Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew H.
Why is it stupid? What is outdated about it?
|
Because it utterly fails to address the inherent change in the medium. "We've always done it that way, let's keep doing it", even though it's really not the same thing anymore. There is no
need to have "copies" of ebooks, restricting the possible numbers in concurrent circulation. This has purely financial reasons, trying to keep an outdated business model alive, and nothing that couldn't be addressed via some sort of agreement.
Don't get me wrong: I'm all for authors being paid and being able to make a living off their writing, I just don't think that what worked in the past isn't worth reconsidering.
Quote:
|
A number of big publishers don't allow libraries to lend their books at all;
|
Ve hav ways of making them. I'm kidding, but not much: most modern copyright acts (the US one probably not being among them) don't allow a publisher the right to refuse this, giving libraries the legal right to buy and provide any and all books to their patrons. They usually pay a small fee for the privilege, but it's not open to negotiation.
Quote:
|
No artificial scarcity means that everyone can download every book from a library and keep it forever.
|
They can already do that, seeing as all of the titles are out there on the internet. A library is just a legal alternative for the basically law-abiding. But why would you want to do that, instead of letting your library doing the organizing and storing, safe in the knowledge that you can get that book if and when you actually want to read it?
Quote:
|
And I think if they're not, the authors or publishers just won't participate in library lending.
|
I don't think we should have to ask them, and I'm glad that in my country we don't.