Copyright vs. public library: the next big battleground?

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Ankh

My, my... If we are about to use the new possibilities offered by the technology to advocate any change, why not keep the same model (books are acquired once by library system, held forever, and pennies are paid directly to the author), just create a national digital library, mighty servers and all, the smallest budget for the service that we decided long ago is a)needed, b)financed from the taxes?

It's another option, but if you're willing to absorb the wrath of the rights holders by only paying them pennies it would be less expensive to just legalize file sharing or reduce copyright to 7 years. I was just suggesting a model that I believe the rights holders might be willing to accept.

[Gwen Morse]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

It shouldn't be spent at all; it shouldn't be taxed at all. People know better how to spend their money, and if they weren't taught from birth that the state will do things for them, and they needed a road, they'd organize and build it.

I find this really relevant from an ebook perspective, because I think the same argument is applied from the other side in the copyright/public domain debate.

The libertarian stance can be boiled down to the interests of any single person should not be overwhelmed by the group. Each person should be allowed to take care of themselves, and also shouldn't have to take care of anyone other than themselves.

The social liberal stance is that people should band together to collectively provide needed services (usually through the state, via taxes). Each person will only have to partially care for themselves and are forced (via tax collection) to take care of the community at large.

It feels to me like the same argument for/against long copyright periods. Do the needs/wants of the few (content creators) outweigh the needs/wants of the many (society at large).

[Gwen Morse]

Originally Posted by Barcey

It's another option, but if you're willing to absorb the wrath of the rights holders by only paying them pennies it would be less expensive to just legalize file sharing or reduce copyright to 7 years. I was just suggesting a model that I believe the rights holders might be willing to accept.

I think the pay pennies part was per-use, which can add up over time. If a library pays 5c a book, and lends a book out 20 times in a year, that's $1.00 a year. Now, multiply that by a thousand libraries, and the author has added a grand to their bottom line. The author sees a nice payout, but the library is only charged "pennies" per ebook lend.

That model would still wreak havoc on library budgets, but I can see that it would please authors.

[twobits]

Originally Posted by Fbone

In the US Overdrive charges libraries each year on a subscription bases depending on the volume of ebooks in their collection. The more they have the more they are billed to renew each year.
Libraries like this arrangement because their costs are fixed at the start of each budget year and the system is very flexible.

Where did you find this? I have been wondering about this, as I have seend that the Adobe drm server chargers per check out. I have been thinking this cost would get passed along to the libraries.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by Barcey

Why can't they have the same catalog of books and pay each time an ebook is borrowed instead?

For the same reason they shouldn't have to pay each time a pbook is borrowed. They already bought the book. How many times would you propose they buy it?

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by Barcey

It's another option, but if you're willing to absorb the wrath of the rights holders by only paying them pennies it would be less expensive to just legalize file sharing or reduce copyright to 7 years. I was just suggesting a model that I believe the rights holders might be willing to accept.

I was playing the devil's advocate, Barcey, and introduced an inflated counter-argument as an illustration.

As it is said in the opening message to this topic, I am certain only of one thing: the digitalization of the content is what is called "the disruptive technology", the one that redefines the game. The attempt to cling to the analogy with pbooks doesn't cut it, both for publishers, consumers, and here, for an institution with a long tradition. It is testing and redefining everything related to books.

I do apologize for the way how this topic turned political. It was my assumption that the political potential of the topic is self-evident.

Be it as it may, it seems to me that almost every person who expressed his opinion was talking about a change, even if it was only a minor "fix" to the way how public libraries operate today. It seems to me that we are in violent agreement: a change is upon us.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by twobits

Where did you find this? I have been wondering about this, as I have seend that the Adobe drm server chargers per check out. I have been thinking this cost would get passed along to the libraries.

My librarian told me. She liked how the system worked financially. Digital media she considers "core" service and will support it even though we had severe budget cuts. She said ebooks and audiobooks are very popular and I can expect more books added.

She wouldnt give any figures but called it a "subscription" and said costs were much lower than outright purchases would be. And very flexible. She is able to project future costs easily with relative accuracy.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

For the same reason they shouldn't have to pay each time a pbook is borrowed. They already bought the book. How many times would you propose they buy it?

It sounds like you don't agree with the current Overdrive model either because the library doesn't buy the book, they're just buying a license to loan the book.

I was just proposing an alternate model to the Overdrive model where the catalog isn't limited, the authors who's books are borrowed are better compensated, the authors who's books aren't borrowed don't get paid (just for making it available to the library) and instead of paying Overdrive direct the tax dollars to the author. The same tax dollars paying for it, the same library budget just a different method of paying out the budget.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Ankh

I was playing the devil's advocate, Barcey, and introduced an inflated counter-argument as an illustration.

As it is said in the opening message to this topic, I am certain only of one thing: the digitalization of the content is what is called "the disruptive technology", the one that redefines the game. The attempt to cling to the analogy with pbooks doesn't cut it, both for publishers, consumers, and here, for an institution with a long tradition. It is testing and redefining everything related to books.

I do apologize for the way how this topic turned political. It was my assumption that the political potential of the topic is self-evident.

Be it as it may, it seems to me that almost every person who expressed his opinion was talking about a change, even if it was only a minor "fix" to the way how public libraries operate today. It seems to me that we are in violent agreement: a change is upon us.

I agree with you. My local city is trying to put through a major upgrade to the core library branch and there's been a lot of vocal opposition to it. People think that libraries are obsolete because their kids don't want to use them any more, they just look up everything on the internet. It doesn't help that the library has been trying to keep themselves relevant by loaning music, movies and art. When they see that their tax dollars are paying for their neighbour to watch "Hot Tub Time Machine" it doesn't help the support.

I don't think the general public know what the core services are that the libraries should be providing but the disruptive technology is going to force the conversations in the next decade.

[emellaich]

Originally Posted by Ankh

I do apologize for the way how this topic turned political. It was my assumption that the political potential of the topic is self-evident.

Be it as it may, it seems to me that almost every person who expressed his opinion was talking about a change, even if it was only a minor "fix" to the way how public libraries operate today. It seems to me that we are in violent agreement: a change is upon us.

So, I agree and I think all of us do that a change is inevitable. However, you can't really have this discussion without getting political.

Making it easier to loan/check out library books will have the consequence of damaging the commercial (Amazon, BNB, ...) marketplace. I leave it up to your political beliefs to decide whether that is good or bad.

Paying authors for each checkout leads to a discussion of how much creators should be paid for their work, and whether that payment should be done through the government or through the market.

All of this begs the question of how taxes should be used.

Now, some of us will argue one side of each of these issues, and other will take the opposite view. However, I don't really think we can have this discussion without bringing politics and political beliefs into it.

The nature of this issue is that the view that each of us holds on the 'right' way for this change to occur will reflect our own political orientation. It is not an issue that is based in some universal principle of e-reading [grin].

[twobits]

Originally Posted by Fbone

My librarian told me. She liked how the system worked financially. Digital media she considers "core" service and will support it even though we had severe budget cuts. She said ebooks and audiobooks are very popular and I can expect more books added.

She wouldnt give any figures but called it a "subscription" and said costs were much lower than outright purchases would be. And very flexible. She is able to project future costs easily with relative accuracy.

Hmmm...

Costs do seem hard to track down for some reason, I did find a few places that gave some costs, the most detailed costs I have found so far is in http://listennj.pbworks.com/f/2010+a...11+pricing.pdf This gives some per library costs, but does not say what the regional library cooperative itself paid.

Seems though that a lot of the fixed costs is the split cost set up with regional coops and such? Is your library in one of these? I get the impression they mask and absorb some of the unit costs.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by twobits

Costs do seem hard to track down for some reason, I did find a few places that gave some costs, the most detailed costs I have found so far is in http://listennj.pbworks.com/f/2010+a...11+pricing.pdf This gives some per library costs, but does not say what the regional library cooperative itself paid.

Seems though that a lot of the fixed costs is the split cost set up with regional coops and such? Is your library in one of these? I get the impression they mask and absorb some of the unit costs.

It just happens that listennj is my Overdrive digital provider. My library is part of the listed "consortium." It says they paid $12,700 for 2011 now there's about 30 libraries in the group so individual costs are probably very low. Of course, we have to share with residents in all these other towns so there are waiting lists.

Interestingly, I called Overdrive several times requesting info about this but have not been able to talk to anyone familiar with the financial arrangement. No return calls or emails.

[brecklundin]

that is so odd about not disclosing the costs for publicly owned and funded organizations. We, as citizens are entitled to know those costs and they are supposed to be a public record.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

For the same reason they shouldn't have to pay each time a pbook is borrowed. They already bought the book. How many times would you propose they buy it?

The US is somewhat unusual in not paying authors when a book is borrowed from a library, most developed nations have some method of paying authors, either when a book is borrowed, or just for the library having it.

[twobits]

Originally Posted by Ankh

So, the day will come when a public library will acquire a copy of the book few years after its publishing... and will continue to offer it forever.

What I don't understand is how is copyright protection going to work for copyright owners in that climate. A new edition can offer illustrations, a more up-to-date foreword... but how much is that worth to a customer who can legally obtain (albeit time limited) access to the original through the public library? The effective duration of the copyright, the time when a title can be obtained ONLY through the purchase will drop down to a couple of years?

I think the danger is not to the copyright owners in the current conditions. The danger is more to the libraries. At least under the US law. The First-Sale doctrine does not apply to ebooks. In fact to loan an ebook they need to make a copy, and not just hand the patron an existing purchased copy. So the copyright protection fully applies, even more so for them then then it does for a printed book. The Adobe drm server charges a per check out fee, it is does not take too much of a leap to see the copyright holders doing the same in the near future.

Originally Posted by Ravensknight

Now that I would love! I can see it starting out regional, like New England for me. Conglomorate and conquer.
I just love the idea of info be spread more and more...

The Philly Free library having its card available for $15 a year almost wordlwide seems a good start. They take contributions earmarked for ebook purchases now.

Originally Posted by abookreader

Well, it is a license but right now it is a license that is vaguely limited to the lifetime of the buyer. Publishers have tried to take on limiting Public Libraries before but everytime they do they come out smelling like horse manure.

Libraries on the other hand don't die, at least not in the sense that people die. They at least theoretically can hold onto the ownership of those books for the entire lifetime of the copyright, and then well past. That book is never going to be lost, stolen or destroyed and the library will never have to buy it again --- totally damaging the revenue stream of those Penguin Classics 7th graders check-out for their book reports.

Some type of battle of this is probably looming. And the thing is the libraries never have a book to lend, and probably no ownership for ebooks. Even if they did, they have to make a copy to lend it out (which the copyright owner has the right to control) which even the current rights they have with printed books, which are more then for ebooks, would not allow them to do.

Originally Posted by Ankh

Public libraries of today are financed from taxes, mr ploppy. They are not book reading clubs with special discounts on borrowing for those who are willing to pay for the privilege.

Which may not be true of the libraries of tommorow.
And this thead is more about tommorow then today right?

Originally Posted by brecklundin

While that could never work and has been pointed out in previous posts.

Why would it never work? It is already working today for printed books in some countries?

Originally Posted by Ankh

Any change of the rules governing tax funded services can quickly become a political issue.

It is funded by tax dollars, and is governed by copyright laws and court precidents. Seems it already is a political issue.

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Why should public libraries treat electronic books different from paper ones? They lend out paper books, why can't they lend out electronic books? (note: the only library books that physically wear out are high-circulation paperbacks)

I already pay for my public library; I should not have to pay a second time to borrow books from it.

They have to, they have to make a copy to lend it out. That falls under different laws. They may never even have ownership rights to the ebook, have to wait for the court cases to come for that to get sorted yet.


Also I pay for my courts, yet I would have to pay additional fees if I wanted to use them to sue someone. Same with the DMV etc.. nothing says the fees stop at the taxes.

Originally Posted by brecklundin

exactly...the whole idea of a library is to help ensure the free access to information and learning. We all pay some taxes to support them. Sadly in many towns the money first cut is for libraries. Our small town library is a beautiful space which could really be re-invented into something amazing, if the funds were there, but they just aren't and haven't been for far longer than our current economic probs here in CA.

Still it is completely against the whole purpose of libraries in the US to consider the idea of charging any sort of fee to borrow a book. And libraries simply can't budget their year if there would be no fee charged to the borrower but the library had to pay a fee to the author every time it was borrowed. Even $1,000/yr could significantly affect some smaller libraries.

Don't think that is the whole idea of libraries, especially considering many libraries are not even open to the public and don't let their collections circulate. Also, many public libraries got into video lending. They charged for this a per item check out fee. This after taking taxes from the video stores to help fund competing with them.

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Y'know, for the "pay your own way" people ... the people trying to move to some unknown and untested future ... I have to wonder what they think tax

Defence, and enforment of contracts and law enforcment. Even within these use fees should be on the 2nd item.

of city buildings. What the hell should it be spent for, then, except for the salaries of city officials (something I've never seen a city official try to cut?). Why exactly are we paying taxes if not to have libraries, emergency services, roads, and help for those less well off? Why did our predecessors get it so wrong when they thought we should get those things for our tax money?

The rest should not need to be spent on anything. It should not be collected in the first place. They got it so wrong, because over time orginizations will grow and seem more power. People also seem to think that things gotten from the government are somehow 'free'. So this is a way to 'buy' votes.

"Pay as you go" has been tried; we call it the Middle Ages. It turned out very, very badly for 99% of the people. The people who built a world with highways and fire trucks, ambulances and, yes, libraries, knew what they were doing. Throwing all that under the (privatized) bus and going back to the Middle Ages would be a very, very bad idea.

No it was not. In the middle ages you did not have ownership of anything as a common person. At any time the feudal lords could come in and take whatever they wanted. This is not a pay as you go system, this is closer to a 100% taxation system.

Originally Posted by Gwen Morse

I think the pay pennies part was per-use, which can add up over time. If a library pays 5c a book, and lends a book out 20 times in a year, that's $1.00 a year. Now, multiply that by a thousand libraries, and the author has added a grand to their bottom line. The author sees a nice payout, but the library is only charged "pennies" per ebook lend.

That model would still wreak havoc on library budgets, but I can see that it would please authors.

This is already the model with ebooks with drm.

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

For the same reason they shouldn't have to pay each time a pbook is borrowed. They already bought the book. How many times would you propose they buy it?

They don't have to copy the book to lend it out.... so this is not a reason.