Crippling public service in order to protect commercial interests

[Ominous Gamer]

But if Amazon uses Overdrive for Kindles, does it really change the dilemma of how exactly you limit the distribution of library-donated books and avoid a free-for-all?

Its not really a change, but more of an acceptance that the current licensing business model isn't an answer for everything. Libraries have existed for almost as long as civilization, trying to cut them out suddenly because of a change of format was a short sighted decision that didn't work. What the libraries are seeing now is very similar to how databases reacted to library access 10 or so years ago. I'm say within the next decade libraries will have subscription based all or nothing lending models set up with publishers, much like netflix has with studios, which is exactly how our databases now work. The current model of having to buy each book individually, and having t rebuy it every year or so, the publishers can't maintain that.

pirated ebooks aren't like hidden theater cams. They aren't released in some odd format that no one can use. They can be the same format they were originally released in, but without the DRM license tag (same as cracked video game DRM), or they could have their format switched to pdf, because if you can read it, it can be copied. Which is exactly what early kindle drm crack programs did. They would "read" (scan) the ebook and output it was a new pdf file.
When ereaders were new the Sony readers were so popular because of how well they supported open and non-DRM titles.

[littlelolligagged]

epub, pdf, lrf, lit, chm, html, rtf, doc, I'm sure I'm missing a few. Pretty much any book can be found in pdf format. Most books I've wanted to read can be found in epub format or easily converted from pdf or almost any of the other formats listed. Pretty much any textbook I've ever needed or wanted can be found in pdf or chm format. PDF, epub and html are supported by a host of ereaders. On my nook I can read all of the formats I've listed

Calibre works really well for organizing and converting ebooks.

[Dreadnaught]

Its not really a change, but more of an acceptance that the current licensing business model isn't an answer for everything. Libraries have existed for almost as long as civilization, trying to cut them out suddenly because of a change of format was a short sighted decision that didn't work. What the libraries are seeing now is very similar to how databases reacted to library access 10 or so years ago. I'm say within the next decade libraries will have subscription based all or nothing lending models set up with publishers, much like netflix has with studios, which is exactly how our databases now work. The current model of having to buy each book individually, and having t rebuy it every year or so, the publishers can't maintain that.

That's not the issue that concerns me as much as the idea that there would have to be restrictions on usage for library users.

[Ominous Gamer]

That's not the issue that concerns me as much as the idea that there would have to be restrictions on usage for library users.

There doesn't have to be restrictions in the sense of DRM. My library system offers a music catalog that is DRM free. Even on the DRM front, the libraries currently stand 2 for 3 on the legal front of being allowed to show users how to strip DRM.

[Dreadnaught]

Care to reference those cases? I fail to see how turning libraries into dens of piracy is keeping them relevant, but you are far more of an expert in this area than I am.

[Ominous Gamer]

The cases will have to wait till I return to work next month, thats simply the response my group got back from legal when we asked how far we could take our ereader training; there is also nothing in our current overdrive contract that restrict our abilities either . But your current attitude towards the subject isn't going to do the conversation any favors. Supporting ease of use and accessibility to our products and services does not have to be related to piracy in any sense.

[Dreadnaught]

My only concern here is that libraries giving out unlimited copies of ebooks without any real expirations sort of undermines the business model of ebooks. And the publishing industry is arguably more precarious than the music industry; they can't turn to concerts for revenue like music has.

I do think publishing will necessarily become a smaller operation because the sale of ebooks is a less industrial endeavor. But libraries have generally been about lending from a limited supply of books. Ripping-out DRM seems like giving away books.

EG last week my family bought my grandma a Kindle a late mother's day gift when she visited up here. She was a longtime library patron, but got sick of 65-person waiting lists at the library for the books that crowds of people tend to start reading at once down there. She's 96 years old and can't wait around. Plus she doesn't like physical clutter. So she's become a perfect candidate for an ereader.

[Aimless]

Undermine? How come? If ebooks can already be had for free via piracy and people still buy them from like amazon etc, there's a good chance they'd continue to buy ebooks even if many of them were to become freely accessible via libraries. I suppose libraries could get them sometime after first publication, although impatient people may still not be satisfied. Not all books would have to be bought by all libraries. Libraries could pay higher prices.

Why are artists so obsessed with touring and giving concerts? Partly because they love it, but also in large part because that's traditionally been the only way for artists to make money. With more favourable deals, eg. ones where artists can make real money from selling their music even in digital or physical form, the need for constant touring would be reduced. I think, similarly, if you got rid of the overhead and the middlemen and gave more of the profits to the writers, they'd be able to do just fine. Perhaps also go around signing books and stuff the remaining actors could probably make tons of profit by getting rid of all that overhead, which they will with the continued growth of the ebook market.




And then there're the various subscription models for libraries. It can work, provided the industry's willing to change. It's never certain how willing they'll be to settle for less than ridiculous profits though you have to admit, some industries have become crazy when it comes to expectations of profit.

[Dreadnaught]

Concerts aren't "traditionally" the only way for music artists to make money, it was only when digital formats grew that they had to rely on concerts more than before.

While digital publishing will allow a greater proportion of margins to go to authors, I don't see an analogue for concerts when it comes to publishing.

But I don't think libraries should encourage ebook piracy any more than they should encourage downloading unlimited free music.

[Aimless]

Concerts aren't "traditionally" the only way for music artists to make money, it was only when digital formats grew that they had to rely on concerts more than before.

Really? Because I was under the impression that, for the most part, if you were signed to a major label you got your advances for albums, and for most people that was pretty much all they got for their albums. It's described more clearly in one of the Wired articles I linked to earlier.

While digital publishing will allow a greater proportion of margins to go to authors, I don't see an analogue for concerts when it comes to publishing.

Booksignings come to mind, which would work as long as there remained some few physical novels. Book-readings. Seminars, workshops, conventions. Kickstarter.com (although that idea leaves a foul taste in my mouth ). The whole point is that if the margins are great and the writer actually gets a good portion of those margins then the need to find an equivalent to touring would be smaller. Just as it would be for musicians if they made real money on sales rather than on touring their asses off

But I don't think libraries should encourage ebook piracy any more than they should encourage downloading unlimited free music.

Why not? It'd be a great way to get families to spend money on watching the 3D movie adaptations.

[Ominous Gamer]

My only concern here is that libraries giving out unlimited copies of ebooks without any real expirations sort of undermines the business model of ebooks. And the publishing industry is arguably more precarious than the music industry; they can't turn to concerts for revenue like music has.

What exactly is the business model of ebooks? See, cause I thought it was about easier immediate access to a larger collection of information. Information that doesn't degrade, can't be misplaced or lost, can't be destroyed (even if the reader is).
Do you understand how retarded it is to tell someone their digital download self destructed because they didn't read fast enough? That even though they aren't holding up anyone else from reading the book, and there won't be any late fees, we have to steal back access because otherwise we are somehow undermining the profits of the publisher; even though you already made the decision to not purchase the book and used the library instead?

I do think publishing will necessarily become a smaller operation because the sale of ebooks is a less industrial endeavor. But libraries have generally been about lending from a limited supply of books. Ripping-out DRM seems like giving away books.

I covered the different business models for authors and publishers in this digital economy in the beginning of this thread.
There will always be a limited supply of physical materials, but that isn't that the library has always been about. We have a huge collection of all access, unlimited databases. Databases designed in such a way that the patron sees no restrictions based on their usage. I just linked to our freegal music collection, which would be, by your definition "giving away" Sony's music. The library pays a pretty price for that access to, there are download limits per patron and per library system, but there are no restrictions placed on how long, or how, a patron may enjoy something out of that collection. Because the library values ease of use.

EG last week my family bought my grandma a Kindle a late mother's day gift when she visited up here. She was a longtime library patron, but got sick of 65-person waiting lists at the library for the books that crowds of people tend to start reading at once down there. She's 96 years old and can't wait around. Plus she doesn't like physical clutter. So she's become a perfect candidate for an ereader.

Wait lists should have nothing to do with the conversation

Undermine? How come? If ebooks can already be had for free via piracy and people still buy them from like amazon etc, there's a good chance they'd continue to buy ebooks even if many of them were to become freely accessible via libraries. I suppose libraries could get them sometime after first publication, although impatient people may still not be satisfied. Not all books would have to be bought by all libraries. Libraries could pay higher prices.

Libraries do pay high prices for ebooks. We had to drop access to Netlibrary, because some of the bundles were topping 6 figures for access, per year. We haven't caved into HarperCollins yet because of how grossly they overcharge to add their titles to the overdrive collection (more than 3 times the price of a retail ebook, which is 6-10 times the price we pay for a physical short term copy).

And then there're the various subscription models for libraries. It can work, provided the industry's willing to change. It's never certain how willing they'll be to settle for less than ridiculous profits though you have to admit, some industries have become crazy when it comes to expectations of profit.

You have no idea.

[Dreadnaught]

I need to clarify that I'm not talking about self-destructing ebooks for purchasers. I'm talking about time/quantity limits for those who take-out ebooks from libraries.

[Ominous Gamer]

I'm talking about time/quantity limits for those who take-out ebooks from libraries.

So was I , but you should understand there is a huge difference between user-end time limiting DRM (and thus device limiting) and server-end quantity thresholds. One restricts usablilty, the other does not.

[Dreadnaught]

Yes, but if I'm not mistaken you've also complained about user-side DRM. Though I have some objection to server-side as well; there's no analogue in the current library model for unlimited copies of books. A key reason my grandmother decided to dive into Kindles at the age of 96 is because the library doesn't have unlimited copies.

That's fair value due to the author as far as I see it.

PS- Happy 3,700th post!

[Ominous Gamer]

Yes, but if I'm not mistaken you've also complained about user-side DRM. Though I have some objection to server-side as well; there's no analogue in the current library model for unlimited copies of books. A key reason my grandmother decided to dive into Kindles at the age of 96 is because the library doesn't have unlimited copies.

That's fair value due to the author as far as I see it.

PS- Happy 3,700th post!

user-end DRM is all I've complained about . There is already a subscription model in place for audiobooks (netlibrary), electronic databases, and music (freegal, for the 3rd time). These are all models that took a once limited physical product and now offer it to the public, via the library, in unlimited non-expiring digital quantities.
My library also supports Project Gutenberg, which is based completely around providing unlimited copies of restriction free books

[Dreadnaught]

That's all I've been talking about, you're the one bringing up server-side things.

My concern isn't really about books that Gutenberg can digitize because the copyright has expired. I've certainly enjoyed some neat free books on my Android reader (namely Sherlock Holmes). My concern are the end-user limitations on new and in-copyright books where the author is still alive and should be compensated for their work.

[Ominous Gamer]

I'm not entirely convinced you're following the conversation correctly. Server-side, subscription models, are where I said ebooks will eventually end up, just like all the other digital offerings the library has. Thats even how I opened up the conversation. I'm still not seeing how resticting the usability of a digital checkout on the userside is somehow the only (or valid) way to compensate authors for their work (music industry already learned this the hard way). You're stuck in a dying business model that emphasizes the releationship between authors, libraries, and readers, in all the wrong ways.

[Dreadnaught]

It's not a dying business model. Unlike music, the publishing industry is diving pretty headlong into digital formats. Unless your comfortable with advertisements within eBooks, how does letting library users get unlimited free access to in-copyright books keep publishing viable?

[Ominous Gamer]

The publishing industry is not diving headlong into digital formats. They are being pulled into it kicking and screaming by the likes of amazon and apple, and they wasted no time attacking that business model that was setup. Fewer publishers yet support eborrowing. Harpercollins may use ebooks tied to timebombs, but Macmillans doesn't offer any service. Even then, the rate of adoption isn't an issue, and if it was, DRM would have an even greater outcry from the public.

You're also making "unlimited free access" purposely broad. Again, look at the freegal setup (seriously, the ignorance is getting annoying). Their choices are unlimited, usage of media is unlimited. Access is not, there are server side limits to restrict the flow of product. Nothing that the user has to fight with (who doesn't hate Adobe Digital Editions?), crack, or get burned by on their end. No having to explain expiration or due dates on a digital product that it would have no actual effect on.

On the first page of this thread I talked about how its eventually going to come down to controlling access to information, not trying to control use of it once access has been granted.

[Dreadnaught]

When we're arguing over what "eborrowing" should actually mean, I don't think it matters which publishers are actually supporting it. I can't help but think this is another "want free stuff" issue.

If anything, defining eborrowing in a creator-friendly way is about controlling access to information.

[Ominous Gamer]

I can't help but think this is another "want free stuff" issue.

not surprising considering the difficulty you've had understanding the already existing piracy and alternative business models. Most of our databases charge based off of last years usage, and freegal sure as hell isn't cheap either.

If anything, defining eborrowing in a creator-friendly way is about controlling access to information.

and amazingly enough, this doesn't have to involve DRM. Once you accept that, you will have a much easier time understanding where the industry is headed.

[Dreadnaught]

That part I get. But it's hard to see why limiting the number of library-bought ebooks in circulation is so objectionable. Do you care to actually elaborate your vision of the future? All you're really doing is rolling your eyes and saying, "But don't you know? Free books for everyone will lead to authors getting paid."

[littlelolligagged]

Well a free-ebook I got in a genre I would probably not even look twice at otherwise led to me buying every ebook by an author.

My library doesn't have that great of a selection, and for me a 3 week limit is a laughably long time, but it does strike me as funny to be wait-listed for a digital book (and apparently some people actually do take weeks to read books instead of hours).

[Aimless]

i think his point that those forms of restrictions are objectionable because they're retarded (considering the product). other forms of restrictions, such as restrictions on access, make more sense.

[Ominous Gamer]

Do you care to actually elaborate your vision of the future?

There doesn't have to be restrictions in the sense of DRM. My library system offers a music catalog that is DRM free.

Do you understand how retarded it is to tell someone their digital download self destructed because they didn't read fast enough? That even though they aren't holding up anyone else from reading the book, and there won't be any late fees, we have to steal back access because otherwise we are somehow undermining the profits of the publisher; even though you already made the decision to not purchase the book and used the library instead?
[...]
There will always be a limited supply of physical materials, but that isn't that the library has always been about. We have a huge collection of all access, unlimited databases. Databases designed in such a way that the patron sees no restrictions based on their usage. I just linked to our freegal music collection, which would be, by your definition "giving away" Sony's music. The library pays a pretty price for that access to, there are download limits per patron and per library system, but there are no restrictions placed on how long, or how, a patron may enjoy something out of that collection. Because the library values ease of use.

user-end DRM is all I've complained about . There is already a subscription model in place for audiobooks (netlibrary), electronic databases, and music (freegal, for the 3rd time). These are all models that took a once limited physical product and now offer it to the public, via the library, in unlimited non-expiring digital quantities.
My library also supports Project Gutenberg, which is based completely around providing unlimited copies of restriction free books

Server-side, subscription models, are where I said ebooks will eventually end up, just like all the other digital offerings the library has. Thats even how I opened up the conversation. I'm still not seeing how resticting the usability of a digital checkout on the userside is somehow the only (or valid) way to compensate authors for their work (music industry already learned this the hard way). You're stuck in a dying business model that emphasizes the releationship between authors, libraries, and readers, in all the wrong ways.

All you're really doing is rolling your eyes and saying, "But don't you know? Free books for everyone will lead to authors getting paid."

At this point, I'm not sure you understand how a library operates.

[Aimless]

hmmm... paid library memberships? how do we feel about that?

[Ominous Gamer]

We charge $100 per person who lives outside our county lines (meaning they don't pay the taxes that support our library system).

[Dreadnaught]

You know as well as I do that library funding is very variable. In many major cities libraries are basically local non-profits that get a large chunk of their funding from the city, and rely on fundraising for the rest. In other places they are a full-fledged government institution.

Once again, you keep rolling your eyes instead of actually explaining the model you see developing. It makes sense for libraries to pay fees for ebook downloads. But that model still leaves an unanswered question of how it doesn't harm ebook sales if your local non-profit/library will turn around and make unlimited copies of ebooks available for free. You're just shrugging and saying, "You don't understand." Shenanigans.

[Ominous Gamer]

"You don't understand." Shenanigans.

No, you're showing an incredible ineptitude at reading the supplied links. Thats why I requoted each time I explained the freegal model.
Here, lets take out the incredibly hard work of having to click to learn.

How Freegal Music Works:
Library users have a weekly download limit. You will be able to keep track of your downloads in the upper right corner of the site. Every song has a sample clip you can listen to before you download.
The library may have an overall weekly limit, too. If your library runs out of downloads for the week, you can go to “My Wishlist” in the upper right corner and queue up for future music.
The downloads on this site are all in the MP3 format with no DRM. This service will work with any MP3 player, including iPod, and can be loaded into iTunes. It works on both PCs and Macs.
Be sure to check out the browsing areas, especially Artists A to Z (bottom of page) and the genre lists (menu bar). Click on see all genres to view dozens of categories.
Enjoy the site!

There is nothing thats stopping this subscription model from working with ebooks, or even an all access model more closely related to our Rosetta Stone or NewsBank databases. Since, after all, these are subscription models based around a restriction free distribution model thats making available unlimited copies of what used to be a limited physical product.

Thanks Aimless for chiming in, shows at least someone was getting the point.

You know as well as I do that library funding is very variable.

Figures, totally missed the point. Doesn't matter how the library is funding, those funds are used to purchase access to the materials you keep marking as "free". Even if the patron sees the service of product as "free" it doesn't make it so. The library had to purchase the rights to make it so. Tthats the goal after all, to make the middle man transactions as transparent and trouble free as possible; which is why DRM is (thankfully) a dying concept that was headed in the wrong direction.

[Dreadnaught]

I actually didn't see a link. But I still fail to see how imitating the music industry is really a model for success, especially if the files themselves are permanent. Though I do think subscription models are a viable business model.

But my problem remains that the library is paying for free permanent books for people. It's not about a weekly download limit as much as a limit on how many books can be checked out. After all, it's not like I can check a physical book from a library and never return it.