Moral and Ethical Norms Regarding Book Sharing

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

I consider breaking DRM for sharing or keeping to be unethical and immoral, but time-shifting doesn't bother me. The way libraries are set up, with wait times in months, seems to encourage such behavior. Again, we are not keeping anything or sharing it with others.

While I understand the frustration in regard to having a bunch of books become available all at once, it seems to me that once you allow for "time-shifting" that you start encouraging what I'll call "front-loading," adding anything and everything to your holds list without regard to when you'll actually have time to read them. This would tend to made waitlists longer for those not so quick off the mark. I think there's less of an argument for time-shifting now that you can manage your holds list; if all of a sudden you're next in line for several books you can suspend some holds. It doesn't mean you can't be blindsided as others suspend holds making your turn sooner than expected, but it helps.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by issybird

While I understand the frustration in regard to having a bunch of books become available all at once, it seems to me that once you allow for "time-shifting" that you start encouraging what I'll call "front-loading," adding anything and everything to your holds list without regard to when you'll actually have time to read them. This would tend to made waitlists longer for those not so quick off the mark. I think there's less of an argument for time-shifting now that you can manage your holds list; if all of a sudden you're next in line for several books you can suspend some holds. It doesn't mean you can't be blindsided as others suspend holds making your turn sooner than expected, but it helps.

It's almost impossible to figure out, though, at least for new books, which are the ones I generally put on hold. One reason is that the library will often buy multiple copies of a book once there's a long wait list--I was something like 60 on a book recently for one copy, then the library bought some 14 more copies.

There's also the situation of recommending books; you might do that months before and then suddenly the library purchases a half-dozen of them at once and they're on your hold list.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by issybird

While I understand the frustration in regard to having a bunch of books become available all at once, it seems to me that once you allow for "time-shifting" that you start encouraging what I'll call "front-loading," adding anything and everything to your holds list without regard to when you'll actually have time to read them. This would tend to made waitlists longer for those not so quick off the mark. I think there's less of an argument for time-shifting now that you can manage your holds list; if all of a sudden you're next in line for several books you can suspend some holds. It doesn't mean you can't be blindsided as others suspend holds making your turn sooner than expected, but it helps.

I personally draw a very strong distinction between buying and renting/borrowing. I normally buy a book or movie because I don't want to be time limited. That's why it cost more to buy than rent. I've never actually rented or borrowed an ebook, but I've rented a number of movies. It's the same principle. I usually will remove the DRM for movie that I bought, so I can back them up. I never remove the DRM on movies that I rent.

Of course, I also don't hold others to my personal set of morals. If they want to remove DRM from ebooks they borrow, that between them and their conscience. I would say that as long as someone only reads the book once and deletes it after they read it, I don't see that as a major moral failing. Not even worth confessing to your priest.

[4691mls]

Overdrive suspend hold option: https://help.overdrive.com/customer/...old?b_id=15211

It was touched on in this old thread about renewing Overdrive books:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh....php?p=3378774

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by issybird

While I understand the frustration in regard to having a bunch of books become available all at once, it seems to me that once you allow for "time-shifting" that you start encouraging what I'll call "front-loading," adding anything and everything to your holds list without regard to when you'll actually have time to read them. This would tend to made waitlists longer for those not so quick off the mark. I think there's less of an argument for time-shifting now that you can manage your holds list; if all of a sudden you're next in line for several books you can suspend some holds. It doesn't mean you can't be blindsided as others suspend holds making your turn sooner than expected, but it helps.

The actually doubled the hold limit at our online library. Both checkouts and holds were doubled to 10. I have nothing checked out for a month, then I get a book or two every other day.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by nabsltd

The most important thing that makes something DRM is the "management" part that allows a content provider to remove access to content you have already paid for and have a copy of on a machine that is not directly controlled by the content provider. Without that, it's not DRM.

Related to that, if different types of rights can't be managed (e.g., open, print, loan/limited copy, etc.), it's not DRM.

And in the end, who cares? How does it improves the discussion?

A user mentioned that publishers in Germany have replaced Adobe DRM with watermarking (which they refer to as social DRM). Whether it technically meets the definition of DRM doesn't matter. No user was confused or unable to follow the meaning.

(Sorry for the rant. I've been crabby and short-tempered recently.)