Forbes: The Wrong War Over eBooks: Publishers Vs. Libraries

[dkperez]

So, just to make sure I understand this correctly, the solution to the publisher/library problem is for publishers to make the books available to libraries at competitive prices, but to make it difficult for library patrons to GET those books by requiring that they physically get them...

So, with paper books I put a 40 or 50 on reserve, and the library transfers a bunch from wherever they are, and I go in and pick up a dozen or so and I'm good for 3 weeks... BUT, with e-books I can have all of FIVE, yes FIVE lousy titles on reserve, and they dribble in at random intervals so I'm running to the library to get one lousy title? Yeah, that's a system that'll REALLY endear me to the publishers for coming up with something that stupid...

Currently, like the previous poster with Simon & Schuster, I've refused to buy ANYTHING from Penguin since they refuse to support libraries. There are plenty of non-Penguin books out there.

Unfortunately, my respect for authors that are part of Penguin has taken a hit since they've got to know they're attached to such an avaricious publisher. But, then, perhaps they too don't want their e-books in libraries.

[crich70]

I think it's a non-issue issue myself. They accept our money in return for a product. The fact that the product is digital shouldn't invalidate the idea that we own our copies of the media in question. If I buy a music file from a vendor I'm going to save it to long term storage like a DVD or CD so that I can have it to play back when I wish. Likewise if I download a book from somewhere (either free PD or paid purchase) I consider that copy to be my property. The only difference between a digital copy of a book and a pbook copy is the ease of making a copy of it to then upload to a torrent. You can't do that with a pbook copy of a book. Mind I don't say that it's ok for someone to upload a copy of a new book to the net and therefore cut the author out of his/her rightful payment. Just that it's easy to do the one and not the other. Libraries exist to provide the people with access to media that they wouldn't have access to any other way. I can't afford to buy a lot of expensive books, but I can borrow them from the library to see which ones I might want to add to my personal collection. I've always thought that the idea of "if you pay for it it's yours" was one that was firmly established. If you buy something from me I don't have the right to take it back again. I've relinquished ownership of that item. Ebooks should be the same way as everything else in that regard.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Can you provide a link to the eBook portal of a library in one of those countries?

The leading German library service provider is Onleihe.de; it works pretty much the way Overdrive does in the US. It's the libraries that decide which books to licence, but I don't think there's a comprehensive list for you to review. Most German ebooks should be available somewhere, but it must be understood that German publishers don't really seem to like ebooks all that much (yet), so a (rapidly decreasing, but still not insignificant) number of books are never published electronically in the first place. That said, libraries generally have the right to buy and provide their patrons with all media, be it books, videos, music or software. Publishers receive additional compensation for this compulsory licensing.

You previously endorsed a service requiring one-chapter-at-a-time downloads.

I wouldn't really call that an endorsement; it was merely showing that there are publishers who do issue campus-wide licenses, and without DRM to boot. It's early days, but I still think desperately trying to mimic the "one patron per book at any one time" model of yesteryear is ridiculous when dealing with digital media.

My point is that friction in return for eBook borrowing is inescapable, even for a highly pro-patron librarian.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree here. Speaking about removing friction, our collection management has recently taken a (for us) novel approach: if you are looking for a book that we don't have in our collection yet, we'll happily buy it and let you have it first (certain conditions apply). It's still much cheaper than buying hundreds of books on the off-chance that somebody, someday might want to read them.

[latepaul]

The problem with saying you "own" an ebook is that there's nothing tangible to own. A copy of a file isn't a unique distinct object.

Let's start with paper books (because ISTM that this notion of owning an ebook usually comes by analogy with paper books). There are two things you can own relating to a paper book - first is the object itself, the bound collection of sheets of paper. The second is the rights to the contents, the story or information. Unfortunately we tend to refer to both as a "book" as in "pass me that book from the shelf" as well as "I just wrote a book about sparkly vampires". The former could be an empty notebook with blank pages and the later could only exist on a PC hard-drive.

So when you buy a paper book what do you buy and what do you own? The physical object. You can do what you like with it. You can lend it to people, you can sell it on, you can keep it whereever you like, you can destroy it if you want. What you definitely do not own is the rights to the contents. You can't make copies of it, except by permission of the rights-owner or by exceptions to copyright allowed by law (Fair Use/Fair Dealing).

Now with ebooks there is still the intangible contents and the rights associated with it but what about the physical object? There is one but it's one you already own - it's your PC or reading device. So what is it that you've "bought"? Have you bought the rights to the contents of the book? No, you can't start publishing your own copies and selling them. The problem is that other than your device there's no discrete object to own. A file is an abstract concept, represented in the real world by a piece of computer memory, or a pattern of bytes on a hard-drive, memory card or storage device. Also any time you access it you are copying at least parts of it. So at any one time there are probably multiple copies of that file - which is the discrete object I own?, all of them? I created these copies (including the very first download) by my actions, so if I can "own" a copy of a file that I myself create then surely I can create new copies deliberately and because I now own them I can give them to others? If I can't do what I like with the copies I create then I don't really own them do I?

And to put that into the context of this thread "I" could be a library with thousands of potential lenders. If the library truly owned an ebook then it could lend it out as many times as it liked to as many people for as long as it liked. It could give it away or re-sell it.

The reality is that ebooks are different to paper books. In one you buy the physical media, and are licensed to use the content on that media. In the other you merely copy the contents onto your already existing media. In both cases you own the media (paper, device) but not the rights to the contents.[*]

So whatever the solution is for libraries it revolves around getting the right licensing terms from the publishers. It does not involve "realizing" that they "own" the ebooks they paid for and then flouting copyright law.


([*]In actual fact you get more rights with an ebook because with a paper book you don't get the right to make X number of copies. Of course the fact is you lose some utility - ability to lend etc - but that comes from the difference in the media not the rights. It's not that you have more rights with a paper book it's that most people are more willing to lend it because it's less valuable than an ereader and doesn't deprive you of reading other books whilst it's gone.)

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by latepaul

The problem with saying you "own" an ebook is that there's nothing tangible to own. A copy of a file isn't a unique distinct object.
..

Of course there is. The file itself.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Of course there is. The file itself.

A file is not a tangible object. Can you give me a file that you own without either a) giving me the media it's stored on or b) making a copy?

[HarryT]

A file isn't tangible; it's just a collection of data. You can only give it to someone else by making a copy of it, and that's why things like eBooks lending and selling get so messy - copyright law gets involved, which it doesn't when you lend someone a paperback book.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by latepaul

A file is not a tangible object. Can you give me a file that you own without either a) giving me the media it's stored on or b) making a copy?

Which has nothing to do with the fact that an ebook is a tangible object.

You can copy paper books as well.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A file isn't tangible; it's just a collection of data. You can only give it to someone else by making a copy of it, and that's why things like eBooks lending and selling get so messy - copyright law gets involved, which it doesn't when you lend someone a paperback book.

Wrong, Harry. Just because you can easily copy it doesn't mean it is intangible.

But it is definitely the ease of copying that is causing the issue with copyright.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Wrong, Harry. Just because you can easily copy it doesn't mean it is intangible.

Of course it does. The definition of the word "intangible" is "incapable of being perceived by the sense of touch". You can't touch a file - only the media on which it's stored - therefore by definition it is intangible.

But it is definitely the ease of copying that is causing the issue with copyright.

It's the not ease (or otherwise) of copying that's the issue, but that fact that the only way to give someone an eBook is to make a copy of the file. Whereas with a paper book, you print 1000 copies, and only those 1000 exist. They can be passed around, bought, sold, whatever, but no additional copies of the book come into being as a result of any of those activities.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

For me this is not, and never has been, the issue. The actual issue is this: The mistaken belief that purchasing an ebook is purchasing some kind of license. Purchasing an ebook is purchasing an actual product. Once this is finally realized, most of these other issues will vanish....

A license is a product. Although the license can restrict what you do with the ebook it cannot (in most jurisdictions) restrict your ability to transfer the license itself. Note that this applies to a transfer, i.e. one license=one copy. That is (should be) legal. The legality of modifying the ebook to enable transfer (e.g. removing encryption or changing the file type) is yet to be decided in the courts. As far as that goes the legality of a license term restricting your right to transfer the license has mixed precedents-but generally those terms have been ruled illegal.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Of course it does. The definition of the word "intangible" is "incapable of being perceived by the sense of touch". You can't touch a file - only the media on which it's stored - therefore by definition it is intangible.



....

Wrong again. The definition of "intangible" is 1. Incapable of being perceived by the senses.

Which simply is not true of a ebook or a file, it is stored as a set of physical changes on a storage medium which is certainly perceivable or you couldn't read it silly.

It's certainly as tangible as Andromedia or Tau Ceti, as opposed to tatooine.

I love playing word games with you Harry.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

....

It's the not ease (or otherwise) of copying that's the issue, but that fact that the only way to give someone an eBook is to make a copy of the file. Whereas with a paper book, you print 1000 copies, and only those 1000 exist. They can be passed around, bought, sold, whatever, but no additional copies of the book come into being as a result of any of those activities.

So you agree, it's the ease despite your lead-in.

I love arguing reality with you Harry.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Wrong again. The definition of "intangible" is 1. Incapable of being perceived by the senses.

Nope. If that's what your dictionary says, you need a better dictionary. It's from Latin "tangere" - to touch.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nope. If that's what your dictionary says, you need a better dictionary. It's from Latin "tangere" - to touch.

Wrong again. Carry on.

Things change, you can either come along or be left behind.

I love word games.