Publishers STILL doing their best to screw the libraries?

[HarryT]

I don't see any contradiction. You are buying, but what you're buying is a licence.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't see any contradiction. You are buying, but what you're buying is a licence.

The correct term would be "leasing". If I buy an app from Amazon, it says "You now own X".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The correct term would be "leasing". If I buy an app from Amazon, it says "You now own X".

Doesn't the word "leasing" imply some sort of time restriction? There's no time-out on the licence that the Amazon content provider is selling you. It's yours forever.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Ebooks are a whole new area and can be sold or lent innumerable times. Are you saying this should happen? An author sells a dozen or so books for 9.99 and then it is free for everyone? Without restricting lending/copying of ebooks that is the way it would be.

I don't think anyone is asking for a free for all, just not be so draconian.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

If you make and sell a lawnmower and ten people use it, it will eventually wear out. Maybe you would prefer to sell one lawnmower per person right away, but you know that unless the lawnmower never breaks or becomes obsolete you will sell more lawnmowers.

Not so with ebooks. They can be duplicated infinitely. Science fiction coming to life as in the stories of replicators. Imagine anyone being able to replicate what you sell/produce. No money no job. Sure you can replicate your own cheeseburgers and diamond rings and wouldn't starve to death, just as authors could get all the books they want.

There are plenty of ways to make money in other ways. I mean, look at the number of websites out there that are making tons of cash, while their users don't pay anything. Are you paying to use Facebook? Reddit? Google? You can still make money without charging customers. And even if you do charge customers, lacking DRM doesn't make it so you'll not have any sales. Look at O'Reilly, they're a well known publisher, and do not use DRM on any of their books. They've actually tracked a rise in sales after they dropped DRM. Isn't that kind of the opposite of what you're proposing would happen if there were no DRM?

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Publishers/authors restrict the amount of times a book can be borrowed from a library or demand that if you have one copy you lend one copy. Seems reasonable to me.

A library buys a book for say 9.99 and lends it 27 times. Chances are that 2+ of that 27 borrowers would have bought the book. Publisher/author is out money.

Only lending one at a time per license purchase of a book isn't a big deal. No one is arguing against that. The problem is with the limited number of times it could be loaned out. 27 is a low number. That is one years worth, if it is checked out for 2 weeks. My library defaults to 1 week loans on ebooks, so 6 months. How many paper books are unusable after 6 months or a year? Hell, I've seen books at the local library that are decades old, that had been checked out dozens of times.

Are you going off the assumption that they would of had two or more additional sales if a library copy had not been available? That might be so, but if that is your argument, then you will also need to find out how many people read the library copy and then purchased it because they enjoyed it? This is somewhat related to some studies I've seen on piracy (if you think of it from the standpoint that should a free copy not been available would you still have got the book), that showed that the vast majority of the people who pirated something would not have bought it if they had no other alternative, and on average a larger portion of those people who pirated ended up buying it than those who would have only bought it if they had no other option. Also those in the studies who did buy copies of things they had pirated ended up buying related works.

Friend of mine pirated the first Dresden Files book after I had recommended it to him. I only had an ebook copy, so I didn't have a paper book I could loan him. The library didn't have a copy, so he couldn't borrow it from the library. He didn't want to buy it, because he wasn't sure if he'd like it, so that is why he pirated it. He started reading it, and immediately he enjoyed it, so much so that he went out and bought all of the books in the series (which it was on the 12th book at the time). I've heard tons of stories who've done the same thing after reading a book from the library. People are often hesitant on spending money about something they're unfamiliar with. Libraries allow people a legal means to try something first.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Doesn't the word "leasing" imply some sort of time restriction? There's no time-out on the licence that the Amazon content provider is selling you. It's yours forever.

Yes.

Owning property (or having an ownership interest in property) means that you have a bundle of rights in relation to the property. Different types of ownership come with different bundles of rights; this generally depends on the rights that you purchased, although these rights may also be limited by law.

If you own your own home, you typically have the right to exclude others from the property, you have the right to lease the home to others, you have the right to alter the home, and you have the right to sell the home to someone else. Your ownership interest is, in theory anyway, perpetual. (Just to name a few).

If you lease an apartment, you have an ownership interest in your unit. You have the right to exclude others from your unit. You may or may not have the right to sublet the unit, depending on whether this right was transferred to you. You may have a limited right to alter the apartment. You don't have the right to sell the apartment. Your ownership interest will expire when the lease ends.

When you buy a license for an e-book, you aren't renting or leasing the book because your ownership interest won't terminate at the end of any particular time. However, you are getting fewer rights for your $9.99 than you would if you bought a paper book - you can't resell it, for example. Since most of the rights I'm not getting with an e-book aren't very important to me, this isn't really an issue for me. But YMMV.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

I don't think anyone is asking for a free for all, just not be so draconian.



There are plenty of ways to make money in other ways. I mean, look at the number of websites out there that are making tons of cash, while their users don't pay anything. Are you paying to use Facebook? Reddit? Google? You can still make money without charging customers. And even if you do charge customers, lacking DRM doesn't make it so you'll not have any sales. Look at O'Reilly, they're a well known publisher, and do not use DRM on any of their books. They've actually tracked a rise in sales after they dropped DRM. Isn't that kind of the opposite of what you're proposing would happen if there were no DRM?


Only lending one at a time per license purchase of a book isn't a big deal. No one is arguing against that. The problem is with the limited number of times it could be loaned out. 27 is a low number. That is one years worth, if it is checked out for 2 weeks. My library defaults to 1 week loans on ebooks, so 6 months. How many paper books are unusable after 6 months or a year? Hell, I've seen books at the local library that are decades old, that had been checked out dozens of times.

Are you going off the assumption that they would of had two or more additional sales if a library copy had not been available? That might be so, but if that is your argument, then you will also need to find out how many people read the library copy and then purchased it because they enjoyed it? This is somewhat related to some studies I've seen on piracy (if you think of it from the standpoint that should a free copy not been available would you still have got the book), that showed that the vast majority of the people who pirated something would not have bought it if they had no other alternative, and on average a larger portion of those people who pirated ended up buying it than those who would have only bought it if they had no other option. Also those in the studies who did buy copies of things they had pirated ended up buying related works.

Friend of mine pirated the first Dresden Files book after I had recommended it to him. I only had an ebook copy, so I didn't have a paper book I could loan him. The library didn't have a copy, so he couldn't borrow it from the library. He didn't want to buy it, because he wasn't sure if he'd like it, so that is why he pirated it. He started reading it, and immediately he enjoyed it, so much so that he went out and bought all of the books in the series (which it was on the 12th book at the time). I've heard tons of stories who've done the same thing after reading a book from the library. People are often hesitant on spending money about something they're unfamiliar with. Libraries allow people a legal means to try something first.

Originally Posted by Hellmark

I don't think anyone is asking for a free for all, just not be so draconian.

Some people are asking for a free for all but and others ask that the publishers do as they (the askers) think they should do. My contention is that ebooks are not pbooks and that currently the authors/publishers have spent time and money getting them to market, so that they should have the same rights to decide on how they will distribute them as owners and producers of other goods have.
I am a big fan of the library system and have nothing against anyone getting something for free. But... I do not think authors and publishers are evil in wanting to make as much profit as they can. Since many books are available from the library in paper format, Who is being oppressed that weren't being oppressed ten years ago, because they can't get the exact ebook from the library that they want when they want it?

Originally Posted by Hellmark

There are plenty of ways to make money in other ways. I mean, look at the number of websites out there that are making tons of cash, while their users don't pay anything. Are you paying to use Facebook? Reddit? Google? You can still make money without charging customers. And even if you do charge customers, lacking DRM doesn't make it so you'll not have any sales. Look at O'Reilly, they're a well known publisher, and do not use DRM on any of their books. They've actually tracked a rise in sales after they dropped DRM. Isn't that kind of the opposite of what you're proposing would happen if there were no DRM?

I don't think I mentioned DRM in the part you quoted? And I did not imply that lack DRM made it so you do not have any sales. I am neither for or against DRM but I think it is the author/publisher who has the right to decide whether they will use it or not.

I do think that add supported sales would be as unpopular as DRM, judging by other threads, but again in a free world that should be the sellers choice.

As for O'Reilly, I fail to see how that fits into the current topic unless they have far more liberal library lending policies? Are all of their most current editions in most libraries with much less draconian lending policies? I have no idea but I think not.


I do not think 27 loans per book is an unreasonably low number or that 127 loans per book is an unreasonably high number. Frankly I think it is not my decision to make. Many people mention library books that have been leant out more than 100 times. No one mentions that many are replaced after being leant out much fewer than 27 times. Lotta fussy librarians out their who will replace a book if ketchup is spilled on the cover even if it can be wiped off. Books are damaged, stolen, lost, left in the rain or simply unreturned. Many of these are expensive hardcover editions (and libraries usually pay full retail price). Plus many libraries lease paper books for short periods at some pretty hefty rates to satisfy demand for the latest bestseller.


As to your friend who pirated the book because he couldn't get it for free from the library or convince you to give it to him to see if he liked it. He could have read an excerpt, gone to a bookstore and browsed the book or perhaps even legally read enough of it on your reader to see if he liked it. Does he do that in other areas, steal a car and then buy it if he likes it, steal a pizza and then buy one if he likes it? Would he pay for the first one or just hope the seller was happy to sell the second and only lose half as much? And does either option justify the initial act of just taking the item?

I am sure an occasional pirate buys an occasional book, just as a car thief buys an occasional car. It happens but not on a scale that the urban myth implies. If you have indeed heard tons of stories, and know for a fact that they are for the most part true, you should send them to the publishers with proof of purchases.

My point was that no-one is being unreasonably deprived by not getting a specific ebook from the library. If they cannot get the pbook from the library, then they are no more deprived than those without ereaders. The people who might actually suffer physically or emotionally harmed from not getting the latest bestseller for free in ebook form when they want it are doubtless legion, but residing in another universe far far away.

Helen

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Since many books are available from the library in paper format, Who is being oppressed that weren't being oppressed ten years ago, because they can't get the exact ebook from the library that they want when they want it?

Here's the thing: 50 years ago libraries and book stores were on roughly equal footing. Both of them provided access to print books, and you had to physically get the book.

Today, they are not on equal footing. Libraries still have their traditional inconveniences (e.g. waiting lists, due dates) but certain publishers are attempting to make libraries irrelevant by restricting their access to ebooks. They are effectively telling librarians and library patrons that they cannot reap the conveniences of ebooks, while businesses are allowed to benefit from ebooks. That would be kinda like the auto industry saying that they will sell vehicles with internal combustion engines for private use, but public transit can only use horse drawn carriages. Public transportation would sink into irrelevance.

Which is why we need strong property rights for purchasers. The moment that those rights cease to exist is the moment that society becomes subservient to the interests of businesses. That is not a very happy thing. You only have to look at the history books to realize that.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Here's the thing: 50 years ago libraries and book stores were on roughly equal footing. Both of them provided access to print books, and you had to physically get the book.

Today, they are not on equal footing. Libraries still have their traditional inconveniences (e.g. waiting lists, due dates) but certain publishers are attempting to make libraries irrelevant by restricting their access to ebooks. They are effectively telling librarians and library patrons that they cannot reap the conveniences of ebooks, while businesses are allowed to benefit from ebooks. That would be kinda like the auto industry saying that they will sell vehicles with internal combustion engines for private use, but public transit can only use horse drawn carriages. Public transportation would sink into irrelevance.

Which is why we need strong property rights for purchasers. The moment that those rights cease to exist is the moment that society becomes subservient to the interests of businesses. That is not a very happy thing. You only have to look at the history books to realize that.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems as if you are saying that not providing all ebooks to the libraries will put the libraries out of business? That libraries are in direct competition to bookstores? I see them as a supplemet to bookstores, but I am sure that many, if not all, publishers agree with your POV and in fact may wish to eliminate libraries and probably have always wanted to do so.

I do not think they will succeed in the near future by restricting lending rights to 27 or as 27 people will be able to read the book for the price of one. But that is only an opinion, not a thing I know for sure. I am also not saying that usage should be restricted to this number but it does not seem particularly draconian.

Publishers want to sell books and the world's libraries are a big market, and publishers are a big market. But... publishers (aside form the big six) also view other publishers as competition so in time the situation should self-correct.

I do not agree that 50 years ago, the libraries and bookstores were equal. I got my first library card in 1954 and the city library had one room of poorly looked after books. The children's section was 1 shelf and the books more often than not were scribbled over in crayon. The elementary school library was one small room with maybe 5 bookshelves. We were dirt poor but my parents did buy books. No idea of the price, but they were nice and shiny and for the most part were kept that way. Bookstores had a much wider selection, wider variety, newly published books, while the library did not. Library books were poorly maintained, missing pages, written or scribbled on (the patrons fault in most instances) and overall they were unfriendly places for children at least. Other than my highschool library this seemed to be the case into the early 70's(50 years ago). I had been to quite a few libraries by then and even in bigger cities they were kind of butt ugly. Maybe other countries were different. Many smaller towns and even some small cities in Canada did not have a library other than a school library in in the 80's and 90's and some do not to this day.

The public transit analogy is interesting. Relevant to a point, in that automobile manufactirers sell taxis and police cars etc. Perhaps they also manufacture large buses and mass transportation services such as skytrains people movers etc. If so, I doubt that they, as individuals or a group, would have the moral fortitude to pass up a sale in the millions or even billions in the hopes they would sell more cars. And would they pass up the chance of repeat sales. Someone would be making those humongous sales to governments and the restrictive ones would lose out. I would think that the same thing will happen with ebooks.

And of course, why would someone manufacture a bus or people mover system if only for private use. Would they sell enough of them to pay engineering costs? I agree the analogy is apt and that if publishers can make more money selling to libraries than on individual sales they will leap at the opportunity, just as automobile manufacturers did.

In my mind at least, publishers are a business, and libraries are a public service. A public service is rarely set up with convenience in mind. Public services are usually there primarily to provide necessities to the public, not to give the public exactly what they want when they want it.

Social services do not give you a decent wage, Public transit does not drive you to the door and is nonexistant in many places. There is no highschool in the town I live in and students are tranported to the nearest city (106 mile away) on Monday and brought back on Friday.


Publishers must make money to publish books, pay rent, employees, taxes, and hopefully a profit or why stay in business.

Libraries are under a funding constraint and must receive enough funding to pay employees, rent premises and buy books. So it is the government in essence who determines what they can buy. Some can buy lots and some can buy little. Many do not have ebooks because of funding. Publishers fault?


I don't think that restricting publishers in ways that other businesse are not restricted is fair or equitable. I certainly do not think that laws should be passed affecting only publishers. Business is business, and if the publisher are acting in a legal manner what can we say. All books should be available to all people is not a concept that I am against. But if applied to books why not cars, food, housing, medical care etc. In a perfect world everyone would have everything but we know it isn't so.

Helen

[RDaneel54]

I didn't used to notice who the publisher of a book was, but the way most of them treat libraries has changed that.

When I hear of a book that sounds interesting, I look to see who publishes it. If it's Random House, I know their is a strong chance it is available at the library. This equates to "good publisher" in my mind. Guess which publisher's books I am more likely to buy, even though they do agency pricing?

Before agency pricing, library restrictions for ebooks (or flatout denial of sale to libraries) and then the U.S. Justice Department's case against the Apple and the Agency five, most readers were not aware of specific publishers. That is increasingly changing. Their treatment of libraries regarding ebooks may affect their sales of ebooks and pbooks.

Actions have consequences. If I can't try out your books at the library, I'll probably not buy one from the store.

I know, I can always get in my car and drive to the library to get the pbook. But I'd rather not. So the sale doesn't happen.

Increasing the amount of times a library has to "purchase" an ebook means there are less funds for the library to spend on other ebooks/pbooks. So, again, less books get viewed by the reading public which leads to less sales for the publisher.

In my opinion, it is a good business practice for publishers to allow libraries to purchase their products. They owe the libraries nothing except the chance to provide them with new customers. More product exposure results in more sales.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by RDaneel54

In my opinion, it is a good business practice for publishers to allow libraries to purchase their products. They owe the libraries nothing except the chance to provide them with new customers. More product exposure results in more sales.

This is, of course, an empirical question. But I wouldn't assume that what holds true for you is necessarily true for everyone. Even in the pre-ebook days, if there was a book I wanted to read, I would first check the library for it...but it it wasn't at the library, there was a good chance I would just buy it myself. Depending on how badly I wanted to read it, of course. (And of course this only happened after I became employed; when I was a student, it was the library or nothing.)

WRT e-books, I wouldn't be surprised if not supplying the newest books to libraries resulted in more sales. I don't particularly want this to be the case, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were.

[RDaneel54]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

This is, of course, an empirical question. But I wouldn't assume that what holds true for you is necessarily true for everyone. Even in the pre-ebook days, if there was a book I wanted to read, I would first check the library for it...but it it wasn't at the library, there was a good chance I would just buy it myself. Depending on how badly I wanted to read it, of course. (And of course this only happened after I became employed; when I was a student, it was the library or nothing.)

WRT e-books, I wouldn't be surprised if not supplying the newest books to libraries resulted in more sales. I don't particularly want this to be the case, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were.

Agreed, it could go either way. I do think more publicity allows customers to know which publishers do what.

But, I also think libraries provide product exposure, whether it be by website or physical display.

[crossi]

Someone said if they couldn't find a book they wanted at the library they would buy the book. Well sure, but how did they know they wanted that book? I found most of my favorite authors by trying out a pile of unknown to me authors at the library. I would never have bought them because at that point being unknown to me I didn't especially want them I was just mildly curious. After I found an author I liked at the library then I searched the bookstores for them because I wanted the books available without having to wait for them. Without the library I never would have bought those authors because 9 out of 10 authors I try turn out to not be to my taste. The risk isn't worth the expense for a unknown to me author. Spend $100 to find one author I like? Forget it.

[AndrewH]

Originally Posted by crossi

Someone said if they couldn't find a book they wanted at the library they would buy the book. Well sure, but how did they know they wanted that book? I found most of my favorite authors by trying out a pile of unknown to me authors at the library.

Sure, back in the day... Now we have Facebook, Google +, Twitter, blogs, message boards, emails, YouTube book trailers, and within the past year I've seen two or three books advertised on TV. Not to mention the specific ebook store sites (Amazon, Sony, Nook, et al) and elibraries.

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems as if you are saying that not providing all ebooks to the libraries will put the libraries out of business? That libraries are in direct competition to bookstores? I see them as a supplemet to bookstores, but I am sure that many, if not all, publishers agree with your POV and in fact may wish to eliminate libraries and probably have always wanted to do so.

In some ways, libraries are in direct competition with bookstores. They provide the same products and they do so by very similar means. The big difference though is clientele. Libraries provide access to a resource, but at a cost. Since it is shared, you have to wait. Since other people are making purchasing decisions, you can't always read what you want. You also don't get to add the book to your private collection. This distinction is why libraries will never undermine bookstores, even when they carry ebooks.

Now I agree with you about libraries being public service. Public services may involve inconveniences. The problem is when the inconvenience becomes too great it ceases to serve the people who it is intended for. Families who don't have the financial means to buy books are unlikely to have the time to visit a physical library on a regular basis, while wealthier families can buy books without leaving their own home. So while access to literacy is remaining static for the former group, the access to literacy is increasing for the latter.

To be honest though, my biggest concern is property rights. For normal transactions, such as the purchase of a book, it is dangerous to allow the seller to set terms beyond those provided by law, such as copyright. If this continues to happen, we will effectively find ourselves with no property rights. If this continues to happen, we will not be much better off than serfs of days gone by. (Note: I'm looking at the bigger picture here. It will take more than books to tip the balance. Alas, this notion of licensing in place of selling is frightfully common these days.)

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

If this continues to happen, we will not be much better off than serfs of days gone by.

I'm at least as much of an Amazon-skeptic as the next person. But even I can't picture Jeff Bezos exercising droit du seigneur.

Seriously, I can't imagine what substantial aspect of serfdom this has anything to do with. Serfdom was a horrible oppressive system, even when the feudal lord wasn't a rapist, and even though I believe a serf could own a book outright. Leasing, and being a serf, are unconnected.