Do Libraries Need Permission To Lend Out Ebooks?
from the they-shouldn't dept
Reader OG points us to this NY Times article about how libraries are increasingly offering ebooks for download. This, of course, seems like a good idea, and fits in with the purpose of a library, but where the article gets either laughable or head-bangingly annoying is where it starts discussing how publishers have serious problems with this whole concept. Some publishers are refusing to allow libraries to lend out their ebooks...which makes me wonder why the publishers have any say in the matter. Thanks to the right of first sale, a library should be able to lend out an ebook if it's legally purchased it without having to get the publisher's permission.Furthermore, the rest of the discussion is just silly. There are arguments about how many ebooks can be "checked out" at once or how the DRM works (which blocks the most popular ebook readers from being supported). There's also an issue of publishers charging libraries much higher prices for ebooks, and scoffing at a librarian who suggests that libraries should be allowed to offer as many copies as needed of an ebook to lend at the same time, and just pay the publishers a nominal fee.
It's hard to describe how insane this whole discussion sounds. Here you have a fantastic tool to support a library's main purpose in the world, and we're arguing over what sorts of artificial restrictions to set up to limit that tool from actually being useful? It's as if we discovered a way to make all the food the world ever needed, and we sit around talking about how to make sure that most people don't get fed. It would make me laugh if it weren't so disturbing that people seem to think this is a good thing.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ebooks, lending, libraries, permission, publishers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How difficult is it to understand the basic concept Mike? Are the laws different in the Socialist Republic of Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Library ebooks and locked players
Points to consider before you get hung up on the single e-book per locked player concept:
1) THERE IS NO INDUSTRY STANDARD for format and player. It's not like DVD or even VHS where there is one data type that applies to all physical playback units.
2) There are MANY different e-book vendor/suppliers each with their own format (see above) that do NOT offer the same materials (specifically). They do overlap in many cases in terms of general subject, but not in specific titles or authors.
3) Publishers have decided, much in the same way as the other favorite bogeyman on this discussion group - RIAA, to cling to outdated technology in an effort to restrict access to the most popular materials and force the consumer to purchase the material that they wish to read in some fashion that is not conducive to sharing (in any means)
4) Each provider, sometimes publisher, sometimes third party provider, has their own contract with its own limits that have to be negotiated. E.g., Amazon and Kindle - the Kindle is limited by contract to disallow file sharing. It would be a wonderful e-book lending medium for libraries, - "loan a 'Kindle Collection'." But, with the details of the contract, it's not physically possible. A few libraries have found ways to negotiate around it, but they have given up their collection control in order to do it.
This is just the barest TIP of a very HUGE iceberg relating to libraries and electronic resources (including e-books) _ pretty much makes the one that sunk the titanic look like an icecube from your freezer). So, hopefully you will think to ask first next time, before assuming that the issue can be dismissed in a sentence or two, and that the professionals involved in the transaction (i.e. the librarians in this case) are stupid and don't have a clue as to what they're doing...
Thanks,
Lady Grey, MLIS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Library ebooks and locked players
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
While, I do agree library should be allowed to lend eBooks, I also agree that there should be restrictions on the number of times they can distribute the book, number of copies that can be distributed at one time, the length of time one can keep a book etc. More importantly security of the eBooks. As publishers also need to make money so that they can pay Authors, Editors employees, pay rent, bills etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is teh socialist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, libraries should be allowed to lend out physical books only under an escort of armed guards. Otherwise, there is no way to prove that the physical book is not being photocopied repeatedly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Photocopies would not be the same as the original now would they? Photocopies of the photocopies? Etc.
Ebook copies are clones. Everything the same. Millionth copy the same as the first.
It's a real issue, a real problem.
Heck, you know, torrent sites could just change to being "libraries" and be exempt from everything. Yeah, that would work.
The world ends at the end of Mike's nose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thank you for disproving your own silly argument. If every copy is the same, then all you need is one copy to be made, and it doesn't matter how many Ebooks are lent out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It sounds a bit too far fetch I bet, but it's not. Read the fine print some time, and you'll know how far you can stretch the copyright. Basically, pending on from which country, you can upload, almost, any movie in its whole, so to speak, for everyone to enjoy, what with the viewer actually has to be able to se who made/owns it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps I missed the part of the article upon which you are relying to make the above statement. Can you direct me to its location?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"As digital collections grow, Mr. Sargent said he feared a world in which “pretty soon you’re not paying for anything.” Partly because of such concerns, Macmillan does not allow its e-books to be offered in public libraries."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You see the blue text that reads "increasingly offering ebooks for download"? If you click that, it takes you to an article at the NY Times here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/books/15libraries.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
If you scroll down towards the middle of the article, there is the following:
"Partly because of such concerns, Macmillan does not allow its e-books to be offered in public libraries.
Simon & Schuster, whose authors include Stephen King and Bob Woodward, has also refrained from distributing its e-books to public libraries."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's ok. We all make mistakes. But Macmillan didn't say it does not sell -- it said it does not allow its books to be offered in libraries. Not the same.
And the first sale point is valid. What if the libraries purchased the ebooks from other sources? With regular books, libraries wouldn't have to rely on the publisher -- they could get the books from any number of sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hence I limited my comment just to the noted publishers who appear to have adopted a "no sale" policy directed specifically to libraries. I am fairly confident the policy will change, but clearly the publishers are trying to come up with some sort of business plan that will result in such sales in the future. Adaptation to changing market conditions will happen, but it seems it is a business challenge with which they have to come to grips.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Patent pending!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Selling multiple copies to the libraries
This could be handled automatically, so when someone wants to check out the eleventh copy of an ebook the library only "has" ten of, the library's credit card would be hit for the $7.00 and the loan would happen as normal. From then on, the library would have eleven copies to loan out at the same time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Selling multiple copies to the libraries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Selling multiple copies to the libraries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Selling multiple copies to the libraries
A library shouldn't have a to own a copy every time a book is loaned. Libraries don't have that kind of funding and people should have access to reading and information for free. The Libraries pay for that access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Selling multiple copies to the libraries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digital First Sale
There are several arguments being put forth to counter that assertion, but they have really only seen success when physical CDs or media have been sold, and even then not always. Kindle books are a good example of this - publishers claim to own the ebook copies they "lease". I personally publishers will eventually lose this argument but it will be a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Digital First Sale
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: costs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libraries don't pay more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Book costs for libraries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ebooks versus paper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ebooks versus paper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ebooks versus paper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ebooks versus paper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ebooks versus paper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think this analogy is off
Hmm, how could a company possibly make money temporarily letting you use their media? Does anyone have a working business model like that?
Ok, sorry for the sarcasm, but who here would pay 0.99 for a one month ebook rental?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think this analogy is off
No, they don't. That right doesn't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think this analogy is off
We can make all the food we want for free, but we're arguing about how to make sure most people don't get fed.
Why?
Because while we have people willing to package and distribute that food for free, we want to stop them from doing that so that they have to pay the no-longer-required packaging and distributing people to do it for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ebooks versus paper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not lend eBooks ?
The file I get is unique to me. The unlock key is basically my credit card details.
Yes, I could post them on the internet for free illegal download but I'd be also posting my credit card details. I could probably do my immediately family a copy safely, but that's as far as it would go.
If a library could generate personalised eBooks with similar DRM, there would be no issue with borrowers copying books massively, though possibly an issue with people not deleting them when they are due to return the "loan".
(I pretty much end up with the eBook forever, if I'm prepared to wind back the clock on my eBook reader).
It depends of course on there being an eBook reader at the other end that respects/understands the DRM. Until this is universal it means the library supporting a lot of formats but it would only take a single piece of software to achieve that, which, once developed, could be present in every library.
As far as "how many simultaneous loans can the library make"... Mike seems to confuse the possible with the fair.
If he thinks libraries should buy one and lend out hundreds at a time (becauwe they can) then he presumably also believes libraries should get them free (almost the same thing) because the publicity is so good for the author.
But this is not what libraries are for. Libraries are supposed to pay for books and then lend them out. Like Netflix pays for movies it lends out.
I would expect Netflix to pay more than $10 for a DVD it has the right to lend out 50 times, even though the price for a consumer to buy the DVD might be $10. Their business model expects it. Libraries, of course, are not businesses as such, but that doesn't make authors charities.
Pissing off authors/publishers by allowing their eBooks to be flagrantly copied is going to set back the progress of the eBook by years.
(My local library lends CD's but there is a cost per CD in addition to library membership. This is because even though (unlike a book which you read once,) it could be argued that the CD is listened to as a precursor to buying, we in fact all know damn well the CD's are being copied )
I would not be surprised if there are many authors/publishers who prefer their hardcopy books not to go into libraries. Or at least not while they are still on the best seller lists !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not lend eBooks ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not lend eBooks ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, that damn photocopier held back the progress of physical books for YEARS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
library ebooks
in addition, there's an ebook service on line through a system here in nj that lets you take out an ebook for a certain amount of time (after a few weeks, it goes dark). of course, burning it to a CD-RW, then ripping it back to your computer takes of the DRM. for those whose tracks are longer than a CD or which don't allow burning to CD, I just don't take them out because who listens to anything at length on CD?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Country dependent
Apparently it becomes rather negative for writers in US, i.e. living in US. However for foreign writers it's supposedly very positive, what with the whole fan base increasing and all.
Tomato, tomato, perhaps, but it's pretty much all about potential economic cost for the publishers, i.e. potential less profit. But the copyright actually support this behavior, even if it's more indirect, bending the contract rules.
It has to do with the belief that the home base is the most financially lucrative place. The big publishers still doesn't understand the concept of financially global environment. Microsoft, Hp, IBM, Skype, et cetera, understood the concept ages ago, but apparently they alone aren't evidence enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yup, there is that new business model Mike has been looking for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unchain the ebooks!!!!
It is crazy to think that we are going backwards instead of forward when it comes to ebooks. In fact it is just sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creators of works have rights
""No, they don't. That right doesn't exist.""
Well, yes, we have a whole body of law called copyright that gives the creators of intellectual works control over how they are distributed and used. Creators of works can voluntarily give them up for free distribution--many photographers donate images to Wikipedia, for instance--but they still retain some control over factors like alterations or publication in other formats.
It seems like people understand the argument that musicians have a right to be paid for their works when it comes to music--bands and musicians seem very human and their personal financial struggles are often public knowledge--but the same people don't relate to that argument on behalf of book authors. There's no difference, however; authors have a right to a reasonable profit from their work, and the copyright laws came about over concern that lack of protection would discourage writers from contributing to the public dialogue which makes up our culture and politics.
Libraries came into existence when writing and reading were the province of privileged classes and distribution of works was physically difficult; for libraries to be able to exist today is a gift from the past which we should appreciate by showing some maturity about the rights issue. In the age of the internet allowing even a single library with a web catalog to engage in unrestricted distribution of an eBook could kill almost all of the compensation an author and publisher might otherwise expect from a work, and that's not just their problem, it's our problem, too. The balancing of rights is being worked out and until then it's just not reasonable to demand unlimited free access to publications in all circumstances. It's time for some of you data-stealers to take ownership of what goes on in society rather than just make demands unburdened by practical responsibility...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Creators of works have rights
You clearly have no idea what "right" means, nor how the free market works.
No one has a right to a reasonable profit. If you spend 10 million dollars making an awesome pet rock 2.0, you do not deserve to make a profit. You are able to try to make a profit, but you might fail. That's the chance everyone makes while creating something new.
Deal with it.
If you try to distribute an ebook for to me and charge 90% of the hardcover price, I will say thanks but no thanks. If I find someone willing to distribute that same e-book to me for free, I'm more likely to take them up on that offer. That's how it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Creators of works have rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how do i get started?
Have a 14 day window, then it goes dark & have to re-check it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: how do i get started?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope all the major publishing houses jump onto the Adobe Digital Editions lending scheme or something similar (with DRM if they have to, but preferably without). I think that kind of lending makes sense even down to a schoolyard recess level of fairness. For every sold copy of the text, there is only one person reading it at a time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The book is the property of the author, to be published and/or sold on terms that the author agrees to. Anything else is a violation of the author's right to his/her own property. It's like the government forcing Rearden to ration out his metal to anyone who wanted it, at whatever compensation the government decides. Remember that?
So...I know this thread is old, but I found it and had to post. Am I right, Joe? You're an Objectvist? You sound like you mean to be one. Of course no author has a "right to profit" - but they do have the right to their property, I'd say. So they have a right to sell their books at the price they choose, and to not have others stealing them, which is exactly what unauthorized copying and distribution of ebooks is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Publishers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A. Why can't the library just buy as many digital copies as are needed for the customers, and keep them forever, if they don't naturally degrade?
B. Wait a second. It's just a digital file. Why not just buy one copy, and just copy and paste it for every customer who wants to read it?
C. Wait a second. Why do you need the library at all? Why can't a customer just buy a copy from the publisher and "lend" copies to all of his friends?
D. Wait a second. If no printing and binding needs to be done, why do you need the publisher? Just buy it directly from the author.
E. Waaaaait a second. Why buy it? Once the author makes one copy available, why can't everyone just grab it for free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free-use
As nourishing as both may be in their own ways, food is consumed once, or prepared to be consumed once, while intellectual property is like "the burning bush" allowing multiple uses without ever being "consumed."
Further, the investment of the creator(s) is not reimbursed by a single sale, but by multiple sales.
This is the basis of a royalty structure, or paid access.
Maybe you want to work for free. I do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YES YES
Except the part where you just discovered a way to make sure that no one has any motivation ever to produce food. OOPS I mean books. Because hey, there's nothing like not getting paid to sit for months or years whacking on a plough OOPS I meant keyboard, right? AMIRITE? F*CK those rich fatcat farmers/authors/content producers/whatever! F*ck them in their stupid a$$e$!!!
Seriously, you seem to have misplaced one simple little fact in your tyrade against the ignominy of paying for books: IF BOOKS DON'T COST MONEY THEN WHO WILL WRITE THEM???
Asshat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]