February 28th, 2011 / 4:49 pm
Snippets
Snippets
Reynard Seifert—
Your best guess: what percentage of HTMLGIANT do you watch? No one cares.
O Hai some librarians are boycotting HarperCollins because they want to limit how many times an ebook can be ‘checked out.’
~ 60% of this question is who cares
What’s your best guess as to how many more of these HTML best guess questions we are going to have to read?
well, you don’t have to read them.
i hope none more
i hope none more
i “look” at about 65% of the articles. i read about 50% of that 65% with sustained interest.
Good for Harper Collins. They are protecting their authors.
Check it, he switched on the move. That’s diabolical.
agreed
i’m with you kyle & lincoln, but why stop there? we could extend the policy to physical books, which could be collected after 26 check-outs and used as firewood for the homeless who sleep on the library’s steps every night, wouldn’t that be sweet
That’s an apples and oranges argument, don’t you think? Physical books can only go out one at a time, they can’t be spread exponentially, etc. Nonphysical books lack any limits, and if there aren’t any, why would anyone who reads ebooks ever buy one again? The library becomes the Internet in that sense. Maybe that’s good for readers in the short term, but eventually it disincentivizes writers Certainly it makes it even more difficult for writers to earn from their work. It’s easy, of course, to say who cares? when you aren’t a person who has anything riding on it. Me? I’d like to make some money from the work that has cost me plenty, including, let’s face it, staggeringish debt.
sorry jody, we’re moving on, i’m glad you give it that much, frankly that is impressive
no i don’t think it is, if the library buys an ebook they buy an ebook, it’s not like anyone
i could understand if they want to license ebooks so that libraries buy multiple copies, that’s fine, but don’t go changing the rules with draconian indifference to history
if we didn’t have libraries today and i proposed that we build one, everyone would call me a socialist, and they would be right, none of the big book publishers would want to create a legal structure that allowed for this whole ‘borrowing’ concept
if i based all my decisions off my own self-interest i would be an asshole
Yeah, generally I am a bit of an absolutist about authors/publishers embracing online stuff, but this is totally reasonable.
Though 26 may be a bit low as numbers go for this. I wonder about other models, also; a subscription rate, other ways of determining when the book is exhausted. All sorts of models might work, though this one has the example of relative simplicity.
There are limits on e-books lent at libraries, one of which is that an e-book can only go out one at a time, for 2 or 3 weeks, and that a library user can only check out a given e-book once. Libraries are not boycotting because of those policies (which are even more limited than those associated with a physical book), but rather because HarperCollins has put a cap on the number of times an e-book can be loaned (26).
How is it good for authors that their books go out of circulation after about a year’s worth of check-outs?
There are limits on e-books lent at libraries, one of which is that an e-book can only go out one at a time, for 2 or 3 weeks, and that a library user can only check out a given e-book once. Libraries are not boycotting because of those policies (which are even more limited than those associated with a physical book), but rather because HarperCollins has put a cap on the number of times an e-book can be loaned (26).
How is it good for authors that their books go out of circulation after about a year’s worth of check-outs?
Do you think when a video store buys one DVD they should be allowed to burn infinite copies and lend those out or sell them?
Also, the librarians who are upset in that link are basing their decision entirely on self-interest I would say.
I actually think a limit of total send outs makes more sense for e-books than rules saying that a digital file can only be given out once in a 2-week period. I’d rather have the option for 26 people reading it at the same time, but the library has to purchase more copies if they are lending that many out.
everything should be free at all times
food medicine books music transportation life
fuck money
let’s just make art and be happy alright
EVERYBODY
I WILL START A FARM
WE CAN ALL EAT FOOD FROM IT
1 LUV
NOT KIDDING
When I was in college, I photocopied pages from physical library books many times. (To be sure – only ‘spreading’ the information on them by an arithmetic progression.) Why would – why does – anyone buy a paper copy of a book that’s already at the library? Every time I’ve checked out a book from the library, no money at all has gone to its (living) author.
Lots of things disincentivize writers, and poverty is surely one of them. But as reynard says below, both literacy and access to literature have already been pretty thoroughly collectivized. Should gadgetry be turned (even more) into the site of monetized gatekeeping of information??
Should publishing corporations be encouraged to pit themselves against libraries??
will thur b dance partiez (jk OBVS)
You obviously don’t have any kids or student loans or other adult obligations.
I just don’t believe this, Kyle. The company is protecting itself, and when it finds itself pitted against its own writers, in the form of royalties vs. profits . . . ??
If you ask me for a way to pay writers fairly for their work – man, I don’t know. Can the community pay writers straightforwardly to write, in advance of actual written things, and get [as much quality] + [not more crap]?
But everybody paying a privatized tax to big companies to govern privately, for their own narrowly defined ‘benefit’, the publication of literature? – that doesn’t work for most writers, does it? – nor, I think, for most ‘tax’-payers.
YEAH DUDERZ OBVIOUSLY
NO MONEY
CLEARLY I DON’T HAVE TO PAY BILLS BECAUSE I THINK BILLS ARE STUPID
THAT’S HOW LIFE WERKS
YEAH DUDERZ OBVIOUSLY
NO MONEY
CLEARLY I DON’T HAVE TO PAY BILLS BECAUSE I THINK BILLS ARE STUPID
THAT’S HOW LIFE WERKS
tell me
do you LIKE paying student loans?
do you LIKE paying rent?
do you LIKE paying bills?
do you LIKE the fact that it costs so much money to have kills?
do you ENJOY paying for medicine?
do you ENJOY paying your car insurance?
do you WANT to keep doing it?
do you REALLY LIKE SPENDING MONEY ON SHIT THAT IS AN “ADULT OBLIGATION?”
do you just SMILE everytime you log onto the web to pay your sudent loans?
Is this satire?
That must be some idiot adults if they are paying all those bills. Or maybe they are getting something in return? Obligation is an abstract term. Sometimes I feel obliged to drink beer in foreign hotels and watch Woody Allen movies until I pass out.
etc
I hate to go into my usual default: But what student loans?
i have photocopied entire books from the library and printed off covers and bound them into pure bootlegs
i stand behind the thought process that if you’re writing because you want to make money then stop writing
After Cowboys and Aliens grosses hundreds of millions of dollars this summer, its producers should use the money they’ve earned to buy out HarperCollins, just for kicks.
On a side note: am I the only seeing Hollywood’s next move as cross-breeding blockbusters?
Star Wars v. X-Men
Tomb Raider and Indiana Jones (together at last! Do they fuck?)
Batman and the Hulk v. Bane and some other bad guy
i pay for all of the shit i listed other than kids
because i do not have kids and i will never have kids
life would be 100% better if everything were free
pleasure for- ever
I think the publishers and authors should have been fine with the circulation limits. It seems weird that people are afraid of losing money to public libraries. It’s not like they’re flourishing or anything. I feel like libraries are something that, if anything, should get cut some slack by publishers. Yeah, the publishing industry ain’t makin’ money like it used to, but I don’t think they should try to shake libraries by the ankles. And are authors really counting on ebooks to usher them into the millionaire’s club (DISCLAIMER: I DON’T KNOW IF THIS IS AN ACTUAL CLUB BUT I BET THEY HAVE REAL GOOD SHRIMP AND ICE CREAM)? It’s understandable to hope your labor will pay off, and we all would like to pull a Billy Collins and get six-figure advances on poems and erase our student loan debt, but I think in writing world, while trying to be successful is fine, it’s just not likely to happen monetarily. I thought e publishing’s principal benefit was exposure and spread, so what’s the use in limiting that? Also, I don’t see libraries killing the ebook market.
And again, come on, they’re public libraries. They improve communities and people’s lives. They serve to offer varying information and ideas to the public, and I think we can all agree that’s a positive thing. Denying public libraries literature really denies literature to those who can’t afford to buy books. You’re not going to get these people’s money, but maybe your book can have the chance to be important to them anyway. Sounds pretty cool to me, bros and gals.
hear you
Can we start with the stuff we pay to awful corporations and asshole CEOs who use the money to fuck over everyone else instead of the stuff were at least some money goes to artists?
That would be nice if it happened that way one time.
it’s true that they are different but i don’t think you just throw out the laws for new ones because you have a new technology, the idea is as usual to try to be as close to what the intent of the law is and i don’t think it was meant to maximize profit for the publishing companies but rather was seen as public service law
i don’t think video stores should be able to burn copies but like i said i see no problem with them requiring licenses the way you do with software, say
that seems fine and one at a time you know, the thing is these readers are i think going to be the thing once they get cheap, everyone is going to have one anyway, so the idea of issuing a license for a two-week period, as is the current practice apparently, seems like that would be an easy transition and whatever, what’s wrong with that, just treat the copy as if it were physical, not something that will self-destruct, it’s just creepy, but we agree on that
i think that if these copies just go away there is very little chance the library will continue to buy them
i have found the most fantastic books at the library that, when they still used stamp cards, had only been checked out maybe four times in twelve years, obviously that book would still be there in the ebook catalog which will maybe someday look like a physical shelf in some way, but anyway i think there is a good chance this sort of practice would lead to libraries cleaning out their databases a lot, maybe, i don’t really know but to me this arbitrary decay thing is just not right, eventually a library book will wear out, is 26 the average? i don’t know, but given the reserve list for new works of fiction in the san francisco public library system, which goes into the hundreds for a book like freedom, i think a lot of books in the library might be borrowed well over a hundred times before they need to be replaced
and let’s be fucking honest with ourselves here, how much money are you, the author, going to make on an e-book sale, let alone an e-book sale to a library who has to replace copies after 26 checkouts. How many times do you think your book is going to be checked out. Do you think one copy of your book in this one library will be checked out 100 times while you’re alive. 1000. how much of a cut would you even make from 1000 checkouts worth of rebought e-books. i will wager the amount is ‘not enough to make puling over libraries seem a valuable way to spend time and energy.’
:*
I work in a library, and I brought this up on the staff list-serv today. I am against ebooks at libraries because they are expensive and cut into the budget we should be spending on material for people who actually come through our doors (including a lot of people who have limited computer knowledge and/or cannot afford computers or ereaders).
This shit with HarperCollins underlines why ereader collections are not a good investment for a library. If a publisher can do this shit after the fact, the library clearly doesn’t actually own the collection.
Also, the library already purchases specific numbers of ebooks. We have a finite number of copies for each title, and when the copies are checked out you have to put them on hold and wait, just like a paper book. A lot of commenters supporting this thing don’t know what they’re talking about.
thanks for the comment whatis, i don’t read ebooks from the library & i can understand why you would be against it, it seems like something that is better for consumers than library patrons, which are obviously the same people, though they ought to be treated entirely different, so yeah i honestly had no idea my library buys copies of ebooks and lends them out like regular books, but that makes sense and i feel it should stay that way if there is a demand for ebooks
i think i might agree with you if i worked at a library and saw how the money could go to better things all the time, i’m sure that can be maddening, but i guess if people really prefer to read a digital book over a paper one the ebooks should be made available in low quantities at least, don’t you think
If the library had a lot of extra money in the budget, ebooks would be okay… IF the library maintained control of the collection. As this thing with HarperCollins demonstrates, the library doesn’t actually own the books, and we are at the mercy of the company we contract from/the publisher. That sucks.
Since the library has limited (and often shrinking) budget, I think th emoney could be spent in other places. I think money on technology should be spent on things like digit studios for music and video recording and editing (we have one of those at a branch, and it is awesome) or better computers in the library. Our book and audio/visual budgets are getting cut, and those things are way more important than ebooks.
If the library had a lot of extra money in the budget, ebooks would be okay… IF the library maintained control of the collection. As this thing with HarperCollins demonstrates, the library doesn’t actually own the books, and we are at the mercy of the company we contract from/the publisher. That sucks.
Since the library has limited (and often shrinking) budget, I think th emoney could be spent in other places. I think money on technology should be spent on things like digit studios for music and video recording and editing (we have one of those at a branch, and it is awesome) or better computers in the library. Our book and audio/visual budgets are getting cut, and those things are way more important than ebooks.
If the library had a lot of extra money in the budget, ebooks would be okay… IF the library maintained control of the collection. As this thing with HarperCollins demonstrates, the library doesn’t actually own the books, and we are at the mercy of the company we contract from/the publisher. That sucks.
Since the library has limited (and often shrinking) budget, I think th emoney could be spent in other places. I think money on technology should be spent on things like digit studios for music and video recording and editing (we have one of those at a branch, and it is awesome) or better computers in the library. Our book and audio/visual budgets are getting cut, and those things are way more important than ebooks.
If the library had a lot of extra money in the budget, ebooks would be okay… IF the library maintained control of the collection. As this thing with HarperCollins demonstrates, the library doesn’t actually own the books, and we are at the mercy of the company we contract from/the publisher. That sucks.
Since the library has limited (and often shrinking) budget, I think th emoney could be spent in other places. I think money on technology should be spent on things like digit studios for music and video recording and editing (we have one of those at a branch, and it is awesome) or better computers in the library. Our book and audio/visual budgets are getting cut, and those things are way more important than ebooks.
I have thought about this a lot – maybe more than most people because I have worked in the industry.
I don’t really have any answers either.
What I can tell you is that I agree with Whatis in that ebooks really aren’t going to make libraries better. Ebooks are browsed from home, taken out of the library from home computers and downloaded to Kindles or smart phones and then read from there. The physical structure of the library is not necessary at all for this entire process, which really has me concerned about the future physical existence of library’s and the wonderful experience of visiting and getting lost among the shelves and shelves of books. As someone else mentioned already, I too have read many, many books that I would have never known about had I not been aimlessly browsing. Often times those books are the ones that still have a card in the back pocket and have not been checked out in 10 years. Something like that is not going to continue with ebooks. I can also say that as far as publishers go, libraries buy a lot of books, but not that many ebooks. This publisher may be boycotted, but when the next and the next and the next adopt similar policies regarding ebook lending, what will the library do? Stop buying current publications? I don’t think libraries can win this battle, because publishers don’t make 99% of their money from libraries and when it comes to big publishers, money is all that matters. I wish I could see this in some other light, but I don’t see anything good for the library here. And for that matter, I don’t see anything good for “the people” that use the public library. E-readers may be getting cheaper and cheaper, but they will most likely never be free. If the library is only available to people well enough off to afford electronic devices – people well enough off to have a home and an outlet to plug the e-reader into – people well enough off to have internet access or credit intact enough to qualify for a credit card etc, etc, then it no longer is a PUBLIC library – it’s a lending service for people that are already more well off than some. As it stands, ANYONE can go into a library and read. Only those with expensive electronic equipment can download an ebook.
Publishers WANT to publish ebooks and are aggressively working towards publishing this way more and more until it is the predominant, if not only way they publish. An ebook is downloaded to a reading device and the sale is final. People don’t resell their Kindle downloads on Amazon or ebay when they are finished. They can’t stop by half priced books and drop of all their used downloads and have enough money to buy a couple new ones. Publishers want to make money off of every sale that occurs and they want to demolish the used book market. They make more money with ebooks because they have no overhead, they don’t pay for shipping and paper and printers – they don’t pay for anything compared to regular print books, but most importantly, they own every single sale.
As for the rights of the publisher and the authors, I wonder if the fair thing to do would be to look at the average print book and decide how many times it is lent out before it is shit – coming apart and needs to be replaced. Take that number, and apply it to ebooks. If it is 50 or 100 or 150 or whatever it is – then the library needs to OWN the digital copy and lend it that many times – then it must be replaced. That seems fair. I guess.
I don’t buy the “simulate wear-and-tear” argument at all. Yeah, physical books break down, but if we lived in a magical universe where they never did, you guys mean to say libraries as currently conceived would’ve been a no-go from the start? That books tend to have limited lifespans is an accident–a limitation of the medium–and a gift to publishers, not a necessary fact.
And how about DVDs in libraries? Those don’t break down unless abused, yet no one would tolerate a limit on the number of times they can be checked out (I hope!).