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

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

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?

Why has it always been acceptable to share print books, if it's so greedy to not pay the author for every book you read?

[Blue Tyson]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

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?

Be nice if we could buy books the same way publishers pay authors - yeah, you'll get your money in a few months or a year (maybe), and a bit at a time.... and we will do it as slow as possible....

[darryl]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

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?

I presume that you are using greed in the traditional sense which encompasses taking more than your equitable share. I don't subscribe to the greed is good philosophy. In your above examples I believe that the author is usually the only person where greed arguably plays only a minor role. Publishers generally do not share profits with authors on a very equitable basis, though some innovative new models are emerging, usually in specialist areas. Whilst being lucky enough to be born and live in Australia, and also an avid reader for most of my life, I have lined the pockets of greedy, mostly British publishers, who have taken advantage of parallel importing legislation to artificially inflate the costs of printed books. Book prices here remain ridiculous, and publishers recently lobbied Government successfully to ignore recommendations dispensing with this ridiculous legislation. It is hardly surprising that I have little sympathy with their plight now. It is interesting to me that press releases always focus on the plight of the author, who usually receives a relative pittance, or on alleged fostering of local authors by the existing system, but never on the plight of publishers. Perhaps this is because to do so would invite scrutiny of the existing system and the way profits are divided.

People obtaining Pirate EBooks can be said to be greedy in that they deprive the author of even the small share that they ultimately receive for their work, and deprive the Publisher not only of a reasonable profit but even recovery of their costs. However, given the profiteering by such publishers in the past, I think many end users, whilst no doubt breaking the law, feel justified in doing so. The author is dismissed as a necessary casualty as there is no mechanism for such end users to pay the author whilst bypassing the Publisher. This of course amounts to "two wrongs make a right" and is certainly fallacious. However, it is very much human nature.

I would also point out that publishing company's do not exist for the purpose of paying their employees, which is a necessity if they want to trade and make a profit. It is nevertheless sad but unavoidable when people lose their jobs essentially because of changing technology. There is not much demand these days for drivers of horses and carts, or for collectors of night-soil. There are, however, jobs for taxi drivers and bus drivers and truck drivers and chauffeurs etc. Likewise there are many jobs in maintaining a proper sewerage system. It is up to these publishers to adapt. If they don't do so they will perish. They need to stop lobbying for ridiculous new laws to protect them and try to see the opportunities rather than the problems. ITunes is now so successful due in a large degree to the failure of the record companies and retailers to adapt.

Courtney Love's article, though in the context of music rather than books, which I linked to in an earlier post, remains very enlightening.

http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Penguin has pulled their new books, and all books from Kindle access.

I just checked a bunch of books, and at the Free Library of Philadelphia, as of today, if a Penguin book is available in EPUB, it is also available for Kindle. Penguin did pull the Kindle access for a few days, and then, at least for now, relented.

As for not licensing new books to Overdrive for a few months or years, this seems to me a reasonable way to balance a public good with the need for publishers to sell books. Less patient people can pay and I can have them for free

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

Is Amazon an agency publisher in your view? It's true that they charge less, and have promotions, but since Amazon Publishing sets its own on-line prices, I'd say yes. And Amazon Publishing titles are not licensed to Overdrive.

If non-cooperation with Overdrive is an offense, the largest publisher in terms of market capitalization, Amazon LLC, is the biggest offender.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Why has it always been acceptable to share print books, if it's so greedy to not pay the author for every book you read?

The person I responded to had quite a different attitude towards sharing than occasionally lending them to family or a friend. His point was about having no problem to obtain the book from an illegal source, not to borrow a book from a friend who has bought it.

[markbot]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I've argued on another thread that Amazon intends to create some sort of subscription plan based on the Prime package . It might be a books only plan, or a multimedia plan that includes a certain number of books per year. We'll see come the new year.

I think the rumored plan actually turned out to be the Amazon lending library.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Is Amazon an agency publisher in your view?
It's true that they charge less, and have promotions, but since Amazon Publishing sets its own on-line prices, I'd say yes. And Amazon Publishing titles are not licensed to Overdrive.

No, they're not an Agency publisher. They don't have contracts with ebook retailers that say retailers pay them a flat percentage of list price with no discounts available. (AFAIK, they only sell books through Amazon. Which may be just as restrictive as Agency pricing, but is a different financial setup.)

Amazon Publishing--as opposed to KDP, which pays no advances, does no editing, and allows authors to set their own prices--is a small publishing house. It gets a lot of notice because it tangles into everything else Amazon does, and it helps promote the Amazon monopsony. But as publishers go, it's tiny. It makes PR announcements that it'll be releasing less than two dozen titles in a line per season.

It's likely to be ridiculously profitable, as publishers go, because it's using the KDP program to find popular authors and offer them contracts, in addition to whatever traditional methods it uses. But it's hardly keeping tens of thousands of titles away from libraries.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

AFAIK, they only sell books through Amazon.

I meant books like this and this. The first is an AmazonCrossing eBook marketed in print through an arrangement with Mariner Books, an imprint of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. The second is published by Amazon's Thomas & Mercer imprint both as an eBook and in print. Both are not available from Overdrive as eBooks (although they are Overdrive audiobooks). By contrast, at least some non-Amazon Houghton Mifflin Harcourt eBooks are available for US public library borrowing.

Both of the Amazon eBooks I mention are available for free borrowing -- not from public libraries, but from Amazon.com at the cost of a $79/year prime membership.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

But it's [Amazon] hardly keeping tens of thousands of titles away from libraries.

Press reports are that Amazon Publishing title volume will double next year. Baring unforeseen financial setbacks, and without a policy change, Amazon will get, if not to tens of thousands, to where they are a big Overdrive refusal presence. So I think that, whenever people list publishers not cooperating with public library eBook borrowing, Amazon should be included.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Again, I'm fairly confident you agreed to the TOS when you created your Amazon account. The fact that you forgot doesn't mean you aren't bound by it.

Not possible. There was no Kindle and no TOS for Kindle eBooks back then.

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The person I responded to had quite a different attitude towards sharing than occasionally lending them to family or a friend. His point was about having no problem to obtain the book from an illegal source, not to borrow a book from a friend who has bought it.

Presumptuous and incorrect. You have twisted my condemnation of socially acceptable piracy into an advocacy of its competition. Let me help...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by wizwor

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by wizwor

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.

I lost interest in the thread once we got to the 'public-good-i-don't-want-to-live-in-a-world-without-sharing' phase. We all need to agree to disagree. It's not possible to convince someone who routinely consumes another's product without compensation that it wrong. It's something they need to realize on their own. Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by wizwor

I lost interest in the thread once we got to the 'public-good-i-don't-want-to-live-in-a-world-without-sharing' phase. We all need to agree to disagree. It's not possible to convince someone who routinely consumes another's product without compensation that it wrong. It's something they need to realize on their own. Good luck with that.

Yes, people have different world views. Yes, we need to agree to disagree because one world view is not necessarily better than another. Yes, I'm willing to accept your world view as long as it guides your actions and you do not restrict my actions in the process (e.g. by making sharing illegal).

The thing you have to understand though is that some of us share in a way that makes copyright look laughable. You see, I teach. I expect compensation for teaching, but I don't restrict how students use the knowledge that I pass on to them. I could sit here whining about how unfair it is that, collectively, my students earn hundreds of millions of dollars a year and I don't see a penny of it. I could also moan about the few students who individually earn more in a year than I earn in a decade. But I don't because I love my job and I earn a living and that is all that really matters.

Likewise for copyright. I respect copyright because that is how people earn their living. Yet my spine curls when I hear people go beyond that and claim that institutions such as libraries and schools are pirates simply because they share resources within the letter and spirit of the law. You see, copyright is a man made construct just like sharing is a man made construct. The world doesn't owe creators anything and society would continue to chug along if copyright never existed. Similarly the world doesn't owe consumers anything and society would continue to chug along if copyright shackled us to the creators every whim. So ultimately the question becomes what sort of world do you want to live in? Do you want it to be a ME, ME, ME world or a place where we look after the needs of everyone in society.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

So ultimately the question becomes what sort of world do you want to live in? Do you want it to be a ME, ME, ME world or a place where we look after the needs of everyone in society.

You see, that is where we differ. A world without respect for copyright would be a ME, ME, ME world. People just using others and giving back nothing in return.

Now there are excesses in the world of copyright which should be addressed, but the basic principles remain. A small payment per time a library loans out a book should not be objectionable. Libraries are already a way for writers and publishers to give back to society. (Just like a teacher who spends some free time each week helping needy kids or supervising extra curricular activities). No need to squeeze them to the limit. A fair and adequate solution makes sense.

[CyGuy]

Whether you read a book on a piece of glass or a piece of wood pulp the story is the same. Paper books and ebooks should be treated the same. There is a difference in how long it takes to wear out the paper book though, but this should not be considered in my opinion.

No library should be restricted by the publisher or the author. If the book is for sale to the public the library should simply purchase a copy (or copies) and loan them out as usual. This idea of paying-per-loan is just ridiculous to me. Once the book has been purchased the publisher/author has made their sale and it should end there. Any recurring fees paid to loan out the book come out of the tax-payers pocket, which is not acceptable.

A book might be purchased by a library for $10 and then loaned out a thousand times. That is $10,000 saved in our pockets! Not to mention that the library may purchase more than one copy, and there are thousands of libraries across this country. This idea of wasting potentially millions of dollars is just insane to me. The library system works, it is a great concept, it keeps millions of dollars in our pockets.

This whole “libraries-are-pirates” idea is ludicrous. If a library makes COPIES of a book they may be guilty of copyright infringement, but if they are just loaning out books that were PURCHASED then nothing bad is happening. On the contrary, money is being saved in our pockets…

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

No ______ should be restricted by the publisher or the author. If the book is for sale to the public the ______ should simply purchase a copy (or copies) and loan them out as usual. This idea of paying-per-loan is just ridiculous to me. Once the book has been purchased the publisher/author has made their sale and it should end there. Any recurring fees paid to loan out the book come out of the ______ pocket, which is not acceptable.

A book might be purchased by a ______ for $10 and then loaned out a thousand times. That is $10,000 saved in our pockets! Not to mention that the ______ may purchase more than one copy, and there are thousands of ______ across this country. This idea of wasting potentially millions of dollars is just insane to me. The ______ system works, it is a great concept, it keeps millions of dollars in our pockets.

This whole “______-are-pirates” idea is ludicrous. If a ______ makes COPIES of a book they may be guilty of copyright infringement, but if they are just loaning out books that were PURCHASED then nothing bad is happening. On the contrary, money is being saved in our pockets…

Replace library with private citizen or torrent host and see if you feel the same.

[jjmgreen]

Originally Posted by wizwor

Replace library with private citizen or torrent host and see if you feel the same.

A private citizen may loan her/his legally purchased, printed copy
of a work to another person. That is acceptable.

A torrent is very different - no loan is involved. A new copy
is given to the person receiving the torrent. Then the acceptability
is based on the legality of making a copy.