Author says Libraries "have had their day."

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Laridae

But, I gather that doesn't apply to ebooks, only printed books?

Yes, we're talking about paper books here. PLR doesn't apply to eBooks, because an author has a free choice about whether or not to offer their ebooks to libraries. With paper books, they have no choice, and PLR is a compensation for that lack of choice.

[Laridae]

OK, that explains it.
Thanks, Harry.

It would be nice if this could be expanded to include ebooks. Then we would have more available in our Libraries to choose from, going forward.

[Iznogood]

Originally Posted by Laridae

It would be nice if this could be expanded to include ebooks. Then we would have more available in our Libraries to choose from, going forward.

A agree totally. Why make the distinction between a book and an ebook? I can see many minor points where they differ, but the big picture is that both is still a book. It takes the same time to read them, the reader will use the same amount of time to read it, so it will be read by the same amount of people in either way, and there will be the same amount of people having it on hold - assumed that the ebook is treated as a book, i.e. only one person can have it on loan at any time.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Iznogood

A agree totally. Why make the distinction between a book and an ebook? I can see many minor points where they differ, but the big picture is that both is still a book. It takes the same time to read them, the reader will use the same amount of time to read it, so it will be read by the same amount of people in either way, and there will be the same amount of people having it on hold - assumed that the ebook is treated as a book, i.e. only one person can have it on loan at any time.

One big difference is that to loan an e-book requires making a copy of it, while a paper book doesn't. With a paper book, I can loan it out, I can sell it or give it away as I wish. It's copyright, not readright or loanright. Paper books wear out, and will eventually have to be replaced.

[Iznogood]

All right, in principle you are making a copy when loaning it. In reality, one copy goes to the readers hardware, the other copy resides encrypted and unusable on a server somewhere. This process of copying it is inevitable and is a natural part of any computer system. The same yields for music - which also gets copied to your player without anyone screaming Armageddon. There isn't a real difference: copying something when the "original" is encrypted and in a controlled environment isn't really copying.

As for wear and tear - it has already been stated in this thread that books have a very short shelf-life in bookstores. The current system for books is based on a book making back the money invested in the first couple of years, and many books aren't reprinted. The additional sale of books to libraries is in any case minimal.

I am not an American and may of course have misunderstood many things here. If so, please correct me. This is at least how things work here in Norway

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Iznogood

All right, in principle you are making a copy when loaning it. In reality, one copy goes to the readers hardware, the other copy resides encrypted and unusable on a server somewhere. This process of copying it is inevitable and is a natural part of any computer system. The same yields for music - which also gets copied to your player without anyone screaming Armageddon. There isn't a real difference: copying something when the "original" is encrypted and in a controlled environment isn't really copying.

As for wear and tear - it has already been stated in this thread that books have a very short shelf-life in bookstores. The current system for books is based on a book making back the money invested in the first couple of years, and many books aren't reprinted. The additional sale of books to libraries is in any case minimal.

I am not an American and may of course have misunderstood many things here. If so, please correct me. This is at least how things work here in Norway

There is a real difference. I can't make a copy and distribute it without permission from the copyright holder. But with a paper copy, I can give it away, loan it or resell it to my hearts content, no permission required. Libraries do repurchase books when their paper copies wear out if those books are still popular. Most books are forgotten, but some aren't. You can walk into a bookstore and find new copies of books that were written decades ago. They buy new copies to fill their shelves, and libraries do the same of those books are still popular.

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

One big difference is that to loan an e-book requires making a copy of it, while a paper book doesn't. With a paper book, I can loan it out, I can sell it or give it away as I wish. It's copyright, not readright or loanright. Paper books wear out, and will eventually have to be replaced.

The copying argument is a technicality. An eBook can't be copied as many times as the library wants. A single eBook copy must be distributed serially or not at all. In other words, the library does not make a copy of the eBook, and then have two to distribute. They still only have one eBook to distribute.

If you really want to look at it the way you are, then it follows that all the major eBook distributers are violating copyright by allowing customers to save the same book on multiple devices tied to the same account. The fact that I have a book on my Kindle, my Nexus 7 and my iPhone all at the same time means I should have bought 3 copies, correct?

And while it is true that physical books wear out, I don't think that represents a large number of sales for the book companies.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Sregener

The copying argument is a technicality. An eBook can't be copied as many times as the library wants. A single eBook copy must be distributed serially or not at all. In other words, the library does not make a copy of the eBook, and then have two to distribute. They still only have one eBook to distribute.

The "still only have one to distribute" argument is also a technicality.

Which suggests to me that the are fundamental, qualitative differences between the two media. Which, in turn, suggests to me that it is a mistake to try to apply any of the logic of the print medium to the electronic medium. Any of the logic, in either direction.

Originally Posted by Sregener

If you really want to look at it the way you are, then it follows that all the major eBook distributers are violating copyright by allowing customers to save the same book on multiple devices tied to the same account.

Except that they have contracts with the copyright holders what explicitly allow that.

Originally Posted by Sregener

The fact that I have a book on my Kindle, my Nexus 7 and my iPhone all at the same time means I should have bought 3 copies, correct?

Only if the contract under which you bought the first two say so. Since the contact explicitly allows you to have multiple copies, you are allow to have multiple copies.

[QuantumIguana]

It's not a technicality. A library can't distribute the e-book at all without the permission of the copyright holder. With paper, no permission is required. Copyright doesn't mean that no copies may be made, only that they cannot be made without permission. I am amble to have the same e-book on multiple devices only because the seller has permission from the copyright holder to allow the book to be copied to a certain number of devices. What you or I might wish the situation to be doesn't change the situation.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by odiakkoh

Via Wikipedia:
Deary is an outspoken critic of schools, which he believes serve no function above keeping children off the street.[7] Deary has commented: "I've no interest in schools. They have no relevance in the 21st century. They were a Victorian idea to get kids off the street. Who decided that putting 30 kids with only their age in common in a classroom with one teacher was the best way of educating? At my school there were 52 kids in the class and all I learned was how to pass the 11-plus. Testing is the death of education. Kids should leave school at 11 and go to work. Not down the mines or up chimneys, mind, but working with computers or something relevant. Everything I learned after 11 was a waste of time. Trigonometry, Boyle's law: it's never been of any use to me. They should have been teaching me the life skills I was going to need, such as building relationships, parenting and managing money. I didn't have a clue about any of these things at 18. Schools need to change." [8]

I don't think anyone with any sense should take him seriously. I for one will be boycotting his books.

You read kid's books?

I think what you just quoted makes a lot of sense.

The warehousing function of schools is obvious in some places, particularly where there are lots of poor minorities. (Read: Chicago, where I live.) Testing results in teaching how to take tests. Head Start starts failing at about the 3rd grade - why should that be? And don't get me started on the anti-boys bias of the public school system.

The last time I used Trig was in Trig class. At this point, I'd have to google it to remember what the hell it actually is. (Bear in mind that my math SAT, 50 years ago when the SAT was hard, was over 750 - I could do it, but so what?)

Schools, and libraries, are like the railroad system. They work in some places for some purposes, but on the whole, they are artifacts of a prior world, propped up by public subsidies and increasingly failing at their past purposes - even the warehousing function. The libraries are trying desperately to gin up new functions - which seem to mainly involve providing free internet access for the impoverished. The schools seem to be run to provide posh jobs for educational bureaucrats.

I don't mean to put down librarians and teachers - I have teachers in my family & would have loved to have been a librarian myself. But the institutions they work in are dying at every level, because they no longer have the purpose they were designed for, and are having trouble repurposing.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by meeera

Oh no, he writes Horrible Histories. My kid loves those books - which we discovered through our local public library. Ah well, we'll make sure to not buy any more of them, just borrow.

Why? When I find an author I like, I buy his books new. I want him to keep on writing. Who cares what his opinions on libraries are? I do use book stores, new & old, as places ot find such books. Not libraries, though. Too much "popular" stuff not reflecting my taste.

My deal with my kids was always that I'd buy them any book they wanted, so long as they committed to try to read it. Any subject, no questions asked. Their libraries were Borders and Barnes & Noble.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Why? When I find an author I like, I buy his books new. I want him to keep on writing. Who cares what his opinions on libraries are? I do use book stores, new & old, as places ot find such books. Not libraries, though. Too much "popular" stuff not reflecting my taste.

If he kept his opinions to himself, I'm a *shrug*. Instead, he's using his voice in a powerful media outlet to campaign against libraries. My money, my choice. And our libraries have many, many copies of his books - no trouble at all getting hold of them.

Originally Posted by Harmon

My deal with my kids was always that I'd buy them any book they wanted, so long as they committed to try to read it. Any subject, no questions asked. Their libraries were Borders and Barnes & Noble.

How lovely for you to be that wealthy. I can't afford a $10-$20 dollar a day reading habit.

[odiakkoh]

Originally Posted by Harmon

You read kid's books?

Well actually I do but I was talking for my children more than myself.

ETA: Meant for, not about.

[Freeshadow]

I am with you on "you learn a lot of needless stuff and test-passing at school"
Nevertheless, said authors opinion that kids @ 11 should be taught parenting skills is at least lacking logic. You hardly can teach somebody to be a parent when n the person in question is still in need of parental care for h*self
IMO it 'd be better to teach them how to avoid the need of parenting skills.
Not that I think teaching for parents to be is a bad thing. In contrary. But that's too early. Too early to grok it and presumably too early to know if they want kids later or not.
And what if someone doesn't? Then it's another bucket of stuff one 'd be forced to learn having absolutely no use for it.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by meeera

If he kept his opinions to himself, I'm a *shrug*. Instead, he's using his voice in a powerful media outlet to campaign against libraries. My money, my choice. And our libraries have many, many copies of his books - no trouble at all getting hold of them.

The "money/choice" thing I certainly agree with. But for him, it's not merely a matter of opinion. It's his livelihood that's impacted, which gives him the right to have his say, in my view.

How lovely for you to be that wealthy. I can't afford a $10-$20 dollar a day reading habit.

Yeah, it would, but it's not that I don't have other things to do with my money, if I didn't spend it on books. I wouldn't be able to spend $10-$20 a day on books, either. Project Gutenberg and other free, or reduced price, sources, have replaced the library for me.

Point is, I spend money on books rather than movies or sports or coffee or new clothes or haircuts or wine or all the other trivialities in life. Well, maybe not wine...

Back when the kids were young, we used Borders & BN for a library, because we had each of them within a couple of blocks of us. So I bought books there. I always preferred Borders. But these days, the internet is busy replacing the library, with Borders gone & the BN no longer in our neighborhood, though still available.

Plus my reading has slowed down since I've gotten old & decrepit, which has the advantage of reducing my expenditures. I still pile up more than I can read, of course, as do we all...