Publisher puts new limits on library e-books

[Brat]

I am surprised at some writers questioning the social value of libraries. They house and circulate much more than current literature, they offer people who cannot afford to buy a lot of books access. A library inspires a love of reading in children.

IMHO a library ranks right up there with hospitals as what makes a great community.

 

[donheff]

So If a student buys one college e-textbook, it would be OK for them to give it or loan it to everyone else in the US educational system as they see fit?

Simple conversion to a pdf file, then it is the public domain for free... How's that going to work? What would be the incentive for research and new course materials if the end product is going to be distributed at will for nothing? The textbook industry would collapse overnight if students could "give or loan their course materials as they see fit" without any pesky IP restrictions.

Electronic distribution is a lot diferent than a physical book, as such I believe we need different guidelines for re-distribution. I guess it does depend on your perspective; I am in a manufacturing business that is intellectual-property sensitive, and have firsthand knowledge of what it costs to develop and protect IP property rights from those who would take them without any form of compensation.

WS - you need to pay closer attention. I have not talked at all about illegal posting. The courts have dealt with this. I am talking about the serial passing on of a legitimately purchased copy. DRM software is intended to protect this limitation but it applies with or without DRM. If I purchase a physical textbook I can sell or give it to anyone I want. If I buy an e-text book I should be able to do the same. If I post a copy for anyone to down load I have broken the law. Libraries serially lend copies and they use DRM software to ensure that users don't keep or pass on their loaned copy.

 

[Focus]

"Is our community better off because people pooled their common resources (tax $) so that anyone in the community has access to this book/magazine/etc...."

Yes.

"...and could the private sector fill this need better?"

No. For the underprivileged in particular, public libraries provide an opportunity for self-education. In my opinion, it is an essential element in a successful democracy and needs to survive the transition to e-books.

"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration." --Andrew Carnegie

 

[ERD50]

I didn't mean hostility in the sense of anger -- just opposition. And my comment was clearly aimed at multiple posters not particularly at you.

I figured it was directed at multiple, I was just trying to figure out what I said that could have been seen as hostile, I didn't want to speak for or appear to attack others.

I have a tough time equating "opposition" with "hostility", unless there is some actively hostile words/actions.

I don't know but I think it is paid for by general revenues in DC which would be more like Hawaii's $25. If it is paid by property taxes as in your local, fewer people pay and they pay more. If that is how DC actually does it, I pay a lot

Would it make a difference? I assume you are referring to renters who don't directly pay property tax, but the owners of the building pay property tax, so that expense would be divided across all 'households'.

... Copyright periods have been extended many times and IMHO have tilted too far toward the producers/sellers and the descendants.

I agree. Some level of protections make sense, but this seems to go to far in some cases. Wasn't Sonny Bono responsible for some of this? No conflict of interest there, huh?

Why should E-Books be any different from Hard Bound books as to the number of times a library can lend them out? If the E-Book has to be returned or expired before it can be lent out again, it is just like a hard copy. Just because one can does not mean one should!

donheff:

I would recommend treating ebook licenses like physical books - if you buy an ebook you should be able to give it or loan it to anyone you see fit; if a library buys one it should be able to loan it out serially just as it does a physical book.

You just have to realize that physical and electronic versions of things are different - you can't play by the same rules, it just won't work. All legality/ethics aside for the moment, it costs more for an individual to copy a physical book than what they can buy it for. But an electronic document can be copied quickly at essentially zero cost, and it does not physically wear out. It's a different game, totally. Rather than try to compare them, you just need to look at it from a supplier/consumer view - what can the supplier offer that allows enough profit to make it worth their effort, and will a consumer pay it? That's where the rubber meets the road, everything else is idle speculation.

-ERD50

 

[Westernskies]

WS - you need to pay closer attention. If I purchase a physical textbook I can sell or give it to anyone I want. If I buy an e-text book I should be able to do the same.

You may want to do the same; I never mentioned "posting a copy for anyone to download" (your words, not mine)

I am talking about a student buying a single copy of an electronic book, "selling or giving it to anyone they want", who does the same, who does the same. etc. A whole class could share a single "legal" copy in about 3 minutes, a whole campus in about three days. Textbook sales would plummet if unlimited peer-to-peer electronic "sharing" was allowed; it's a lot different doing this electronically than with a printed and bound book, because the conventional book has to physically change hands and can only be in one place at one time, not so with e-books.

 

[MichaelB]

It is just as arbitrary as paying $999 for a TV, $25,458 for a car, or $84,562 in salary. It's just a number low enough for them to make enough profit on this new medium, and high enough to get libraries to agree. Like any other supply/demand issue, the two parties will meet in the middle somewhere, or find alternatives.

The price for a tv or car is set in a marketplace, not by the manufacturer (that would be unlawful) . In this case the limit is being set by a business that is neither the copyright owner nor the user. Not only arbitrary but also unilateral.

Libraries are governed by fair use principle – this is the issue. Clearly, unlimited distribution of e-copies could negatively impact an author’s potential income so there needs to be a limit. The author needs to be able to capture a reasonable part of the market value of his/her work. The question is, what is a reasonable limit? In this case Harpers is not a copyright holder and therefore not entitled to protection – the author is but has no voice here. Likewise, a single limit may protect a few top authors and have a negative impact on many others. Which authors are represented in this? Like the music industry, this issue is part copyright and part business model.

I think the way to proceed is to limit ecopies the same way hardcopies are limited during the initial sales period. That is, each copy is entitled to 30 days usage, or some such period, based on actual library use and policy. Once a book has passed its sales peak – perhaps a year or so – then restrictions should be reduced because the author has collected a significant portion of total market value and the ecopy no longer represents a substantial threat. In this way, an ebook would be allowed 12 uses per year for a specific period - one or two years, then a much higher number from that point on.

 

[MichaelB]

I am talking about a student buying a single copy of an electronic book, "selling or giving it to anyone they want", who does the same, who does the same. etc. A whole class could share a single "legal" copy in about 3 minutes, a whole campus in about three days. Textbook sales would plummet if unlimited peer-to-peer electronic "sharing" was allowed; it's a lot different doing this electronically than with a printed and bound book, because the conventional book has to physically change hands and can only be in one place at one time, not so with e-books.

Technically, this is against the law. When you "buy" a copyrighted product you are not buying the product, you are buying the right to read it (or listen, in the case of music) and have no rights to sell it.

 

[Westernskies]

The price for a tv or car is set in a marketplace, not by the manufacturer (that would be unlawful) . In this case the limit is being set by a business that is neither the copyright owner nor the user. Not only arbitrary but also unilateral.

Libraries are governed by fair use principle – this is the issue. Clearly, unlimited distribution of e-copies could negatively impact an author’s potential income so there needs to be a limit. The author needs to be able to capture a reasonable part of the market value of his/her work. The question is, what is a reasonable limit? In this case Harpers is not a copyright holder and therefore not entitled to protection – the author is but has no voice here. Likewise, a single limit may protect a few top authors and have a negative impact on many others. Which authors are represented in this? Like the music industry, this issue is part copyright and part business model.

I think the way to proceed is to limit ecopies the same way hardcopies are limited during the initial sales period. That is, each copy is entitled to 30 days usage, or some such period, based on actual library use and policy. Once a book has passed its sales peak – perhaps a year or so – then restrictions should be reduced because the author has collected a significant portion of total market value and the ecopy no longer represents a substantial threat. In this way, an ebook would be allowed 12 uses per year for a specific period - one or two years, then a much higher number from that point on.

Good analysis, MichaelB; finally, something we agree on!

 

[powerplay]

I value the libraries and use many of the available services. There is much more than books, e-books, and DVD's to most library systems. Libraries are a great place to go to read magazines and I think most have computers that can be used for internet surfing.

A volunteer group I'm involved with uses a community room at a local library for the monthly meeting. Without the library room it would be difficult to find an alternative meeting room.

I use the Value Line service that I access through my libraries website. Purchasing my own VL subscription would be in excess of $500/yr and probably not something I would do.

Libraries also have subscriptions to research tools like ancestry.com and archives to newspapers dating back over 100 years. Some of the resources are available via website and some require using the resource at the library. There are book groups, discussion groups, movie nights, and many volunteer opportunities available through libraries. Recently I read that one library system near me has passes that can be checked out to visit local attractions so that is something else I find useful.

 

[samclem]

Somewhat off topic, but to me the most valuable thing in the library is a (good) reference librarian. As free internet sources and subscription online sources proliferate, the reference librarian is the specialist who can help show a way through the ever-changing info jungle. I can't count the times the librarian has shown me recently added search tools and information sources.

The online subscription ($$) reference services at many libraries are terrific, much more authoritative than "open" internet sources in many cases.
For those who do a lot of technical research, it's sometimes best to skip the public library and go to a local college or university. Some will let non-students pay a fee and use the library resources.

On the other hand--I went to our local community college recently and needed to find articles about an event that happened about 30 years ago. I asked where they kept the "Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature" (remember the thick green bound volumes?). The young reference librarian had never heard of it. I'm officially a dinosaur.

 

[ERD50]

Libraries are governed by fair use principle – this is the issue.

Is that true? I'm not sure. I thought that an author could decide to NOT submit their works to libraries. Can a Library claim 'fair use' of any work that they purchase?

When you "buy" a copyrighted product you are not buying the product, you are buying the right to read it (or listen, in the case of music) and have no rights to sell it.

Is that true? I'm pretty sure I can buy a CD, and then sell it legally. I can't legally sell a copy of it, or keep a copy that I made, but I bought it, and if I physically hand it over, I think I can sell it. No?

If you are talking about an electronic work, then if there were the mechanism, I should be able to sell it if I also sell the 'key' with it.

-ERD50

 

[Texas Proud]

So, what should the limit be? thirty two? Eleven thousand? Why would the recipients be expected to decide? The author and publisher should reserve the right to how their intellectual property is distributed, even in "free" format. Putting it into the public domain without restrictions is giving their income stream away, but I'm sure many of our social welfare engineering fans here expect that. (Those filthy rich authors can afford it, it's their moral obligation to give that income away......)

Don't know if someone responded to you on this as I just started reading....


But... if a library has a hard copy, the publisher does NOT have the ability to restrict the library on how many times they can lend it out... the Supreme Court has decided that issue.... so if they want to lend out a book eleven thousand times... they can... but if that was one time a day it would take 30 years...

 

[MichaelB]

Is that true? I'm not sure. I thought that an author could decide to NOT submit their works to libraries. Can a Library claim 'fair use' of any work that they purchase?

Not an expert. My understanding is the agreements are between libraries and publishers, not individual authors, and libraries are free to purchase books for their lending. They are not allowed to resell or donate.

If you are talking about an electronic work, then if there were the mechanism, I should be able to sell it if I also sell the 'key' with it.

Only if the author allows it. If the author say no (single use license), then you cannot resell or even transfer to another media that is within your personal use.

Is that true? I'm pretty sure I can buy a CD, and then sell it legally. I can't legally sell a copy of it, or keep a copy that I made, but I bought it, and if I physically hand it over, I think I can sell it. No?

The first sale rule allows you to sell that which you purchased. Originally for books but later expanded to music. So if you buy a book or a CD, you can sell it later on. You still never own the content, just that specific media. My point to WS was regarding the student reselling multiple copies of an e-book. This is clearly unlawful in the case of digital music and there is no reason it should be any different for digital writing.

 

[Westernskies]

My point to WS was regarding the student reselling multiple copies of an e-book. This is clearly unlawful in the case of digital music and there is no reason it should be any different for digital writing.

I'm using textbooks as an example, but the principle is the same. Each student would only have to sell the one copy they bought from the previous student to turn one "legal" copy of a textbook into tens of thousands of "legal" copies, the author would only receive a royalty on the first copy sold. Fair use?

This isn't a problem with physical books, as each copy can only be in one place at one time thus only usable to one reader at a time, e-books can be emailed in seconds and reside on many different computers, each usable simultaneuously. (protections are easily hacked, and worse case, pdf's can be easily created with a scanner, I-phone, or with commercial software.)
And pdf's are a lot easier than copying physical texts, I knew a guy in college (30+ years ago) who "lent" xeroxed copies of textbooks, I believe he actually had a work-study job for one of the University offices and used their copiers after hours...usually the "lending" consisted of "sharing" recreational substances.

 

[MichaelB]

I'm using textbooks as an example, but the principle is the same. Each student would only have to sell the one copy they bought from the previous student to turn one "legal" copy of a textbook into tens of thousands of "legal" copies, the author would only receive a royalty on the first copy sold. Fair use?

This isn't a problem with physical books, as each copy can only be in one place at one time thus only usable to one reader at a time, e-books can be emailed in seconds and reside on many different computers, each usable simultaneuously. (protections are easily hacked, and worse case, pdf's can be easily created with a scanner, I-phone, or with commercial software.)
And pdf's are a lot easier than copying physical texts, I knew a guy in college (30+ years ago) who "lent" xeroxed copies of textbooks, I believe he actually had a work-study job for one of the University offices and used their copiers after hours...usually the "lending" consisted of "sharing" recreational substances.

Photocopying for sale is unlawful. Hacking protections is as well, covered by the DMCA. E-books copyright can be use-limited, just as computer SW is today, so I do not see a legal issue here.

 

[SunsetSail]

Photocopying for sale is unlawful. Hacking protections is as well, covered by the DMCA. E-books copyright can be use-limited, just as computer SW is today, so I do not see a legal issue here.

Actually reproduction (tangible or intangible) for distribution is a copyright violation - this is how the peer-to-peer sharing sites were attacked. For many years a profit element was required for a violation, but that was changed maybe 10 years or so ago. But your point is still valid - anything other than the first copy in WS' example would be a violation of copyright law.

The price for a tv or car is set in a marketplace, not by the manufacturer (that would be unlawful).

I think I'm misunderstanding your statement or missing something. What law is violated if a manufacturer sets a price for their product?

 

[donheff]

Westernskies -- I think we have been talking around each other. You keep talking about unlimited copies as if we are talking about libraries (or students with their e-text books) simply taking an ebook and giving it out to multiple people willy nilly. That would be illegal and is not at all what we are talking about. We are talking about libraries purchasing a license for an ebook and then lending that copy to one person. WHen that person "returns" the book (or when it expires) it is wiped from the lendee's hard drive. Then the library lends it out to person number two. A limit of 26 means that for a best seller the library would have to repurchase the license after a year or so unlike with a physical book that would last for years or decades. Similarly with an e-text book or an ebook your purchase from Amazon your are not free to distribute unlimited copies (i.e. put it in the public domain as your stated). But you can pass it on to a friend when you are done. And that friend can pass it on again. Or, at least, you should be able to if the e copy is treated like a physical book. I think in practice, lending copies to friends from Kindle to Kindle is more limited than that - probably to some extend due to technical limitations of DRM software.

I am sympathetic with the publishers (to a degree). They need to be able to make a profit or there won't be any books for any of us to read. But I suspect they are over reaching with their DRM protectionism. They are letting people pass ebooks on to some extent (probably in hopes to forestall adverse court decisions about sharing) but from what I have heard they are pretty nit picky about it. I am considering getting a tablet computer this year -- maybe I will get a chance to check this stuff out in person

 

[Westernskies]

Westernskies -- I think we have been talking around each other. You keep talking about unlimited copies as if we are talking about libraries (or students with their e-text books) simply taking an ebook and giving it out to multiple people willy nilly. That would be illegal and is not at all what we are talking about. We are talking about libraries purchasing a license for an ebook and then lending that copy to one person. WHen that person "returns" the book (or when it expires) it is wiped from the lendee's hard drive. Then the library lends it out to person number two. A limit of 26 means that for a best seller the library would have to repurchase the license after a year or so unlike with a physical book that would last for years or decades. Similarly with an e-text book or an ebook your purchase from Amazon your are not free to distribute unlimited copies (i.e. put it in the public domain as your stated). But you can pass it on to a friend when you are done. And that friend can pass it on again. Or, at least, you should be able to if the e copy is treated like a physical book. I think in practice, lending copies to friends from Kindle to Kindle is more limited than that - probably to some extend due to technical limitations of DRM software.

I am sympathetic with the publishers (to a degree). They need to be able to make a profit or there won't be any books for any of us to read. But I suspect they are over reaching with their DRM protectionism. They are letting people pass ebooks on to some extent (probably in hopes to forestall adverse court decisions about sharing) but from what I have heard they are pretty nit picky about it. I am considering getting a tablet computer this year -- maybe I will get a chance to check this stuff out in person

Textbooks was the example I chose, because :
1. They are expensive
2. Multiple users need the same tome, sometimes year after year
3. College kids are pretty ingenious, well-networked, and most would rather spend money on beer than books.

I BOUGHT an out-of print e-book two days ago, downloaded as a copyrighted file in a "protected pdf format" for $10. Out of print copies, rarely available, are $150+. I wanted to read it on my Kindle, but, unfortunately, it wasn't available in Kindle format. So, voila, quick Google search and a free program download later, I converted it to a Kindle-readable pdf document, and an adobe-readable pdf document. The copyright meant nothing to the conversion program. I now can share it with anyone (loan or give a copy) if I were so inclined. And, I''m just a crusty old technophobe, not some savvy young technogeek, but it became evident to me pretty quick that electronic books have little or no downstream distribution limitations, unlike one- at -a -time published versions.

Publishers and authors have a right to be careful with their intellectual property, IMO. YMMV.

 

[donheff]

Textbooks was the example I chose, because :
1. They are expensive
2. Multiple users need the same tome, sometimes year after year
3. College kids are pretty ingenious, well-networked, and most would rather spend money on beer than books.

I BOUGHT an out-of print e-book two days ago, downloaded as a copyrighted file in a "protected pdf format" for $10. Out of print copies, rarely available, are $150+. I wanted to read it on my Kindle, but, unfortunately, it wasn't available in Kindle format. So, voila, quick Google search and a free program download later, I converted it to a Kindle-readable pdf document, and an adobe-readable pdf document. The copyright meant nothing to the conversion program. I now can share it with anyone (loan or give a copy) if I were so inclined. And, I''m just a crusty old technophobe, not some savvy young technogeek, but it became evident to me pretty quick that electronic books have little or no downstream distribution limitations, unlike one- at -a -time published versions.

Publishers and authors have a right to be careful with their intellectual property, IMO. YMMV.

I understand that people can pirate music, videos, and ebooks. They do it all the time. It is, however, illegal. The RIAA has successfully sued a number of people for doing it. That doesn't mean that people who actually purchase the items should be penalized for fair use. All that would do is encourage honest people to do what you just described. As I said, I don't begrudge publishers making a buck. I hope they [-]can[/-] will come up with some useable schemes for transifering rights in a digital copy to someone you want to give (or sell) your book to.

 

[ERD50]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB
The price for a tv or car is set in a marketplace, not by the manufacturer (that would be unlawful).

I think I'm misunderstanding your statement or missing something. What law is violated if a manufacturer sets a price for their product?

I was wondering this as well. If I don't like their price, I won't buy it.

-ERD50

 

[M Paquette]

I think that worries about digital rights management, self-destructing digital media, and other schemes for generating artificial scarcity will pass. They're really just a prop to hold up an existing supply/demand model built around what had been limited access to content.

Eventually new models will arise that don't depend on collecting a toll for each copy of a piece of content that enters distribution. As many here have noted, technologically, digital copies are essentially free to replicate, and unbounded in the number of replications that can be done with no loss of quality.

On the music side, bands like RadioHead have already realized that the real money is made in live concerts, t-shirt sales and whatnot, and the digital media act as free publicity.

There's a long history in the science fiction writing community of authors auctioning off naming rights for characters, usually with funds received going to charity. Jerry Pournelle still writes his old columns, along with other stuff, and puts it all up on his web site with a PayPal tin cup hanging out front. Corey Doctorow has played with selling simple advertising ("Sponsored by Ubuntu") in a short story collection.

I suspect that we'll see new business models built around 'free' as we shift digital media from an economy of artificial scarcity to one of abundance. A new author might put out some works to attract attention, and if well received, hang out the PayPal tin cup and promise to release the next book when there's $10,000 in the cup. (Should he burn his readers, word will quickly get out on the reputation network. Heck, you could even get a barter economy of reputation points going.)

Zero-cost distribution is turning sharing into an industry. It's the externalities (non-money scarcity, like attention, or reputation) that may form the basis for economic activity in this area.

 

[samclem]

Eventually new models will arise that don't depend on collecting a toll for each copy of a piece of content that enters distribution.

I hope we'll find a way to keep publishers (not just artists) in the business. With music there was a lot of hope that "flat" distribution would allow unknown artists to sell directly to the public, retain artistic control, and cut out the middleman. The public would find the gems and they'd be rewarded. Some of that has happened, but I'm not sure that overall the situation is better today than in the days of vinyl. Bringing down the "barriers to entry" (with desktop studios and instant distribution) has not been an unalloyed blessing. As a consumer, it's just too much trouble to sort through the mountain of chaff to find something I might enjoy. Record companies did a pretty good job of spotting talent and putting it into easily searched "bins." The situation with literature will be even more of a headache for consumers: It's easy to sample 20 seconds of a song and see if I like it, but I sure don't want to invest 30 minutes reading a self-published book to figure out if an author has talent. I'd be just as happy to let editors and publishers retain that traditional headache.

 

[ERD50]

I think that worries about digital rights management, self-destructing digital media, and other schemes for generating artificial scarcity will pass. They're really just a prop to hold up an existing supply/demand model built around what had been limited access to content.

Eventually new models will arise that don't depend on collecting a toll for each copy of a piece of content that enters distribution. ...

On the music side, bands like RadioHead have already realized that the real money is made in live concerts, t-shirt sales and whatnot, and the digital media act as free publicity.

Exactly - like some of us have said, digital copies are just a different ballgame from physical copies. Trying to bend them to fit the same rules will be as successful as feeding hay and oats to the new-fangled horseless-carriage would have been.

Similar to how TV is dealing with the ability to skip commercials - they embed the ad right in the show. Adapt or die.

-ERD50

 

[haha]

I value the libraries and use many of the available services. There is much more than books, e-books, and DVD's to most library systems. Libraries are a great place to go to read magazines and I think most have computers that can be used for internet surfing.

A volunteer group I'm involved with uses a community room at a local library for the monthly meeting. Without the library room it would be difficult to find an alternative meeting room.

I use the Value Line service that I access through my libraries website. Purchasing my own VL subscription would be in excess of $500/yr and probably not something I would do.

Libraries also have subscriptions to research tools like ancestry.com and archives to newspapers dating back over 100 years. Some of the resources are available via website and some require using the resource at the library. There are book groups, discussion groups, movie nights, and many volunteer opportunities available through libraries. Recently I read that one library system near me has passes that can be checked out to visit local attractions so that is something else I find useful.

100 % agree! A good library builds civic pride and consciousness because of all the things you mention, and more. Our main library is used for frequent authors' readings, poetry recitals, musical presentations, etc, all well attended. Also, in a community like mine with many ethnic groups, the library often has language learning resources, as well as translations of many health and civic awareness documents, and it is very heavily used for these things too.

I consider our library to be a giant service both to the larger community and various sub-communities, but also to me personally.

Similar in offerings but more focused and smaller in scope are the University Bookstore and REI.

Ha

 

[MichaelB]

I think I'm misunderstanding your statement or missing something. What law is violated if a manufacturer sets a price for their product?

Manufacturers can suggest prices and recommend prices but cannot set them. The price needs to be set by the retailer. If the manufacturer sets the final retail price it is violating federal anti-trust law.