amusing glitch. I don't see how it could be economically rational.

blackoil 4y ago

My thoughts are publishers won't be interested in suing such a library. Courts would be lenient and public support stronger. But once you start sharing bestsellers economics changes for everyone.

Mezzie 4y ago
15-20 years ago, I would have agreed with you. Now I absolutely disagree. The primary thing keeping them from suing would have been the optics of the situation: Suing the local library or the small group trying to keep knowledge alive would look bad. That's less of a factor now, and suing the small guys in order to ram through judicial precedent they can wield like a cudgel later would be too tempting.