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

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by pietrocrazy

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.

Perhaps we should be asking ourselves if it is right to be suing a library for the dissemination of knowledge, the reason for the libraries existence.

I think I will have to go ask my local librarian about this.

[pietrocrazy]

Originally Posted by 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.

You definitely make a good point about possible public backlash. I just tend to be a little more cynical; I expect that people would be really upset for a while and then forget it like they do so many other things. But I don't think it would ever even come to a lawsuit, because, like you said, there are so many other pressures in place to prevent it from ever becoming necessary.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Perhaps we should be asking ourselves if it is right to be suing a library for the dissemination of knowledge, the reason for the libraries existence.

I admire your idealism. Unfortunately, common sense doesn't stop lawsuits.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by pietrocrazy

You definitely make a good point about possible public backlash. I just tend to be a little more cynical; I expect that people would be really upset for a while and then forget it like they do so many other things. But I don't think it would ever even come to a lawsuit, because, like you said, there are so many other pressures in place to prevent it from ever becoming necessary.



I admire your idealism. Unfortunately, common sense doesn't stop lawsuits.

I also tend to be a little cynical, but most major companies like to stay under the radar when it comes to bad publicity. Most of the time people ignore big issues, or are apathetic. People also tend to have short memories, but if a company or industry is repeatedly generating bad publicity it could damage their reputation and hence profits in the long term. Additionally, it would provide ammunition for proponents of copyright reform.

Then again, hundreds of academics and economists, from conservative economists like Milton Friedman to liberal economists like Joseph Stiglitz, came out against the Sonny-Bonno Copyright Extension Act, and nobody cared. Hundreds of editorials were written decrying the act in major newspapers and nobody cared. So maybe you are right.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

What [librarians] 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.

Can we please be serious here for a moment? You might not like it, I certainly don't like it in it's current form, but copyright is here to stay. Deal with it.

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

Crowdsouring, hm? Never gonna work.

Originally Posted by tompe

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

Certainly not. The copyright act (at least in my country) recognizes the importance of lending libraries and has numerous sections dealing with them. It's all on the up and up.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Can we please be serious here for a moment? You might not like it, I certainly don't like it in it's current form, but copyright is here to stay. Deal with it.

Now that's just patently ridiculous, if I don't like it and you don't like it, who likes it? And why does it exist?

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Now that's just patently ridiculous, if I don't like it and you don't like it, who likes it?

Who cares? It's a fact. And you don't have to "like" a law for it to exist and be enforced.

And why does it exist?

This is probably not the venue to ponder subtle questions of legal philosophy, so I hope to be excused for fully embracing the positivist point of view here for a second: Congress [replace with law-making entity of your choice] made it. End of story.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Who cares? It's a fact. And you don't have to "like" a law for it to exist and be enforced.

This is probably not the venue to ponder subtle questions of legal philosophy, so I hope to be excused from fully embracing the positivist point of view here for a second: Congress [replace with law-making entity of your choice] made it. End of story.

No, but I have to "dislike" a law for it to be abolished. Laws are made by man and so they can be unmade by man, nothing is eternal, especially not copyright law.

[Marseille]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Now that's just patently ridiculous, if I don't like it and you don't like it, who likes it? And why does it exist?

I like it. It's led to vastly higher quality entertainment than would be capable of being produced without it. The level of investment you could obtain in media like movies or video games would slashed to a teeny tiny fraction of what it is now if there were no copyright law and anyone could legally sell what was invested in without cutting investors in for a cut.

Just because something needs reform doesn't make it bad. Example: healthcare. Do you want to end healthcare or fix it?

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

Then again, hundreds of academics and economists, from conservative economists like Milton Friedman to liberal economists like Joseph Stiglitz, came out against the Sonny-Bonno Copyright Extension Act, and nobody cared. Hundreds of editorials were written decrying the act in major newspapers and nobody cared. So maybe you are right.

Hard to fight Mickey Mouse!

[Hellmark]

Most people do not care about things unless it directly effects them. Copyright for the most part only effects those who have the copyrights, so thats why you have the companies fighting so hard to keep them and have them last longer, and no one else really doing anything.

[carpetmojo]

If you only use a library to get books, it is faintly feasible the internet might take over this function, but all books would have to be available, everyone would need a device & know how to use it , the support network would need to be vast, and we all would need to pay taxes to support the whole model.And you still wouldn't have the whole experience and history that is the library.

Culturally, surely the internet is simply an organ of dissemination and manipulation of facts and opinions. It involves no face-to-face interaction, no widespread arts and" humanities" creativity.
Bit like, for me, a dry bread, steamed bacon sandwhich, with no brown sauce or salt of any kind !

It is extremely useful, like an encyclopaedia is, handy for convenience, in communication and carrying out more and more tasks...................Now, I would be lost without it.
Well, praps not that bad, but certain things would be a hassle, some things I'd miss.
But it is essentially sterile, a tool.
When we attempt to assign more meaningful qualities to it, a simple face to face conversation between 2 people can be seen to be an incredibly complex, important, difficult, wonderful thing.

A visit to see/touch a sculpture, see a picture, experience a beautiful view, watch a play/film, that's cultural.
A picture or sculpture, say, created online, isn't as full, complete, as one created in reality by an artist and shown in physical reality.

That's why, despite loving my ereader, I still love the experience of a real book, and a squidgy bacon sandwhich.
That's why I think it would be a sad day if we all started, basically, to make the internet more than it is.

Because that would mean we had lost all the rest.

Including the Library.

[dkperez]

I've read through this thread, and I suspect I'm missing something simple....

HC has put forth a policy that will be extremely detrimental to patron's ability to enjoy ebooks from their libraries. Right? Why did HC do this? To make more MONEY. Bottom line. They don't care about happy customers. They don't care about happy authors. They care about getting as much money for as little effort as possible.

So, if enough people are sufficiently incensed by HCs action to refuse to patronize their product, they'll CHANGE the policy. If the libraries don't get HC books, and people don't know about HC titles, sales go down, less money comes in, and HOPEFULLY somebody at HC with a couple brain cells to rub together fires the moron that came up with this disgusting policy, and fixes it......

Of course, it'd be really nice if some of the major media cared about such things and it was highlighted on the nightly news or 60 Minutes or such, but I have little hope that any of the talking heads even read, much less care about a publisher screwing the library system to the wall...

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

I like it. It's led to vastly higher quality entertainment than would be capable of being produced without it. The level of investment you could obtain in media like movies or video games would slashed to a teeny tiny fraction of what it is now if there were no copyright law and anyone could legally sell what was invested in without cutting investors in for a cut.

I liked Avatar in 3D I'll give you that, I don't see how abolishing copyright would not have allowed that move to be made though. If anything, allowing the creators of that movie to more freely sample ideas might have made the movie better.

Abolishing copyright would enforce a system where nothing is capable of being sold, at least not digital goods like books, movies, video games. You would still be able to sell things of course, and people would probably still buy them, but they would also be able to get them for free.

Abolishing copyright would probably bring more people back to the theaters, for unique experiences such as Avatar 3D, at some point we will all have 3D televisions in our homes etc.. But then Hollywood will just come up with some other unique experience for us to go and see.

Abolishing copyright will create new systems of interaction between creators and users, systems that are incapable of being known today under the current copyright regime.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by dkperez

HC has put forth a policy that will be extremely detrimental to patron's ability to enjoy ebooks from their libraries. Right? Why did HC do this? To make more MONEY. Bottom line. They don't care about happy customers. They don't care about happy authors. They care about getting as much money for as little effort as possible.

So, if enough people are sufficiently incensed by HCs action to refuse to patronize their product, they'll CHANGE the policy. If the libraries don't get HC books, and people don't know about HC titles, sales go down, less money comes in, and HOPEFULLY somebody at HC with a couple brain cells to rub together fires the moron that came up with this disgusting policy, and fixes it......

As much as I dislike HC's new library policy, I fail to see what's so awful about trying to make money to stay in business. It's really not evil to attempt to turn a profit.

[tompe]

I have a hard time to see why people is upset. A lot of countries have a system were the library pay a certain amount each time somebody borrow a book. In Sweden for example they pay $0.20 each time. That would be around $5 for 26 times (of course you have to buy the paper book or ebook also). Maybe a bit less than for the Harper Collins eBooks but it seems to me that people are complaining about the principle and not the actual cost.