Publishers vs. Libraries: An E-Book Tug of War

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by carld

Except for checkout limits (26 checkouts then you have to buy it again), and geographic limits (you can't loan books to people who would normally be outside your service area).

ONE publisher has such a restrction. Geo limits are a function of agreements with authors, usually. Also, some local governments may just not allow ebook lending outside their jurisdiction to non-local tax payers. You pays for what you gets.

[Blue Tyson]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Well, in the real world. it takes time to negotiate industry wide agreements. Only in some fantasy geek world does everyone get on board with multi million dollar agreements overnight.

In any case, there is no evidence that publishers are moving to RESTRICT library lending.

Yeah, but in the 21st century actual real world, companies that take several years to get things done are called losers.

Certainly such agreements might take weeks or months - but given years have passed already, then they'd be losers.

[Blue Tyson]

Originally Posted by stonetools

In any case, there is no evidence that publishers are moving to RESTRICT library lending.

You'd be the only person that calls 'not allowing it' something other than a restriction.

[Kali Yuga]

IMO, a lot of people are looking at this completely backwards -- including both critics and the publishers.

On a fundamental level, libraries do in fact cost sales. The reason why we loan out books anyway is not because it promotes future sales, but because access to reading materials is a public good. It is beneficial for society as a whole to provide this resource to the public.

The ability of patrons to pay, or that it cuts into sales, should not be a consideration. The real issue is: Who has to pay to fund this public good?

The answer really ought to be: The libraries.

They are public institutions, they are funded by the public, they are overseen by and answerable to the public, and thus the costs of providing a public good should be handled by them -- rather than as a somewhat vague and uncredited form of taxation on the companies.

As such, the Harper Collins approach seems to be the best solution, perhaps with a slightly more generous number of initial lendings (e.g. 30 or 35). We can develop a fair idea of how many sales are lost per loan, and use that as a basis for the library's payments. It should be done in a format-neutral method, which is Overdrive's goal. Libraries should accept they cost publishers sales; publishers should accept they are part of providing a public benefit, but should also not be punished for their role either.

I.e. everyone needs to understand that if we want to provide this public good for our citizens, then the critical job here is to support the libraries.

[SeaBookGuy]

The limited lending formula works for blockbusters (Stephen King, etc.) with a huge initial demand, where a couple of years down the road the library finds itself with more copies than needed. Rather than X loans, it'd better having the book as one year, and then a (lower) fee to either keep the copy for good, or opt out and remove it altogether from that library's collection.

[ATDrake]

Originally Posted by stonetools

THe point of course, is that if your word meant anything, you would comply with the Smashwords T& C and not send copies of what you bought to others in violation of the author's license terms.

You do realize that the example I provided was for when an AUTHOR'S OWN WORK ON AMAZON contained a Smashwords-like T&C NOTICE INSIDE THE BOOK telling you to respect their work by buying ONE COPY PER READER, regardless of what Amazon's device limits ostensibly allowed?

And I was pointing out exactly that vs Fbone's automatic assumption that each and every book could be shared on up to 6 "friends and family" devices (unlimited with B&N purchases)?

Originally Posted by stonetools

FBone is completely right, the amazon T&C as written is more liberal than SW's- if you actually stand by your word
But hey, SW is DRM free and that trumps everything.

Huh. Apparently you didn't read that far before you decided it was a good platform for you to launch a attempted chastising finger-wag.

And that despite the direct evidence against in the very words of mine that you quoted right before you went straight into your ~you should be ashamed of yourself; trying to justify what you conveniently want to do as trumping everything that the rights-holder/retail provider says everyone should do with the item in question~ *tsk-tsking*.

Here, I'll quote it again so you can actually read it this time:

Originally Posted by ATDrake

And that really depends on the assumption that whoever puts up the book in question will automatically sanction you to have the allowed 6 devices include other peoples' devices.

Bonus quotage from the follow-up passage which comprise the very last two paragraph at the bottom of my post:

Originally Posted by ATDrake

If one really respected that boilerplated request as much as one would the SW/FW T&C, then one would then pay for extra copies on Amazon as well, to comply with that.

At least if you bought the old Smashwords edition of her book, you got all your copies DRM-free.

Notice the plurals. Copies. And paid-for extra copies, no less.

And you keep telling everyone to read to the end of that library article and consider things in context before doing jumping to conclusion-based rants...

~Perhaps you should be ashamed of yourself; trying to justify what you conveniently want to do as trumping everything that you say everyone should do with an item in question.~ *tsk-tsk*

[carld]

Originally Posted by stonetools

ONE publisher has such a restrction. Geo limits are a function of agreements with authors, usually. Also, some local governments may just not allow ebook lending outside their jurisdiction to non-local tax payers. You pays for what you gets.

ONE publisher for now, but it's still a publisher restriction, and we don't know yet if it's going to be picked up by other publishers. Besides, you insisted that there was NO EVIDENCE of publishers restricting lending, when there clearly is.

Are you sure about the author agreement thing? Do most publishing contracts these days cover geographic distribution of ebooks inside the US? Internationally yes, but I've never heard of such a thing domestically.

And local tax policies have nothing to do with geo restrictions placed on ebooks by publishers.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by ATDrake

You do realize that the example I provided was for when an AUTHOR'S OWN WORK ON AMAZON contained a Smashwords-like T&C NOTICE INSIDE THE BOOK telling you to respect their work by buying ONE COPY PER READER, regardless of what Amazon's device limits ostensibly allowed?

And I was pointing out exactly that vs Fbone's automatic assumption that each and every book could be shared on up to 6 "friends and family" devices (unlimited with B&N purchases)?



Huh. Apparently you didn't read that far before you decided it was a good platform for you to launch a attempted chastising finger-wag.

And that despite the direct evidence against in the very words of mine that you quoted right before you went straight into your ~you should be ashamed of yourself; trying to justify what you conveniently want to do as trumping everything that the rights-holder/retail provider says everyone should do with the item in question~ *tsk-tsking*.

Here, I'll quote it again so you can actually read it this time:



Bonus quotage from the follow-up passage which comprise the very last two paragraph at the bottom of my post:



Notice the plurals. Copies. And paid-for extra copies, no less.

And you keep telling everyone to read to the end of that library article and consider things in context before doing jumping to conclusion-based rants...

~Perhaps you should be ashamed of yourself; trying to justify what you conveniently want to do as trumping everything that you say everyone should do with an item in question.~ *tsk-tsk*

In the end, all that's irrelevant to whether Amazon's T & C are more liberal about "sharing" a particular ebook with others than SW's-which was my point. But thanks for leading us around the mulberry bush.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by carld

ONE publisher for now, but it's still a publisher restriction, and we don't know yet if it's going to be picked up by other publishers. Besides, you insisted that there was NO EVIDENCE of publishers restricting lending, when there clearly is.

Are you sure about the author agreement thing? Do most publishing contracts these days cover geographic distribution of ebooks inside the US? Internationally yes, but I've never heard of such a thing domestically.

And local tax policies have nothing to do with geo restrictions placed on ebooks by publishers.

There is no evidence of publishers moving to put GREATER restrictions on library lending than what now exists, is what I should have said.
The facts are:

1. MOST publishers have no restrictions on ebook lending ( and there are thousands of publishers)

2. ONE publisher limits the number of lends per book.
3. TWO major publishers don't permit ebook lending of their properties, but are waiting to negotiate global agreements for library lending.
3. AFAIK, ALL of these publishers allow lending privileges on their pbooks- which are most of the books any library lends.

All of that does not constitute a movement by "publishers" to limit library lending-quite the contrary.
If you cannot understand why some local jurisdictions may not extend ebook lending privileges to non-tax payers..... I can't help you.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

IMO, a lot of people are looking at this completely backwards -- including both critics and the publishers.

On a fundamental level, libraries do in fact cost sales. The reason why we loan out books anyway is not because it promotes future sales, but because access to reading materials is a public good. It is beneficial for society as a whole to provide this resource to the public.

The ability of patrons to pay, or that it cuts into sales, should not be a consideration. The real issue is: Who has to pay to fund this public good?

The answer really ought to be: The libraries.

They are public institutions, they are funded by the public, they are overseen by and answerable to the public, and thus the costs of providing a public good should be handled by them -- rather than as a somewhat vague and uncredited form of taxation on the companies.

As such, the Harper Collins approach seems to be the best solution, perhaps with a slightly more generous number of initial lendings (e.g. 30 or 35). We can develop a fair idea of how many sales are lost per loan, and use that as a basis for the library's payments. It should be done in a format-neutral method, which is Overdrive's goal. Libraries should accept they cost publishers sales; publishers should accept they are part of providing a public benefit, but should also not be punished for their role either.

I.e. everyone needs to understand that if we want to provide this public good for our citizens, then the critical job here is to support the libraries.

What Kali Yuga said.

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by stonetools

But the publishers aren't making it harder. As i said above, if you read the article all the way through , most publishers are on board with ebook library loans and the two major publishers that aren't, are waiting to negotiate an industry wide standard for library lending.

That's why I said *if* - if YOU'D read my post "all the way through".

[ATDrake]

Originally Posted by stonetools

In the end, all that's irrelevant to whether Amazon's T & C are more liberal about "sharing" a particular ebook with others than SW's-which was my point.

Your point is based on something you made up, as the direct context (which you keep claiming is so important for understanding) for Fbone's own original statement which you used as a launching pad for your imaginary tangent was the exact same book being on Amazon and Smashwords.

And the particular book I pointed to just exactly that, a Smashwords book which was put on Amazon.

Originally Posted by Fbone

If both Amazon and SW have the same book at $2.99, some may select the DRM'd one at Amazon and let it sync and share with family members.
...
Yes, you have some format flexibility at SW and DRM-free but you may pay a premium for it $2.99 vs $5.98.

Originally Posted by stonetools

THe point of course, is that if your word meant anything, you would comply with the Smashwords T& C and not send copies of what you bought to others in violation of the author's license terms.
...
FBone is completely right, the amazon T&C as written is more liberal than SW's- if you actually stand by your word

Now, if I were to use your tactics and stuff your mouth with misinterpreting insinuations to create a strawman as you tried to do with me, then I'd ask if your word meant anything would you comply if "Amazon's T&C as written" were "more liberal" than the whatever "author's license terms" was and would "not send copies of what you bought to others" despite the "more liberal" device usage.

And then perhaps you just might have noticed that the statement I had made in response that if one respected said author's one-copy-per-reader-please license statement included in the very text of her book being sold on Amazon, then one would be shelling out the $5.98 on Amazon as well, and not just the hypothetical just $2.99 with DRM versus the $5.98 with no DRM at Smashwords.

And thus no savings and not just the posited price premium of SW vs. Amazon shopping, but DRM on both your Amazon purchases as well, which would not be the case if you had bought your two copies at Smashwords.

If you actually stand by your word, that is.

Because Amazon's actual T&C says:

Use of Digital Content. Upon your download of Digital Content and payment of any applicable fees (including applicable taxes), the Content Provider grants you a non-exclusive right to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Kindle or a Reading Application or as otherwise permitted as part of the Service, solely on the number of Kindles or Other Devices specified in the Kindle Store, and solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Digital Content is licensed, not sold, to you by the Content Provider. The Content Provider may include additional terms for use within its Digital Content. Those terms will also apply, but this Agreement will govern in the event of a conflict. Some Digital Content, such as Periodicals, may not be available to you through Reading Applications.

Limitations. Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense, or otherwise assign any rights to the Digital Content or any portion of it to any third party, and you may not remove or modify any proprietary notices or labels on the Digital Content. In addition, you may not bypass, modify, defeat, or circumvent security features that protect the Digital Content.

And yes, "Digital Content" does include the Amazon-purchased Kindle books, whether or not you have any of the devices or readers installed.

Originally Posted by stonetools

But thanks for leading us around the mulberry bush.

No, no, thank you. Not that you'll read this far.

[stonetools]

I read all the way to the end. Unfortunately, Amazon's T&C still allows multiple people to read on various devices. SW's T&C doesn't. Maybe it should, but it doesn't . Anyway, if you think you 've won, feel free to exult.

[ATDrake]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Unfortunately, Amazon's T&C still allows multiple people to read on various devices.

So multiple people don't count as the prohibited "any third party" one "may not" "distribute, sublicense, or otherwise assign" to because it's "solely for your personal use"?

There must be a lot of conjoined twins sharing their Kindle accounts.

[carld]

Originally Posted by stonetools

There is no evidence of publishers moving to put GREATER restrictions on library lending than what now exists, is what I should have said.

Well yes, if you can just dismiss past restrictions as not relevant then that becomes an easy point to support. The truth is ebook lending has gotten more restrictive as time has gone by. I see no reason why this trend won't continue.

Originally Posted by stonetools

All of that does not constitute a movement by "publishers" to limit library lending-quite the contrary.

To the contrary? How so? The fact that publishers have placed restrictions on ebook lending shows that there isn't a movement by publishers to place limits? How do you figure, and why put publishers in quotes?

Originally Posted by stonetools

If you cannot understand why some local jurisdictions may not extend ebook lending privileges to non-tax payers..... I can't help you.

If you refuse to read what I actually wrote, and have to call someone stupid as a result then I have nothing further to discuss with you. I didn't say I didn't understand it. I said local tax laws aren't relevant to restrictions publishers are placing on ebook lending and they aren't. They're a totally separate subject that has nothing to do with this one.

Tax laws may result in a similar situation where books can't be lent depending on where you live, but other than that it's utterly irrelevant to the discussion of restrictions ebook publishers are placing on libraries.