HarperCollins to libraries: we will nuke your ebooks after 26 checkouts

[Giggleton]

What exactly does it mean to be reading a book?

Books are filled with information, we interpret that information and create knowledge, or something to that effect.

At any rate, reading a book, browsing the internet, watching a DVD, asking a librarian a question, IT'S ALL THE SAME. The transfer of knowledge between minds.

Librarians have dropped the ball, this overdrive/harpercollins thing should never have been allowed to occur. It is now up to each and everyone of us to become each others librarians.

Create collections of your favorite works and share them with everyone you can! Torrents are pretty good for this purpose, but I expect something new to pop up presently, specifically for books.

[Shopaholic]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Librarians have dropped the ball, this overdrive/harpercollins thing should never have been allowed to occur. It is now up to each and everyone of us to become each others librarians.

How do you figure 'they' dropped the ball? They weren't given a choice in the matter. They were told that this is what we (HC) are doing. Period. End of story. Like it or lump it. It wasn't something up for negotiation between publisher and libraries.

[Giggleton]

Librarians of the past have seen this coming, (the tech to erase ebooks) And so they should have never accepted the devil's bargain.

It is now up to you and me to distribute knowledge in every way that we can.

[elcreative]

He's off again... ah, well another thread killed... bye

[pietrocrazy]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Librarians of the past have seen this coming, (the tech to erase ebooks) And so they should have never accepted the devil's bargain.

It is now up to you and me to distribute knowledge in every way that we can.

What exactly do you think librarians should have done differently?

Honestly it just looks like you're trying to blame somebody, and "librarians" are an easy scapegoat.

[voracious71]

I go to the library every Saturday, and people of all ages still take out books, myself among them. It's probably blasphemy around here, but I still read DTBs.

I don't think paper books will ever go away completely. And as much as I love my ereaders, I wouldn't want them to..

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by pietrocrazy

What exactly do you think librarians should have done differently?

Honestly it just looks like you're trying to blame somebody, and "librarians" are an easy scapegoat.

Librarians are the keepers of the flame. What they should have done and can still do is reject the notion of copyright and allow the public to upload anything and everything to their servers.

Curation can be handled organically by the patrons of the library.

I love librarys and visit mine often!! Please do support your local librarys in every way that you can.

[KingAl]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Librarians are the keepers of the flame. What they should have done and can still do is reject the notion of copyright and allow the public to upload anything and everything to their servers.

Then they would be hit by huge lawsuits which they would lose.

[pietrocrazy]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Librarians are the keepers of the flame. What they should have done and can still do is reject the notion of copyright and allow the public to upload anything and everything to their servers.

Any librarian who does this will be fired because any library that refuses to respect copyright with be sued out of existence.

Really, what's with this all-or-nothing attitude people have about copyright?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pietrocrazy

Any librarian who does this will be fired because any library that refuses to respect copyright with be sued out of existence.

Exactly how are libraries respecting copyright when they lend books? I thought that was a legal dis-respecting of copyright.

[spellbanisher]

Lending books is not a dis-respect of copyright. You can lend a book you own, you just can't make copies of it without the copyright holders consent. Digital books are different though, because they are not owned by the user. When you purchase an ebook (or any digital media) you are licensing the right to use the book under certain conditions, such as being only able to read it on a specific device. I might be wrong, but I don't think libraries need deals with publishers to lend out physical books.

[Giggleton]

If a large enough consortium of libraries decided to abandon copyright, a lawsuit would be meaningless, not solely because libraries are public institutions, but also because this action would mandate a sea change towards the view of copyright in general.

Public Libraries should be driving copyright policy changes and distributing knowledge, would you agree that lately it seems that the profit motive has been driving copyright law?

Should Public Libraries become publishers of commercial content? Stranger things have happened.

[pietrocrazy]

Originally Posted by tompe

Exactly how are libraries respecting copyright when they lend books? I thought that was a legal dis-respecting of copyright.

Giggleton was suggesting that libraries have some kind of open servers from which anyone can download anything freely. It sounds a lot like Napster, which as we all know, was sued out of existence (at least in its original form). Even if you don't like copyright, you can't just pretend that it doesn't exist and expect everyone around you to act accordingly.

I certainly don't agree with HarperCollins in this, I think it will backlash for them and end up encouraging ebook piracy, which is already on the increase. And making it harder for people to read HarperCollins books is not going to encourage very many people to buy HarperCollins books, so I suspect their sales will suffer as well (though it's too early to see how much).

[pietrocrazy]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

If a large enough consortium of libraries decided to abandon copyright, a lawsuit would be meaningless, not solely because libraries are public institutions, but also because this action would mandate a sea change towards the view of copyright in general.

I agree with you about the necessity for copyright reform, but I doubt libraries have as much power as you think they do. For one thing, libraries' being public institutions doesn't prevent them from being sued, at least in the US. With state and county budgets across the country already suffering greatly because of the recession, I doubt any library would really open itself up to such devastating lawsuits. Let's not forget we live in a bureaucracy.

Secondly, libraries, even if they were able to throw around their full weight, don't have nearly as much weight as you think they do, relative to every single other industry that depends on copyright and other so-called "intellectual property rights" and would defend them with every cent they have. Libraries don't really stand a chance in this hypothetical battle.

[spellbanisher]

Though I agree with many of the points you make pietrocrazy, I think if publishers and other entertainment companies stated suing libraries there would be significant public backlash, and it might affect the way people think about copyright. People may not use libraries very much anymore, but it is instilled in us from a very young age that the library is a benign and almost sacred institution. Publishers would have to spend a lot of money to try to transform public affection towards libraries into antipathy. Corporations don't like to confront public institutions directly. Its runs too much risk of public backlash or of incurring a stigma of being acompany that will do anything to further its bottomline. It would also make them look like bullies. What most companies instead do is use their paid politicians to slowly bleed public industries dry of funding. Lobbying is cheaper and more effective than lawsuits. They also use their lackeys in the media to tarnish and undermine the belief in the necessity of public industries.