eBook Prices - Is it just me…

[Morrus]

I don't see how it would be piracy if the copy is controlled by the library and only accessible to any given borrower for a limited time. E-books have qualities physical books lack. Pretending otherwise seems ridiculous to me. What's wrong with using them?

Distributing electronic media without permission is the definition of piracy. How can you be on the internet in 2025 and not know this? You do know you can’t just distribute your copy of the PHB or the new Captain America movie, right? Please tell me you know that! You’re not just handing out my books are you?

 

[Clint_L]

You’re suggest that a library engage in piracy?

Libraries are great. But they’re not known for breaking the law. That’s how libraries stop being “great” and become. “closed”.

Our school librarians are the copyright police, and you don't wanna mess with them! This is not because they are corporate shills, but because they don't want us to get sued.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Except that's not how COPYRIGHT works. It's literally there in the name... the right to make copies.

Buying a copy of a digital book does not give me the right to make copies of that book (with certain well-defined exceptions such as the right to create a backup copy for personal use, but that would not allow me to provide copies for anyone who wants to borrow it).

Generally, libraries can only buy a license that allows a book to be "copied and displayed" on X devices at a time and must follow strict technical safeguards to ensure that the number of displayed copies at any given time is never greater than X. It's a lot like "seat licensing" for software.

As I said, I'm not familiar with licensing beyond the frustration of a product being unavailable for purchase basically everywhere and forever (functionally ceasing to exist) because the license expired. I have no problem buying something I want, but I want to own it once I've done so. This trend to "rent" everything and only be allowed to use it in extremely specific circumstances is very disheartening and anti-consumer.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Distributing electronic media without permission is the definition of piracy. How can you be on the internet in 2025 and not know this? You do know you can’t just distribute your copy of the PHB or the new Captain America movie, right? Please tell me you know that! You’re not just handing out my books are you?

No I'm not. I'm saying in situations like the library example, or possibly when there is no legal way to acquire a product because of licensing shenanigans, those laws could stand to be adjusted.

 

[The Sigil]

As I said, I'm not familiar with licensing beyond the frustration of a product being unavailable for purchase basically everywhere and forever (functionally ceasing to exist) because the license expired. I have no problem buying something I want, but I want to own it once I've done so. This trend to "rent" everything and only be allowed to use it in extremely specific circumstances is very disheartening and anti-consumer.

I don't disagree with you on how things SHOULD work.

But the holy grail for business is "subscription model" (licensing) rather than "one shot sale" because it means (in theory) you work once then make money forever. Book publishers are doing the same thing.

Since book publishers hold copyright, they get to choose the terms under which electronic copies are made available, and we have four choices: (1) agree to their terms, (2) negotiate with them for new terms, or (3) reject those terms and do without the content or (4) reject those terms and use content illegally.

Book publishers have generally proven unwilling to negotiate terms so (2) is out. A library by definition cannot "do without the content" so (3) is out. That leaves libraries with two choices - agree or use content illegally. As Morrus already mentioned, a library that chooses to use content illegally quickly becomes a "closed" library due to publishers suing them into the ground - the Internet Archive tried to lend books beyond what it was licensed for during COVID and look how that turned out ( As Publishers Beat Internet Archive, Are Libraries The Real Losers? ) .

This leaves "agree to the publishers terms" as the only option for libraries. We may not like the terms. We may not think they are fair. But that is where we are. If you (or I) want to change it, pressure must be applied to lawmakers to change copyright law, pressure must be applied to publishers to enter deals "more fair" deals, or possibly both.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Basically, I'd like a better reason for the examples above not being ok than just "because it's illegal". Why are those situations illegal? We have the tech to control copies that are sent out to borrowers. Is there a reason we don't? And if so, why do we allow people to borrow books without paying for the privilege at all? It seems like the entire concept of lending libraries is anti-business.

 

[The Sigil]

No I'm not. I'm saying in situations like the library example, or possibly when there is no legal way to acquire a product because of licensing shenanigans, those laws could stand to be adjusted.

Agreed. Those laws could stand to be adjusted.

But that is the timeline we'd both LIKE to live in. We have to deal with the timeline we DO live in where the laws have not yet been adjusted.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't disagree with you on how things SHOULD work.

But the holy grail for business is "subscription model" (licensing) rather than "one shot sale" because it means (in theory) you work once then make money forever. Book publishers are doing the same thing.

Since book publishers hold copyright, they get to choose the terms under which electronic copies are made available, and we have four choices: (1) agree to their terms, (2) negotiate with them for new terms, or (3) reject those terms and do without the content or (4) reject those terms and use content illegally.

Book publishers have generally proven unwilling to negotiate terms so (2) is out. A library by definition cannot "do without the content" so (3) is out. That leaves libraries with two choices - agree or use content illegally. As Morrus already mentioned, a library that chooses to use content illegally quickly becomes a "closed" library due to publishers suing them into the ground - the Internet Archive tried to lend books beyond what it was licensed for during COVID and look how that turned out ( As Publishers Beat Internet Archive, Are Libraries The Real Losers? ) .

This leaves "agree to the publishers terms" as the only option for libraries. We may not like the terms. We may not think they are fair. But that is where we are. If you (or I) want to change it, pressure must be applied to lawmakers to change copyright law, pressure must be applied to publishers to enter deals "more fair" deals, or possibly both.

So, we're talking about profit-mongering? Again, this makes me wonder why we don't outlaw lending libraries outright, if maximizing profit is the top priority. These laws really need to be reviewed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Agreed. Those laws could stand to be adjusted.

But that is the timeline we'd both LIKE to live in. We have to deal with the timeline we DO live in where the laws have not yet been adjusted.

And likely never will, because making more money is apparently always going to be the most important thing.

 

[Spectral Anomaly]

So, we're talking about profit-mongering? Again, this makes me wonder why we don't outlaw lending libraries outright, if maximizing profit is the top priority. These laws really need to be reviewed.

Welcome to the intellectual property debate of the past 100+ years, something that you've just stated has never interested you. It's a very complex subject with a lot at play, and many stakeholders with wildly different objectives involved.