Copyright vs. public library: the next big battleground?

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by bevdeforges

It looks like most of the folks in this discussion are of the North American persuasion. Here in France, various sorts of blank media (blank tapes, CDs and DVDs) are assessed a tax that is supposed to go toward compensating the artists who produce the various works assumed to be downloaded to the blank media.

Frankly, it's a royal PITA to those of us who buy large quantities of blank media to use for strictly IT purposes (copying business files or making restore disks for customers) but I'm sure they could use some variation of the idea to assess a "royalty" to library copies of e-books to cover the right to loan out the books. Or, that idea of simply assessing the libraries based on which books they have available for loan at the first of the year would work, too. (Though that would also encourage the libraries to get rid of e-books that weren't circulating, which might not be such a good thing.)

We have the same levy for blank media in Canada and I agree it's a PITA. The difference that I see with the library system though is that it's not an arbitrary decision about how to split up the booty because we already have real measurements so the correct author would get compensated.

The model that I'm thinking of is that the government would make a condition of copyright that an e-book version is provided to the government for library loans. In other words it's a condition of being able to sell the book in the country. There wouldn't be a concern with circulation or availability of e-books.

The compensation to the author would be raised from the symbolic couple of pennies we have today to levels equivalent to what they would make off a sale. The money being paid to companies like Overdrive would be directed to the authors instead. You wouldn't need DRM because it would be equivalent to a sale for the author.

The libraries could still limit the number of concurrent loans of new releases but it would be to meet their budget rather then an arbitrary licensing agreement. There wouldn't be any restrictions on loaning public domain books so the library is still providing the service. The public would have access to the same library content whether you lived on a farm, in a small village or in a large city.

In theory I don't see why this couldn't work and I'm guessing that people would get more service for their tax dollars but I obviously don't have access to the budget numbers. In Canada it will probably never get implemented because the libraries are funded through the municipal taxes and something like this would have to be done at the national level.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I don't see how they are funded makes any difference. If anything, being tax funded would make it easier to do.

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

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

There's no real reason why writers or publishers couldn't get some money from the library every time one of their ebooks is "borrowed", assuming they don't already. That should keep them happy enough, and it would do away with the need to wait for someone else to "return" the ebook before you could have it. There's also no real reason why we couldn't have national or even international libraries rather than lots of tiny ones.

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.

[brecklundin]

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.

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.

[aagstn]

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.

I agree with this, but progressive ideas are constantly under attack in America and the public library is as progressive as it gets. I won't be surprised if there is an attempt to block them from lending digital media or forcing them to pay such high fees they won't be able to.

[emellaich]

This is interesting, but I think we should really re-assess the role of public libraries in our system.

At one point in the distant past, libraries were necessary because books were created by hand and there was a limited supply of books. Even after books were printed, they weren't necessarily broadly available. The standard of living and access to book stores was limited so many people couldn't actually get books -- even though printing was bringing down costs.

Today, however, p-books and e-books are accessible to many. Is it really right for me to take your tax money to supply me with free books when I can get my own (both free form the authors/publishers and paid)? My local library also provides DVDs and even paintings. You can actually check out a painting for your wall for three months. At the end of that time you check it back in and get another free one to replace it. Now these are all great services and I (as a consumer/user) love them, but should your tax dollars really be used to give me these 'free' services?

My feeling is that there is still a digital divide, and that it is worthwhile to provide reading access to poorer children/folks. It is a good return on our taxes because their education will pay us back in their future productivity in society.

However, I'm not convinced that libraries should be using tax money to provide free goods (books, songs, videos, paintings, ...) to those people who can afford them on their own.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by emellaich

However, I'm not convinced that libraries should be using tax money to provide free goods (books, songs, videos, paintings, ...) to those people who can afford them on their own.

Like the poor, we will also never be rid of the cheapskates. Why not help reduce ignorance among the latter along with the former? It doesn't really add much to the cost.

Besides, libraries have a strong symbolic value as well as a practical one. Limiting access to them will erode much of the good that they represent, and will probably leave them vulnerable to further restrictions. I trust librarians to know how best to serve the public; let's leave it up to them.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by emellaich

At one point in the distant past, libraries were necessary because books were created by hand and there was a limited supply of books.

Nice hypothesis, but you're forgetting one minor detail: at the time, what we think of a public libraries did not exist. "Libraries" were collections of a few dozen books owned by monasteries or occasionally rich noblemen, accessible if at all to others like them. There were no public libraries at all.

In the United States, public libraries got their start along with other forms of public education, nearly all in the 18th century or later, long after the invention of the printed book. The big promoter of libraries was Andrew Carnegie, who was the Bill Gates of his time. He built hundreds of libraries, from large colleges to small towns, who happily took over the management of the libraries that he built. Other towns built their own libraries.

Ironically enough, books were relatively cheaper then. That is, a day's wage for an average workman could buy more books than it can today. But Carnegie thought that libraries mattered. Towns thought that libraries mattered. People thought that libraries mattered.

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 money should be spent on. They've said it shouldn't be spent for the support of the poor, for the provision of fire and emergency medical services, for the running of libraries, for the management of roads, even for the maintenance 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?

"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.

[Krystian Galaj]

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 money should be spent on. They've said it shouldn't be spent for the support of the poor, for the provision of fire and emergency medical services, for the running of libraries, for the management of roads, even for the maintenance 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?

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.

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

"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.

I disagree; citizens of the Roman Empire worked less than 2 days a year to cover taxes, and it was enough to keep all the legions in working order.

But this is getting political - perhaps it's best to finish this branch of thread discussion at this point?

[Barcey]

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.

Electronic books are different then paper books so I don't believe they should be limited with the same restrictions. They cost almost nothing to store.

If library A has an annual budget of $120K for purchasing new books and library B has an annual budget of $12K for purchasing new books, then somebody has to sit down each month and decide which physical books they can purchase and how many of each they can make available. People aren't perfect at forecasting so they buy books that nobody borrows and they don't buy enough copies of books in demand. Library B doesn't have as much money so they can't have the same selection. Why do we have to do this with electronic books?

My understanding is that the Overdrive system we're using today emulates the physical book model. Library A gets a larger catalog of books to lend to their patrons and more concurrent copies and library B gets a smaller catalog of ebooks and less concurrent copies. The libraries like this because it's what they understand.

Why can't they have the same catalog of books and pay each time an ebook is borrowed instead? If library B has 1/10th the patrons then they're paying the same amount per patron but providing a much better service. The libraries continue to limit concurrent copies of popular books and the total number of copies of non public domain ebooks lent in a month. If they're paying $4 each time an ebook is borrowed then library A could lend 2,500 copyright protected ebooks a month and library B could lend 250 a month. If they don't lend that many then they can lend more the next month. People would still have to wait for the book to be available, same as today.

I'm not suggesting that the library patrons pay each time they borrow a book. The libraries can lend an unlimited number of public domain books but they would continue to be limited in the number of copyright protected books they can lend.

[brecklundin]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Nice hypothesis, but you're forgetting one minor detail: at the time, what we think of a public libraries did not exist. "Libraries" were collections of a few dozen books owned by monasteries or occasionally rich noblemen, accessible if at all to others like them. There were no public libraries at all.

In the United States, public libraries got their start along with other forms of public education, nearly all in the 18th century or later, long after the invention of the printed book. The big promoter of libraries was Andrew Carnegie, who was the Bill Gates of his time. He built hundreds of libraries, from large colleges to small towns, who happily took over the management of the libraries that he built. Other towns built their own libraries.

Ironically enough, books were relatively cheaper then. That is, a day's wage for an average workman could buy more books than it can today. But Carnegie thought that libraries mattered. Towns thought that libraries mattered. People thought that libraries mattered.

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 money should be spent on. They've said it shouldn't be spent for the support of the poor, for the provision of fire and emergency medical services, for the running of libraries, for the management of roads, even for the maintenance 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?

"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.

Excellent take on the entire purpose of the Public Library in the US...one of the few truly altruistic cornerstones of our society which still exist today. Here is a shot of our original library which was one of those Carnegie libraries:



it was built in 1911 and used until 1968 when the "new" library was built across town. Now it is our town's museum.

Edit: I just realized that 2011 is going to be the 100th anniversary of the building and essentially our city's library. A 100yrs old is ancient in California years!!

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by Barcey

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

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?

[khalleron]

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 disagree; citizens of the Roman Empire worked less than 2 days a year to cover taxes, and it was enough to keep all the legions in working order.

Mule Fritters! Most of the real work was done by slaves. Oh, so easy to forget who paid the *real* cost of that system. Not to mention the free labor of all those conquered peoples who weren't considered citizens.

Don't cherry-pick your data - there are people who know enough history to call you on it.

And taxes *are* people being organized to build roads, etc. This is a democracy, at least it is here where I am. The State R Us. Taxes are one of the ways we cooperate to build the things all of us need. Yeah, there are always going to be deadbeats who don't want to pay their share, but don't make a virtue of it.

[Krystian Galaj]

(won't dicuss political matters in this topic; sorry)

[mr ploppy]

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.

You wouldn't pay to borrow an ebook, the library would pay out of whatever funds they currently use to buy books. A bit like how it works in the UK, with people getting paid a small amount of money each time it is borrowed. In the case of a national library it would come from government funding (taxes) or some sort of charity. For an international one, I don't know, probably some joint effort by the publishers paid for by each country that wanted to take part.