UK to Review eBook Lending

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

The same can be said for paper books; yet libraries have co-existed with B&M book stores.

Not true. A new pbook is normally going to be in better condition than a library book. I get to keep it and display it on my shelf. I get to lend it out to my friends, give it away or resell it.

I believe amazon allow personal lending of ebooks in the US (through Prime?), but apart from that, none of that applies to ebooks. Except the keeping thing.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

Not true. A new pbook is normally going to be in better condition than a library book. I get to keep it and display it on my shelf. I get to lend it out to my friends, give it away or resell it.

Who cares what condition it's in; it reads the same.

And why would you buy a paper book, if it's just as easy to borrow it from the library? or does that rule only apply to ebooks?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Friction! Sounds like the UK government is in bed with the publishers.

And the extra fee, IMO, is just as onerous as the requirement for physical checkouts.

Well, yes, but the end result of an extra fee is more money for the library to provide services, at least in theory. So one can rationalize its imposition. But the physical visit requirement provides no benefit to the library or the library patron--it definitely is an inconvenience for the patron, and probably for the library too.

[Barcey]

I have a different idea. Make it a condition of copyright that the ebook is made available to the library system and the libraries buy concurrent copies at the retail price. Set the length of the copyright to the length of time a paper copy typically resides in the library. Then we'll see if the publishers still think the average life is only 26 loans (2 years).

[carpetmojo]

Half-baked, impractical, somewhat daft sound-bites is my knee-jerk reaction.

I agree totally with Xanthe, this would effectively disadvantage those who get the most from our free library system. However, this group would first need to have the means to be equipped for it - which, again, would disadvantage those same members of society.

The fact that it is about ebooks already self-limits the numbers likely to use any service.

We have to pay for CD's, DVD's, Talking Books, as it is, and I know a number of members who either cannot afford to get them, or can't access them easily. So the digital side would just be another one.

A few libraries already have a ereader service - all they have to do is roll it out nationally,and improve it a bit, and perhaps talk to manufacturers for a library-spec device ?
As has been mentioned, it would be good to know how many ereaders there would be on any committee etc....

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Well, yes, but the end result of an extra fee is more money for the library to provide services, at least in theory. So one can rationalize its imposition. But the physical visit requirement provides no benefit to the library or the library patron--it definitely is an inconvenience for the patron, and probably for the library too.

So ebooks become a premium service? What of those on limited incomes? I thought libraries were supposed to provide equal access.

Actually, requiring a physical visit to checkout ebooks does provide a benefit if it becomes the only model whereby the big publishers will allow their ebooks into the libraries.

Regardless, I oppose ebook fees and I oppose requiring physical visits to checkout ebooks.

[StoryEnthusiast]

I'm all for ebook loan from library if someone can come up with a technology that makes publishers happy and also allow me to check out ebooks from library right from my home.

[plib]

I think the concept of requiring a physical visit is related to studies such as this one. It's probably tied in to the UK government's general addiction to form filling, statistics, centrally generated "standards of service" and other bureaucratic wonders. The kind that lead police to classify a stolen laptop as a "loss" rather than a "theft" if the victim didn't actually see it happen, so as to protect their "crime clearance" statistics. Or the kind that lead schools to divert students from harder, but more valuable, GCSE subjects to easier ones to protect their "A to C pass rates".

Of course it still doesn't explain why he thinks it's somehow harder to count web page hits or ebooks borrowed online than physical "footfall", but then he is an MP.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by plib

I think the concept of requiring a physical visit is related to studies such as this one. It's probably tied in to the UK government's general addiction to form filling, statistics, centrally generated "standards of service" and other bureaucratic wonders. The kind that lead police to classify a stolen laptop as a "loss" rather than a "theft" if the victim didn't actually see it happen, so as to protect their "crime clearance" statistics. Or the kind that lead schools to divert students from harder, but more valuable, GCSE subjects to easier ones to protect their "A to C pass rates".

Of course it still doesn't explain why he thinks it's somehow harder to count web page hits or ebooks borrowed online than physical "footfall", but then he is an MP.

LOL

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Doesn't sound promising if the library dude is in favor of charging a fee and physical visits to a library in order to check out ebooks.

Does one have to pay for using the public library in their local area now?

Would the librarians generally support the notion of 'payment' for e lending do you think?

We do not pay to belong to our local libraries in Aus, nor do we pay to borrow books, e or otherwise.

(The volume of ebooks on offer is ridiculously currently low.)

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

Does one have to pay for using the public library in their local area now?

Would the librarians generally support the notion of 'payment' for e lending do you think?

We do not pay to belong to our local libraries in Aus, nor do we pay to borrow books, e or otherwise.

(The volume of ebooks on offer is ridiculously currently low.)

Don't know; I'm not a Brit.

Here in the US, property taxes generally pay for public libraries and no other fees are charged for using their services. I'm lucky and live in an area with great public library systems and large ebook collections. Because of reciprocal borrowing agreements, I belong to over half a dozen different library systems. If a book's not available at one, it might be at another.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

So ebooks become a premium service? What of those on limited incomes? I thought libraries were supposed to provide equal access.

Actually, requiring a physical visit to checkout ebooks does provide a benefit if it becomes the only model whereby the big publishers will allow their ebooks into the libraries.

Regardless, I oppose ebook fees and I oppose requiring physical visits to checkout ebooks.

I'm not advocating either, I'm just saying requiring the physical visit is totally absurd and arbitrary. It's like the utility company telling me I can't pay online anymore, I have to come to the office.

Personally, if my library required a physical visit, I would not check out any books--before e-books I don't think I set foot in the library as often as once a year. If my library required payment for an e-book checkout, I would pay it--it's kind of what I do by having a Philadelphia nonresident library card, and it's a great bargain.

But both proposals are monumentally stupid.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Who cares what condition it's in; it reads the same.

And why would you buy a paper book, if it's just as easy to borrow it from the library? or does that rule only apply to ebooks?

Because I get more when I buy a paper book. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make.

Bought pbook better than borrowed pbook.
Bought ebook no different to borrowed ebook.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

Does one have to pay for using the public library in their local area now?

Would the librarians generally support the notion of 'payment' for e lending do you think?

We do not pay to belong to our local libraries in Aus, nor do we pay to borrow books, e or otherwise.

(The volume of ebooks on offer is ridiculously currently low.)

There is no charge for normal borrowing, no.

Reduced footfall would make the library buildings less useful, and maybe reduce the number of librarians required.

I should maybe add that I am already able to borrow ebooks from my local library. Presumably this is about trying to increase the range of books available.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

Because I get more when I buy a paper book. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make.

Bought pbook better than borrowed pbook.
Bought ebook no different to borrowed ebook.

What more do you get?

When I read a book, chances are I'll never read it again. So bought ebooks have a decided advantage, because they won't clutter your house like bought paper books would.