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

[wizwor]

I'm no fan of copyright law, but public libraries are nothing more than a loophole in this. My public library has DVD, VHS, and audio book sections that are MUCH more popular than the book section. There are copy machines which are used almost exclusively to violate copyright law. All at taxpayer expense.

The conditions that led to the creation of public libraries no longer exist. People should use Netflix, Blockbuster, Amazon, B&N, and other resources to acquire entertainment. The resources required to educate poor children can be found in the public schools.

[markbot]

the best way to pirate music could be to simply go to your local library and rip the CDs. this is highly unethical though..and against the law.

[Blue Tyson]

Originally Posted by wizwor

I'm no fan of copyright law, but public libraries are nothing more than a loophole in this. My public library has DVD, VHS, and audio book sections that are MUCH more popular than the book section. There are copy machines which are used almost exclusively to violate copyright law. All at taxpayer expense.

The conditions that led to the creation of public libraries no longer exist. People should use Netflix, Blockbuster, Amazon, B&N, and other resources to acquire entertainment. The resources required to educate poor children can be found in the public schools.

They'll certainly use other resources a lot more in your example here. Bittorrent, usenet, file lockers, irc, email, instant messenging, ftp...

Originally Posted by wizwor

I'm no fan of copyright law, but public libraries are nothing more than a loophole in this. My public library has DVD, VHS, and audio book sections that are MUCH more popular than the book section. There are copy machines which are used almost exclusively to violate copyright law. All at taxpayer expense.

Yeap, I sure see people lining up to use those copy machines in the library. Well, except I don't. If you're doing anything other than copying a few pages for research purposes (which is usually covered under fair use/fair dealing provisions) it turns out to be cheaper to just buy the thing. As for media, it is possible to view or listen to it in a couple of hours and libraries usually give you a week to do so. So why would you want to violate copyright law?

I highly doubt that libraries have a negative impact upon copyrights. If anything, they would discourage people from violating copyright laws since legal avenues are available to them.

[wizwor]

The impact is much bigger than copyright -- copyright is simply the most obvious problem. The libraries compete with commercial entities. How can blockbuster rent a movie for two bucks when the same DVD can be taken out of the library for free?

Does fair use cover copying of Consumer Reports ratings and reviews? RIAA sues people for downloading an album over the internet but has no problem with people ripping a cd borrored from their public library.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Blue Tyson

They'll certainly use other resources a lot more in your example here. Bittorrent, usenet, file lockers, irc, email, instant messenging, ftp...

I'm not that familiar with library computer use, but isn't all that activity logged? And can you actually install software on them? Seems like it would be a pretty stupid thing to do, but then *shrug* I really don't know.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by wizwor

How can blockbuster rent a movie for two bucks when the same DVD can be taken out of the library for free?

It can't, except in terms of what the library can afford to offer the community.

Libraries basically result in lost sales, and this is done as a public good.

Originally Posted by wizwor

Does fair use cover copying of Consumer Reports ratings and reviews?

No

Originally Posted by wizwor

RIAA sues people for downloading an album over the internet but has no problem with people ripping a cd borrored from their public library.

They do have a problem with it. They just can't do anything about it.

The CD standard was created years before the idea of international distribution of easy, free and 100% perfect digital copies entered anyone's mind.

[carld]

Originally Posted by wizwor

The impact is much bigger than copyright -- copyright is simply the most obvious problem. The libraries compete with commercial entities. How can blockbuster rent a movie for two bucks when the same DVD can be taken out of the library for free?

Does fair use cover copying of Consumer Reports ratings and reviews? RIAA sues people for downloading an album over the internet but has no problem with people ripping a cd borrored from their public library.

Edit: Then again, I don't think they ever sued anyone for downloading music, just for distributing it, so they might not pursue copiers.

Well, from my own experience the selection at my local library is really limited. My library gets one or two copies of a few new releases, and there are never very many to choose from. Half their collection is on VHS anyway, which mainly sits there gathering dust until someone wants a tape on roof repair or something. I don't think Blockbuster is in any danger from libraries.

I'm pretty sure if the RIAA could track and prove that people were taking CDs home and copying them, then they would in-fact sue (or would have, I'm not sure if they're still filing new suits or not).

Edit: Then again, I don't think they ever sued anyone for downloading, just distributing. They might not pursue copiers unless they could somehow prove that the copied CD was being shared around.

[wizwor]

A few posts back we were talking about ethics. It would seem to me that ethics would require that public libraries limit their offerings to educational and historical materials.

I think that right to share IP without restriction would be explicitly granted by the IP rights holders.

I can't, for the life of me, reconcile the conflicting images of 'not-for-profit' IP distributers as 1) pirates, and 2) keepers of "the memory of humankind, irreplaceable repositories of documents of human thought and action" -- especially when those wrapped in the latter make all the money.

[carld]

We as a society have decided that libraries being able to loan out various materials is in the public interest. Therefore we grant them an exemption from the IP laws that govern the rest of us.

[wizwor]

I didn't vote for that, but I see your point -- Public Libraries are Taxpayer Funded Government Sanctioned Pirates.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by wizwor

I didn't vote for that, but I see your point -- Public Libraries are Taxpayer Funded Government Sanctioned Pirates.

I'm not entirely sure whether you agree with his point or are simply summarising your understanding of it. I personally disagree, on the basis that the statement is correct only from a viewpoint of unlimited entitlement to "rights holders", (who may be the creators of the works concerned but more often are not). Intellectual Property Law creates a Statutory Monopoly, an exception to the stated aim of many governments to foster competition and the prevailing theory that competition generally is in the Public Interest. It is a justified exception for the overall public good, though I believe that the current framework goes too far, protects the wrong people and is becoming ever more distorted as vested interests lobby for ever more draconian legislation to preserve an obsolete and ultimately doomed business model.

Author as a profession, a way of making a living, would likely not exist but for copyright laws. This privilege, the statutory monopoly, is granted because governments accept that the overall public interest outweighs the disadvantages of its anti-competitive nature. This is why it is not appropriate to view public libraries in this way. Their existence is part of the quid pro quo for the very valuable benefits conferred by intellectual property laws, and themselves part of the balancing of the competing interests involved.

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by darryl

I'm not entirely sure whether you agree with his point or are simply summarising your understanding of it. I personally disagree, on the basis that the statement is correct only from a viewpoint of unlimited entitlement to "rights holders"

I do agree with it and your summary, as well. The only thing we disagree on is whether elimination of the quid pro quo would be good or bad. I think it would be good. I see the model evolving to resemble the app stores. I think, too, that philanthropists (Amazon, MIT) would subsidize authors and publishers for the public good. So, IP creators make a living selling 99c ebooks and the rest of have access to inexpensive books -- which was the intent of Public Libraries anyway.

The lobbyists against this are not the IP creators -- they are the publishing houses. There will be a lot less of these in this world. These people make lot of money selling books to the public via governments. Libraries, fund for the arts, and public schools line their deep pockets. Having sat on a school budget committee and funded a college education, I know how much the quid pro quo costs the rest of us. (My kid was required to buy two expensive books which were never opened. They were part of $700 worth of books required for a single semester.)

Imagine a world where MIT commissions the creation of e-texts for k-12 and puts them in the public domain to be used by public, private, and home schools. Education just got cheaper. Imagine a world where Amazon sponsored the creation/distribution of classic texts and important documents.

The barriers to a free book market are gone. Only government institutions and expensive books shackle the industry.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by wizwor

A few posts back we were talking about ethics. It would seem to me that ethics would require that public libraries limit their offerings to educational and historical materials.

Where on earth did you get that idea from?

Again, a library is offered as a public good. The library offers resources to the public to which citizens might not otherwise have access.

In some cases, this could result in sales for the publishers; e.g. I read the first book of a series at the library, like the series, and decide to purchase it. On the whole, though, we can safely assume it results in some lost sales. As a result, libraries should pay for the books, and under different conditions than sales to the general public, rather than have all of the costs of this public service foisted on the publishers.

There is no reason to limit this to what you personally deem as "educational." It's up to the society as a whole to decide what materials constitute a public good.

You may not like your taxpayer funds going to help your neighbor read the latest Stephen King novel without buying it, but that's life. Your neighbor might think that the library should not have Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire because they believe it is an anti-Christian text.

Individual taxpayers don't get line-item vetoes for how their tax dollars get allocated. If you don't like how your local library is spending its funds, take it up with your community. I'm sure it will make you a very popular person, by the way.

Originally Posted by wizwor

I can't, for the life of me, reconcile the conflicting images of 'not-for-profit' IP distributers as 1) pirates, and 2) keepers of "the memory of humankind, irreplaceable repositories of documents of human thought and action" -- especially when those wrapped in the latter make all the money.

Libraries are not granted unlimited rights to distribute copyrighted material. Nor are they acquiring and loaning copyright material without permission. The publishers are well aware of library purchases, and what happens to those materials.

Equating a library to The Pirate Bay is rather absurd, and misses the whole point of a library in the first place.

In the physical realm, they loan copies of material to individuals who are either on the premises, or are members and thus indicate that they are part of the community that is serviced. The "rights management" is inherent in the physical object.

The digital equivalent is still being worked out. Some people, of course, expect complicated social obligations to appear spontaneously and perfectly within five minutes of the creation of a new medium. Some of us realize these types of arrangements take time, and even then won't please all constituencies equally.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by wizwor

Having sat on a school budget committee and funded a college education, I know how much the quid pro quo costs the rest of us. (My kid was required to buy two expensive books which were never opened. They were part of $700 worth of books required for a single semester.)

Don't you mean "status quo?"

I don't see any connection between the costs of textbooks and libraries, by the way.

In fact, the government pretty much stays out of the costs of textbooks. They don't regulate prices and they do not block used book sales. High prices for textbooks are basically a result of the free market.

Originally Posted by wizwor

Imagine a world where MIT commissions the creation of e-texts for k-12 and puts them in the public domain to be used by public, private, and home schools. Education just got cheaper.

Actually, there are some "open-source" textbook projects that are already being developed. Nothing needs to change in order for that to become an option.

Originally Posted by wizwor

Imagine a world where Amazon sponsored the creation/distribution of classic texts and important documents.

Actually, a lot of that free material was converted and is distributed by Project Gutenberg, a non-profit and volunteer group, and is in the public domain. People are just using Amazon's services to distribute them -- and they don't always do so for free. ( http://www.amazon.com/Tale-Cities-Gr...5265337&sr=1-3 )

Originally Posted by wizwor

The barriers to a free book market are gone. Only government institutions and expensive books shackle the industry.

That's a joke, right?

Public K-12 is a huge market for books -- but as the costs go higher, they will be increasingly happy to rely on open-source free digital textbooks, as long as the books meet school standards.

The prices of books are set by the market. Libraries, schools and governments aren't setting book prices or terms for digital loans; prices are set by the publishers and/or retailers. The book biz is pretty much deregulated, and nothing about the current system stops or disincentivize any individual, organization or corporation that chooses to distribute public domain, or produce new material, for free and as a public good.

This is just libertarianism run amok.