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

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

...Libraries are not granted unlimited rights to distribute copyrighted material...

I am confused by this statement. If you purchase the book you most certainly can distribute it without limits. You can resell it, trade it, loan it, give it away, or run it over with your lawn mower. What you can't do is copy it.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

I am confused by this statement. If you purchase the book you most certainly can distribute it without limits. You can resell it, trade it, loan it, give it away, or run it over with your lawn mower. What you can't do is copy it.

I guess I should retract the lawn mower part if it is an ebook. But whether you read the book on glass or on paper doesn't change the fundamental principle.

Originally Posted by wizwor

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

Librarians are extremely diligent about copyright and probably have a better understanding about it than you or I do. Of course, they don't have any control over what happens to media once it is in the hands of a borrower, but I highly doubt that it is a major source of piracy (for reasons mentioned above).

Oh wait! Are you confusing lending with piracy? They are entirely different concepts. Copyright only covers reproducing materials. Yet you are still free to lend out those materials as you please because you own the physical object. And if you are opposed to libraries lending materials you may as well oppose private lending between friends as well. That would make for a very selfish and very sucky world.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

I am confused by this statement. If you purchase the book you most certainly can distribute it without limits. You can resell it, trade it, loan it, give it away, or run it over with your lawn mower. What you can't do is copy it.

Yes, "copy at will" is what "distribution" means.

You can transfer ownership of the copy you purchased to anyone you like, but you cannot reproduce it an unlimited number of times unless you have permission from the rights-holder.

The reason I made that statement is because Wizwor is intentionally conflating "library lending" and "piracy" in order to advance his anti-library stance. I happen to find this rather amusing, given that almost everyone on these boards is pro-library (including me), and a significant number of people are not incensed by piracy.

[CyGuy]

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?

Why oh why would anyone pay $2 for something they can get for free? Not to mention that the "free" part came right out of the tax payers pocket, yours and mine. Keeping the cash in the pocket of the public and out of the pocket of the "commercial entities" should be very high on the priority list. Libraries are a huge plus for society as a whole. You simply have this one wrong...

[wizwor]

Piracy is a term of art. In discussion of intellectual property, it includes unauthorized sharing and unauthorized reproduction. Since there is no actual theft involved, the rationalization is that unauthorized sharing pre-empts sales resulting in loss of potential income to someone. Some argue that the opposite is true -- that people sampling music, video, or literature choose to purchase the materials and related materials.

It's illogical to contend that libraries increase sales while torrents pre-empt sales.

I believe lending amongst friends is generally unauthorized. Is that covered by fair use? Can I share a DVD with a friend legally? What if it is a backup? Or a digital copy? Can I share it off my PC if I limit access to the shared area? If so, what restrictions must be applied? If you pick up my kindle and read a book I purchased is that OK? What if my college kid watches Netflix with his friends using my account? What if he is not in the room? Can I loan an iPad full of copyrighted materials to a friend?

It's messy and most people are guilty of breaking these laws in some manner on a regular basis.

I'm not opposed to lending of materials at all. I'm simply opposed to separate standards. Going back to the original post, I think the solution is obvious: an ebook can only be borrowed by one person at a time. Just like a physical book.

For the rest of us, I think sharing something is OK as long as you are not profiting from another's work. If you do not want others to freely peer into the garden that you planted, watered, and nurtured, put a fence around it and charge admittance. Or give something extra to paying customers.

PS it's completely naive to suggest that libraries protect IP. The only difference between a public library and a torrent web site is that libraries protect their 'pirates' privacy better than internet service providers.

[ATDrake]

Originally Posted by wizwor

I'm not opposed to lending of materials at all. I'm simply opposed to separate standards. Going back to the original post, I think the solution is obvious: an ebook can only be borrowed by one person at a time. Just like a physical book.

If that's the crux of your objection to electronic library lending, then you'll be happy to know that's exactly how they do things, at least via the common Overdrive system.

The library buys a number of licenses for the e-book/audiobook, and people are limited to borrowing the licensed copies one at a time.

So, if as often happens, the library gets 5 licenses for [NEW RELEASE], only 5 people can borrow the book at any given time and I end up being hold #25 of #43 and often have to wait a while until the e-book has circulated through enough patrons to come to me, especially if people haven't mastered the trick of using ADE's "return early" function or left their default loan period at the full 21 days.

[spindlegirl]

Wow I can't believe what I am reading. This is honestly the first time I have come across an opinion about libraries that equates it with piracy or lost sales.

I grew up revering the library as a cultural institution, and respected the privilege for what it was.

So much of what I have purchased and own today was because I borrowed it from the library and fell in love. Family weekend activities always have centered around the library. Trips to the book store when we got some family spending money, and my children going "ooh THAT book is there? Wow, I borrowed that from the library and I love it, can I have it please?" and adding it to our basket.

The library has one thing that buying a book doesn't have. I have to return it. And if it is a popular item, I have to wait in line until people who got there first are done with it. Then, I only get to "keep" it short term. This is expected when I share one item with everyone in my area code.

I am finding the same thing with e-books I am borrowing. I cannot afford some of my current favorites at present, but when I have the book-spending budget available, and if I can, I will buy some because I *know* I am getting something I want.

I actually buy *more* books and media after previewing it from the library, than I used to after impulse purchases at the bookstore when I didn't really know what I was getting.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by wizwor

Piracy is a term of art. In discussion of intellectual property, it includes unauthorized sharing and unauthorized reproduction. Since there is no actual theft involved, the rationalization is that unauthorized sharing pre-empts sales resulting in loss of potential income to someone. Some argue that the opposite is true -- that people sampling music, video, or literature choose to purchase the materials and related materials.

Piracy is taking something without paying for it. I think it is actual theft, and it has nothing at all to do with pre-empting sales. (That matters for figuring out the "cost" of piracy, but not for the definition.)

It's illogical to contend that libraries increase sales while torrents pre-empt sales.

Who is claiming that libraries increase sales? I don't buy books I check out from the library - that would defeat the purpose. However, the library itself does buy whatever books it lends, so in this sense it does increase sales dramatically more than torrents do.

I believe lending amongst friends is generally unauthorized.

And you are completly wrong. You can lend a book you own, and always have been able to. Copying is where copyright comes into play.

Is that covered by fair use? Can I share a DVD with a friend legally?

It's not covered by fair use; it's not a violation of copyright in the first place. Yes, you can share a DVD with a friend legally (i.e., you can give him the physical DVD.

What if it is a backup? Or a digital copy? Can I share it off my PC if I limit access to the shared area? If so, what restrictions must be applied? If you pick up my kindle and read a book I purchased is that OK? What if my college kid watches Netflix with his friends using my account? What if he is not in the room? Can I loan an iPad full of copyrighted materials to a friend?

Backup - No, of course not. Just like you can't xerox a physical book and sell the copy. (assuming, of course, no one gave you this right).
Digital copy - You can't share you made yourself. See above.
I'm not sure what you mean by "share it off your PC". People can use your PC to look at a copy of something you own.
Kindle - yes; people can look at stuff on your kindle.
Netflix - that depends on your Netflix TOS, but I don't think Netflix has a problem with it. I think they restrict the number of simultaneous uses of an account, so it's possible that you wouldn't be able to watch something of your son was watching it at the same time.
iPad - yes, you can loan an iPad with stuff on it.

It's messy and most people are guilty of breaking these laws in some manner on a regular basis.

I suspect that most people have broken these laws at one time or another, but I think they know that they were doing it. And I don't think it's *that* messy, really.

I'm not opposed to lending of materials at all. I'm simply opposed to separate standards. Going back to the original post, I think the solution is obvious: an ebook can only be borrowed by one person at a time. Just like a physical book.

These are the basic standards. However, just like with a physical book, if you've borrowed an e-book, you have the right to lend someone the device it's on.

For the rest of us, I think sharing something is OK as long as you are not profiting from another's work. If you do not want others to freely peer into the garden that you planted, watered, and nurtured, put a fence around it and charge admittance. Or give something extra to paying customers.

Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by sharing. You can freely pass around a DVD you own or your kindle with books you own. You can't "share" a copy by posting it on the internet so that 2 million people can download it for free.

PS it's completely naive to suggest that libraries protect IP. The only difference between a public library and a torrent web site is that libraries protect
their 'pirates' privacy better than internet service providers.

No, there are tremendous differences between libraries and torrent sites. Like the fact that libraries pay the copyright holders for the right to lend their IP.

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

Wow I can't believe what I am reading. This is honestly the first time I have come across an opinion about libraries that equates it with piracy or lost sales.

I didn't say that. I said it's illogical to say that libraries cause sales and other lenders cost sales. They both do the same thing -- allow people to enjoy media without paying. If you want to say that a library causes one less lost sale, well...fine.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

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.

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

So much of what I have purchased and own today was because I borrowed it from the library and fell in love.
...
I actually buy *more* books and media after previewing it from the library, than I used to after impulse purchases at the bookstore when I didn't really know what I was getting.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Who is claiming that libraries increase sales? I don't buy books I check out from the library - that would defeat the purpose. However, the library itself does buy whatever books it lends, so in this sense it does increase sales dramatically more than torrents do.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by wizwor

...They both do the same thing -- allow people to enjoy media without paying...

But in one case you keep the content forever, in the other you have to return it. HUGE difference there. Your comparison of a library to a torrent site is inaccurate.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by wizwor

I believe lending amongst friends is generally unauthorized. Is that covered by fair use?

It's legal. What is not legal is duplicating a copy to give to a friend.

Originally Posted by wizwor

Can I share a DVD with a friend legally?

Yes

Originally Posted by wizwor

What if it is a backup? Or a digital copy?

No

Originally Posted by wizwor

Can I share it off my PC if I limit access to the shared area?

Yes

Originally Posted by wizwor

If so, what restrictions must be applied?

That depends entirely on what is granted by the rights-holder. Generally speaking though, you can make copies for personal use, and libraries can make copies for archival purposes, but you cannot duplicate and distribute the work without authorization.

Originally Posted by wizwor

If you pick up my kindle and read a book I purchased is that OK? What if my college kid watches Netflix with his friends using my account? What if he is not in the room? Can I loan an iPad full of copyrighted materials to a friend?

Yes
yes
yes
yes

Y'know, it'd be nice if you actually understood copyright laws before proclaiming that libraries violate them....

Originally Posted by wizwor

I'm not opposed to lending of materials at all. I'm simply opposed to separate standards.

Separate standards for ebook library loans make sense, because libraries perform a specific public function.

It doesn't make sense to limit an individual who reads a book to 26 reading sessions. It makes much more sense to limit a library to 26 lendings, and then charge a reduced rate for the next 26 lendings.

Originally Posted by wizwor

PS it's completely naive to suggest that libraries protect IP. The only difference between a public library and a torrent web site is that libraries protect their 'pirates' privacy better than internet service providers.

Librarians are not going to help you photocopy an entire book or rip a DVD. Beyond supervising your conduct in the library, it really isn't their job to police copyright.

Libraries respect IP laws; torrents do not. Libraries are structured to restrict access to their community; torrents don't want to restrict anything. Libraries are courted by publishers, because it's more exposure for their titles; pirates revel in putting one over on the publishers.

I might add that if we follow this logic, commercial services like Netflix or Blockbuster also "enable piracy." A DVD is a DVD is a DVD; the disc you rent from Blockbuster for $2 carries no additional protections than the one from the library; and both Blockbuster and libraries pay for the materials they dispense. In fact, if we take your position seriously that loans constitute piracy, wouldn't Blockbuster be worse -- since they profit from enabling piracy?

Originally Posted by wizwor

I believe lending amongst friends is generally unauthorized.

Sorry, but that is an incredibly selfish world that I do not want to take part in. According to that logic, I would be unable to enjoy a movie with a friend in my own home and other such shared experiences. Thankfully though, the law is on my side.

I think the solution is obvious: an ebook can only be borrowed by one person at a time. Just like a physical book.

My library lends ebooks much like they lend pbooks: they buy a certain number of copies. Once all of the copies are signed out, you can request a hold. The only real difference is that books are "returned" automatically at the end of the borrowing period (or sooner, if the patron chooses).

The irony of this situation is that it is probably counter-productive to publishers and authors. They would probably earn far more money if they arranged to lend out an unlimited number of copies with nominal PLR. My library system has ebooks with dozens of holds on them, and the number of holds probably underestimates the demand because there comes a point when you have to say, "well, I'm not going to get it until next year so I'm not even going to bother." Borrowers aren't necessarily going to buy the book inspite of that because the most popular titles are expensive. Libraries aren't necessarily going to buy extra copies because the most popular titles tend to have a limited shelf-life.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by wizwor

For the rest of us, I think sharing something is OK as long as you are not profiting from another's work.

That is just the point --- if you are using a shared copy you are profiting. You didn't have to buy one yourself. Why is personal greed acceptable for you and an author trying to make money to pay his/her family's living expenses or a company trying to make money to pay their employees wrong?

[Elfwreck]

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.

Two of the major publishers -- Macmillan and Simon & Schuster -- don't do library ebooks at all.

Hatchette only offers backlist ebooks to libraries, not new ebooks.
Penguin has pulled their new books, and all books from Kindle access.
Harper Collins limits their library books to 26 check-outs--with a standard 2-week rate, that's a 1-year rental that remains in the catalog to clutter the listings forever.

Random House is the only one of the Agency pricing publishers that's still doing normal business with libraries, but they're reconsidering.

That's a far cry from "most publishers are on board with ebook library loans."

And why would they need an industry-wide standard for library ebooks? There's no industry-wide standard for other books in libraries.