Classic It's official -- You can only loan a book out once.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by scveteran

Overpopulation doesn't have anything to do with the others that I can see. I will agree that the other things are a very big problem.

Really? In Catholic countries,or areas, the church has the power to tell women "no birth control". (except the rhythm method, and good luck with that.)

Overpopulation reduces the amount of resources available for all. Look at the starvation in Africa, and other places.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by scveteran

I have one question for you. What would there be it in for the authorss and publishers to allow unlimited lending of their works? Keep in mind that even if you agree to only lend the ebook out to one person at a time there is greatly increased risk of the books then being hacked and spread to everyone. Just because you might not do that, doesn't mean that the 32nd person you lent it to won't.

Also keep in mind that many books that you or the library lend are degraded to the point of being unusable after just a few loans. The ebook that you lend out repeatedly could be done hundreds of times with no degradation in quality. That would cut sales and profits.

If we want to keep having good books to read, then we need to make sure that authors and publishers continue to make money.

No no. We aren't arguing the rightness or wrongness of unlimited lending.

We're arguing the wording BN used in their release. Big difference.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Really? In Catholic countries,or areas, the church has the power to tell women "no birth control". (except the rhythm method, and good luck with that.)

Overpopulation reduces the amount of resources available for all. Look at the starvation in Africa, and other places.

I think that you are overestimating the effect of the Catholic Church here. There are many places around the world that have high birth rates that the Catholic Church has no influence over. I would even say that the vast majority of over population occurs in place where the Catholic Church has very little to no sway. It is just something that people blame on them because they have heard it so many times from enemies of the church. (Let me point out that I am not Catholic and find that is a truly stupid idea and I can find no support for the idea in the Bible. Then again, I said earlier that the main problem is stupidity.)

The cause for the starvation in Africa is NOT, repeat NOT, because of over population. It is because of constant warfare, poor agricultural practices, corruption, lack of education, and other stupidity. While a large part of Africa receives food subsidies from the West, they actually export agricultural products to receive much of their income. If they could manage their resources better they have the capability to feed not all of the continent but a large part of the rest of the world.

[eGeezer]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

...the word "limited" at the beginning would have made a huge difference.
... the wording fooled me, and until I read differently, I was under the impression you could lend books...like a library. Its a huge selling feature, and needed to be clearly stated from the gitgo.

I agree with Gramma on this. The wording is my only sticking point because it created the initial misunderstanding that, like a library, if you have one book you can loan it out, get it back, then loan it out again.

Personally, it never occurred to me that I might (or should) be able to loan it out multiple times at the same time.

But the big market in first-run movie downloads which were created with a cell phone video camera shows us that there is always someone out there with nothing better to do with their time than abuse the system.

I expect the feature would be meaningless to me should I buy one, but the misleading wording is still a withdrawal from the old trust bank.

On the other hand. It is marketing, and it has never been claimed that a marketeer had to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as a condition of employment.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

No no. We aren't arguing the rightness or wrongness of unlimited lending.

We're arguing the wording BN used in their release. Big difference.

I really don't think that we are arguing the wording so much as what people wanted when they saw that. You even said you thought you could lend like a library. I just think we all have lived with electronic media for too long to have that as a reasonable expectation.

I just think that anyone who saw that would or should know that the system will allow you to make lending an ebook possible but it would have major restrictions on it. There has been far too many stories in the news about people being sued for sharing copyrighted material that we all should know that this will partly be at the mercy of the author regardless of whether the system supports it or not.

Further, while the Nook is not super expensive, it costs enough that most adults would read through the fine print on what can and can not be done with the device. From what I see here, pretty much everyone knew that it would limit the loans before buying. The peope here in this thread found out from the B&N site that there were limits. So again how is that not providing the information.

Lastly, I don't remember ever seeing a product advertised that starts out mentioning the limits on a feature. They mention the feature, then the fine print gives you all the details.

[eGeezer]

Originally Posted by scveteran

Lastly, I don't remember ever seeing a product advertised that starts out mentioning the limits on a feature. They mention the feature, then the fine print gives you all the details.

But in this case, we had (and have) no access to the fine print because until one actually ships, the wording is just "allows lending". Because someone asked, we now have the "fine print". As was stated several times, had it said "allows limited lending", this thread wouldn't even exist.

As for product advertising not mentioning limits, when there could be a misunderstanding of the details by any reasonable person, after the big print shouts "FREE CABLE TV FOR LIFE", the size 2 font whispers "after payment of a $10,000 installation fee, non-transferable".

So, yes. Perhaps you aren't, but we are, talking about the wording.

While for many its not a deal-breaker, it still wouldn't have taken much to add one little word in the description to avoid the ill-feeling this thread represents.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by eGeezer

But in this case, we had (and have) no access to the fine print because until one actually ships, the wording is just "allows lending". Because someone asked, we now have the "fine print". As was stated several times, had it said "allows limited lending", this thread wouldn't even exist.

As for product advertising not mentioning limits, when there could be a misunderstanding of the details by any reasonable person, after the big print shouts "FREE CABLE TV FOR LIFE", the size 2 font whispers "after payment of a $10,000 installation fee, non-transferable".

So, yes. Perhaps you aren't, but we are, talking about the wording.

While for many its not a deal-breaker, it still wouldn't have taken much to add one little word in the description to avoid the ill-feeling this thread represents.

I am sorry to disagree with you but, I really don't think your argument holds any water. In this country the standard is what a reasonable person would think. And I believe that any reasonable person should realize that there are going to be pretty severe limits on this.

In addition, following the info here, it does appear that B&N had provided the info before anyone could have ordered one. If that is the case, then I don't think there is any reason to complain.

Again, this is MO.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by scveteran

I am sorry to disagree with you but, I really don't think your argument holds any water. In this country the standard is what a reasonable person would think. And I believe that any reasonable person should realize that there are going to be pretty severe limits on this.

In addition, following the info here, it does appear that B&N had provided the info before anyone could have ordered one. If that is the case, then I don't think there is any reason to complain.

Again, this is MO.

Hard to know what country you are talking about since you don't have a location specified. But no matter that, the initial wording was misleading and likely intentionally -- and that idea is supported particularly by the evasive answering that followed specific questions wrt lending.

Absolutely there it reason to complain. It's called TRUTH IN ADVERTISING.

[eGeezer]

Originally Posted by scveteran

I am sorry to disagree with you...

I agree. You SHOULD be sorry to disagree. The "fine print" came out before anyone got one only because people kept badgering BN to answer the question with more than a quote of the vague FAQ "answer".

You are absolutely correct, however, that in this country (and I arrogantly assume the U.S., cuz that's where I am) that the standard is what any reasonable person would expect. I am a reasonable person, and I suspect many of the people in MB are reasonable people.

I fully expected something along the lines that you could loan a book out more than once to more than one person, but only to one person at a time. If we then found it was limited to twice, we would have been a little disappointed that it wasn't more, but not overly disturbed and the thread would have been shorter.

If we had found it was limited to 3 times, this thread would have been a LOT shorter -- and filled mostly with people saying, "No big deal. 3 times is more than enuff. Most paperbacks don't last thru many more than that many reads."

We ARE smart enuff to realize after a little thot that infinite loans would be an unreasonable expectation. We are also smart enuff to recognize when an advertiser tried to pull the wool over our eyes and it didn't work.

And all we are saying now is that if BN had included "limited" in their advertising, there may have been some grumbling about HOW limited, but not 68 posts (69 now that I have posted this one, and 70 when you answer to tell me I am still wrong IYO).

That's okay, I still gave you Karma points cuz your post gave me a chance to up my post count.

[mrscoach]

Originally Posted by scveteran

I am sorry to disagree with you but, I really don't think your argument holds any water. In this country the standard is what a reasonable person would think. And I believe that any reasonable person should realize that there are going to be pretty severe limits on this.

In addition, following the info here, it does appear that B&N had provided the info before anyone could have ordered one. If that is the case, then I don't think there is any reason to complain.

Again, this is MO.

If you look at the BN boards, you will see many people who did order before the lending policy was clarified. There are all sorts of posts by people who felt deceived. I feel we are all reasonable people, and we all believed we would be able to loan a book more than once. I sure thought that would have to be the policy.
And, no, I did not preorder, and the lending policy doesn't bother me other than they actively seemed to try to hide what the policy was.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by scveteran

I am sorry to disagree with you but, I really don't think your argument holds any water. In this country the standard is what a reasonable person would think. And I believe that any reasonable person should realize that there are going to be pretty severe limits on this.

Why? There are no limits on how often I can loan out my printed books bought from B&N. So if they've come up with a way to prevent me from reading my book when I've handed it to someone else--which is how paper works--why should I assume they'd limit it more than "when someone else has it, you can't use it?"

A "reasonable person" can certainly assume the phrase "loaning permitted" doesn't mean "one time to one person." Libraries loan books, including ebooks, to many people, with the only limitation being one reader at a time per purchase. Why would anyone assume this would be drastically different from that?

[kindlekitten]

what the elf said

[eGeezer]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

what the elf said

What the cat said.

But also, while after some thought the reasonable person would come to realize there would be SOME limits, I don't agree he/she would initially assume "severe limits".

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by eGeezer

I agree. You SHOULD be sorry to disagree. The "fine print" came out before anyone got one only because people kept badgering BN to answer the question with more than a quote of the vague FAQ "answer".

You are absolutely correct, however, that in this country (and I arrogantly assume the U.S., cuz that's where I am) that the standard is what any reasonable person would expect. I am a reasonable person, and I suspect many of the people in MB are reasonable people.

I fully expected something along the lines that you could loan a book out more than once to more than one person, but only to one person at a time. If we then found it was limited to twice, we would have been a little disappointed that it wasn't more, but not overly disturbed and the thread would have been shorter.

If we had found it was limited to 3 times, this thread would have been a LOT shorter -- and filled mostly with people saying, "No big deal. 3 times is more than enuff. Most paperbacks don't last thru many more than that many reads."

We ARE smart enuff to realize after a little thot that infinite loans would be an unreasonable expectation. We are also smart enuff to recognize when an advertiser tried to pull the wool over our eyes and it didn't work.

And all we are saying now is that if BN had included "limited" in their advertising, there may have been some grumbling about HOW limited, but not 68 posts (69 now that I have posted this one, and 70 when you answer to tell me I am still wrong IYO).

That's okay, I still gave you Karma points cuz your post gave me a chance to up my post count.

I want to say one thing first. While writing on the Internet is a great way to communicate, it does has its problems. The biggest is that it is hard to sometimes get the feeling of person speaking. So I want to make sure everyone knows I am not calling anyone unreasonable or stupid.

The reasonable person test is used partly because all of us can become unreasonable about about a specific topic at times. Each and every person in the world has opinions that we can develop that makes great sense to us and maybe a few others, but don't make sense to most people. So they are looking at what they think the common adult would think.

In this case, I think that most people would agree with me. Of course, I could be wrong.


You said: "We ARE smart enuff to realize after a little thot that infinite loans would be an unreasonable expectation." To me that proves my argument that a reasonable person would realize that there has to be limits on it. Therefore there is no reason to have the word limited loaning; because you already know that part. It is the same thing to me as DirecTV saying in their ads that all you need is their service to get the best in enertainment. We already know that you still need the TV so there is no reason to mention that.

Of course these are my OPINIONS. Also, again I would like to point out that I have not meant to insult anyone in comments. If anyone has been offended, I ask for your forgiveness.

[mrscoach]

Somehow the Seinfeld episode where Elaine is deciding if guys are 'Sponge worthy' because of the lack of the Today sponges comes to mind. With one loan only on books we have to think hard before we lend a book to someone.

Are they "loan worthy"? What if we find someone later that we like even more and want to lend to them, but have already used our one chance? Will they forgive us for not keeping our books pure? Will they still respect us?

Okkaaayyy, I think I just scared myself with the whole thought. Fortunately my hubby doesn't read, that's why he's a math teacher. He wouldn't care if I loaned all my books to some other guy.

But I still say it is reasonable to think that BN saying the nook has the ability to lend books doesn't mean once and once only. Why not just say, "pick out one book in the entire life of the nook and you can loan it out, once, then forget it, no more loans" Makes as much sense to me.

Not that I'm saying YOU are being unreasonable, scveteran. I can see your pov, I just don't agree. I also don't think you are saying WE are being unreasonable, either. This is all just a good debate.