[HN Gopher] Book publishers won't stop until libraries are dead
___________________________________________________________________
Book publishers won't stop until libraries are dead
Author : webmaven
Score : 273 points
Date : 2023-03-23 10:49 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.techdirt.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.techdirt.com)
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| There is a nationwide project now that aims to get collections of
| curated independent eBooks into public libraries:
|
| https://indieauthorproject.com/iap-select/
|
| It started in Illinois in 2014 and is now in 17 US states and
| Canadian provinces and growing. Book publishers just might
| innovate themselves out of business. Libraries aren't going to
| die :)
| jrm4 wrote:
| It seems so many of these debates have strayed away from some
| VERY core ideas.
|
| Learning is good, knowledge is good. Giving people the ability
| everywhere to learn at their own pace is important. More
| important that paying authors. I'm not saying MUCH MORE, it is
| very good to compensate (actual) creators.
|
| Now, people can get just about as much knowledge as they want for
| a very cheap price, and the barriers to that are so utterly
| artificial. An E-book reader can contain just about as much
| knowledge as one might ever need.
|
| Priority ONE, enable learning. All other priorities fall WELL
| below that, law be darned.
| memonkey wrote:
| Learning is good to whom? Knowledge is good to whom? Even if
| all the research says it is good for economies and countries at
| scale doesn't deter others from saying otherwise.
| toyg wrote:
| _> some VERY core ideas. [...] Priority ONE, enable learning._
|
| That's _your_ core idea.
|
| The core idea of capitalism is "Priority ONE, get all the
| money".
|
| Those core ideas are not the easiest of fellows.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Knowledge and learning are good, but you have to be able to
| incentivize people to write good material to read and learn
| from. In our economy, we usually do this with money.
| Compensating the actual creators isn't a lower priority, it's a
| prerequisite. (None of this should be read as a defense of the
| current state of publishing, only to gently push back on your
| exact view of the priorities here)
| jrm4 wrote:
| Sigh. Come on. Wikipedia has already _clearly_ debunked this
| silly idea. We are not knowledge vending machines into which
| you must insert money to get knowledge.
| 988747 wrote:
| [dead]
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Write a book yourself and publish it freely. You can
| legally do this, today, and nobody can stop you.
|
| People are already doing this.. but it's a lot more work
| than wikipedia edits and typically people only do this when
| compensated.
| jrm4 wrote:
| A. A lot more work than wikipedia edits? Maybe. Now, how
| about "accuracy?"
|
| B. I'll see your "books" and raise you "virtually all
| academic writing"
|
| How much of that is typically directly compensated?
|
| Virtually none.
|
| Again, I'm not saying "no one should get paid." I am
| saying that there is nothing to suggest that spreading
| knowledge _requires_ paying individuals via a system that
| relies heavily on intellectual property and /or classic
| "capitalist" ideas to do so.
|
| Universities and libraries are a thing, and have been for
| some time.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| "Directly" is doing too much work. We pay researchers to
| research. Part of research is writing that work and
| submitting it. It is literally part of their job. It is
| so much part of their job that we have a system in place
| to isolate them from day to day political worries and let
| them focus on big projects.
|
| > I am saying that there is nothing to suggest that
| spreading knowledge requires paying individuals...
|
| It doesn't. People publish things for free all the time.
| See your own example of research papers and open access
| journals.
| GeoAtreides wrote:
| There are people on Royal Road right now publishing
| millions of words and making thousands or ten of
| thousands of dollars a month (from Patreon), while at the
| same still having their works free to read.
| rolph wrote:
| I write, and, i teach; my compensation, is the edification of
| my people, and the surrounding village.
|
| im respected, and have everything i need; if i want something
| im somewhat credited by my community
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| > Learning is good, knowledge is good. Giving people the
| ability everywhere to learn at their own pace is important.
|
| Agreed.
|
| > More important that paying authors.
|
| It's the _same thing_ as paying authors. Stuff that is worth
| reading is rarely written for free, out of the goodness of the
| author 's heart. It is written because the author expects to
| make money to at least somewhat repay the effort.
|
| So if you want the material that allows people to learn at
| their own pace, you need a way for the authors to get paid.
| jrm4 wrote:
| You are simply, flat-out, wrong.
|
| You do NOT _need_ a way for authors to get paid and this idea
| is already thoroughly disproven. Wikipedia gets written.
| Academic articles get written, fan-fiction gets written.
|
| Now we can discuss particulars about volume and quality and
| distribution. But we already see that a GREAT DEAL of
| EXCELLENT KNOWLEDGE has been created, written and distributed
| without strong, or occasionally ANY, expectation of
| "payment."
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| You don't think academic articles get written in the
| expectation of payment? They get written because writing
| them is a big part of an academic's _job_ , and they are
| paid for their job. That's not payment in the form of a
| check from the journal, but they're still getting paid to
| produce it.
|
| Fan fiction I will give you. It's not paid, but it's also
| often not excellent. Some is; most isn't.
|
| Look, I generate free content too. I'm doing it now. I
| think it's worth doing. It's not worthless. But it's worth
| _less_ in terms of passing on knowledge than
| professionally-written books.
|
| Do you really want to learn, say, differential equations
| from Wikipedia? Or would you do better with a good
| textbook?
| [deleted]
| alfor wrote:
| But they are also killing books.
|
| Youtube is free, instant, fast.
|
| I love books, when people spend their life condensing information
| and you spend a few hours to get the most important parts, but
| controlling access more and more mean that books will get less
| and less important.
|
| Books and publishing industries are a result of a technology:
| paper, printing, binding. Now in the digital age an ebook should
| cost close the the amount the author get 1$-2$/book.
|
| If they were this price and easily downloadable we would have a
| massive shift to digital books, completely disrupting the
| industry. But what we have is stagnation and regulatory capture.
| heffer wrote:
| > Books and publishing industries are a result of a technology:
| paper, printing, binding. Now in the digital age an ebook
| should cost close the the amount the author get 1$-2$/book.
|
| This is a very technocratic view of book publishing. I think
| you're leaving out a lot of what goes into creating, marketing
| and distributing a book which is not labour of the author. Even
| in the digital age.
|
| Sure, authors could contract those services out using their
| (expected) revenue on a book. But at some point you'll
| inevitably get companies offering to manage that process for
| authors because it creates overhead that distracts from the
| creative process or thought process: Publishers.
|
| There are lean alternatives to big publishers out there, so
| it's easy to get self-published. But the weight a big publisher
| can put behind a release, the distribution network they have,
| can - even in the internet era - still affect a book's success
| heavily.
| alfor wrote:
| There is a bundle value in the offering.
|
| - editor, marketing, graphics - brand
|
| if the value created by the author is worth 1-2$ I don't
| think the rest of the work on the actual content is worth
| more.
|
| Leaving much of the rest on the brand.
|
| I think that the brands have successfully commoditized the
| authors witch is the valuable portion of the book and have
| mostly monopolised their position. Now they will use their
| excess capital to keep their position because that is what is
| most valuable to them.
|
| At the same time they act as a filter judging what is worth
| putting in a book with their name on it, creating a standard
| of quality.
| elijaht wrote:
| Not smart enough to comment on the actual IP discussion, but I do
| wonder about the sustainability of digital lending
|
| I say that as a user who LOVES reading digital books from the
| library. I got a Kindle ~a year ago, and have read around 25
| books, all but one borrowed from the library. I would have paid
| for those books before, but now get them instantly, for free.
| It's amazing! Even getting/managing holds isn't a hassle- I check
| for my next book a few days before I finish my current book, and
| that usually results in getting off any waitlist by the time I'm
| ready to read it.
|
| Obviously, I could get the physical books from the library
| before, but I didn't find myself doing them- the logistics were
| slightly annoying, if I'm reading a physical book anyways, I tend
| to want to just grab a copy for my collection, with Amazon I can
| get a book the next day. Digital book distribution does feel
| different in a tangible way to me.
|
| So as a result, I am now not spending $250+ a year on books. I
| suspect I'm not the only one in the situation. Currently- I love
| it. But I'm wondering if it is sustainable.
| kristopolous wrote:
| That's probably different.
|
| It's the gatekeeping by default, even for things that have been
| out of print for 50 years.
|
| It greatly hinders research unless you have the luxury of
| constant plane flights to arrival libraries and purchasing
| things on Abe books.
| 35208654 wrote:
| >but now get them instantly, for free. It's amazing!
|
| You know this already, but just a kind reminder that you didn't
| get them for free. You paid for the library with your tax
| dollars, and continue to do so. Which means you are absolutely
| right to utilize this!
|
| I make this statement to remind others that libraries are
| public goods that you pay for and should utilize. This sends a
| market signal. This matters!
| unethical_ban wrote:
| This.
|
| Reminder: Legal lending from libraries has artificial
| restrictions on how many digital copies can be "checked out"
| at a time, and libraries are paying for the privilege of
| lending out books. I don't know the details or if those
| lending privileges are perpetual the same way a physical copy
| would be, but that's what's happening.
|
| If you are viewing books legally, someone somewhere is
| getting money. Who gets what is another question (Kindle
| unlimited, for example.)
| ptman wrote:
| Where I live, libraries pay royalties based on loans, similar
| to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Lending_Right
| sirodoht wrote:
| Let's kill book publishers instead. Free publishing for everyone.
|
| https://laniakeabooks.org/
| josephcsible wrote:
| > _This book may not be re-sold or given away to other people._
|
| If I were in charge, the punishment for copyright holders who lie
| about the law like this would be forfeiture of the entire
| remaining copyright term of the work in question.
| pnemonic wrote:
| nobody with that type of outlook will ever be in charge, which
| is the problem.
|
| I _wish_ you were in charge.
| newsclues wrote:
| Libraries and librarians need to back to having one political
| cause: freedom of information.
|
| It seems like this concept of "don't censor books" and "make all
| the information open to the world" have become openings exploited
| for activists to push their agenda.
| giantrobot wrote:
| How is "don't censor books" in any way _not_ freedom of
| information?
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| FWIW, idea is just a tool, a key to use on an individual that
| may be receptive that idea. I know what you are trying to say
| and I am glad there is some awareness that this is happening (
| it gives me some hope for the future ). I like all ideas
| challenged. I don't like books burned.
| glofish wrote:
| FYI in scientific publishing there is an entire subculture of
| publishing expensive books >$150 - with mostly useless content
| that one can read for free in published papers.
|
| Scientists write them for free, to embellish their resumes (often
| their grad students do the work) - the publisher sells a thousand
| copies, mostly to libraries across the world.
|
| Rinse and repeat.
| stametseater wrote:
| After the nukes fly, who knows... maybe those physical books
| will be the only copies which survive a temporary global
| disruption of digital technology and industry.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > After the nukes fly, who knows... maybe those physical
| books will be the only copies which survive a temporary
| global disruption of digital technology and industry.
|
| The problem with that idea is that there would be very few
| copies, concentrated in the urban areas that are likely to
| get nuked. A book like one of those is also likely to be
| extremely specialized, so it would be unlikely to be used if
| that specialty ceases to be of practical values for a
| generation or more. Even physical books need care to be
| preserved for long periods, and wouldn't survive in an
| abandoned library with a leaky roof and flooded basement.
| stametseater wrote:
| University libraries may be clustered around urban centers,
| but a lot of those are in places that might plausibly not
| be subjected to bombardment, such as South America. Also,
| university libraries are far more numerous and disperse
| than the factories which manufacture computer hardware. I
| also assume that preservation of books will be a priority
| for at least some people even in near-apocalyptic
| circumstances, and that material conditions would improve
| markedly after only a few years. Even the continuation of
| many governments seems likely to me. Also you can't eat
| books and they have little value to looters, so that should
| help.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > I also assume that preservation of books will be a
| priority for at least some people even in near-
| apocalyptic circumstances, and that material conditions
| would improve markedly after only a few years.
|
| I agree, but "in in near-apocalyptic circumstances"
| they'll only preserve the stuff they value or find
| useful. I don't think redundant, low-print volume
| academic specialist works will fall into those
| categories. Unless there's enough surplus that the
| university continues to function as such, those books
| (along with dissertations, most academic papers and
| archives) will rot on the shelves.
|
| In the aftermath of a full-on nuclear war, I'd expect the
| English-speaking word would experience huge,
| unrecoverable losses in areas beyond the undergrad level.
| Advanced work that's famous and highly-cited enough to be
| in a South American or African university probably would
| be an exception, though.
| goosedragons wrote:
| Most papers aren't free. Sometimes the author(s) will make a
| preprint or something similar available somewhere but that's
| not always the case. The expensive books also have a lot of
| context that's often removed from the papers because it's
| assumed known by the audience.
| kristopolous wrote:
| > Most papers aren't free
|
| That's a separate problem. You pay to submit the paper and
| then people pay to read it.
|
| I really wish we could expand human knowledge without
| gatekeepers milking both sides
| timwaagh wrote:
| it makes sense. Libraries are a form of copyright infringement.
| Philosophically at least. Of course it will suck when everyone
| realises that but that doesn't mean it's not true. I'm making a
| game. Perhaps it will be bought by a library and that could be
| the only copy I sell. Now that's just me getting screwed. But
| what if you are a publisher with 1000s of authors, many employees
| and everyone's pension depending on you?
| lp0_on_fire wrote:
| > Libraries are a form of copyright infringement.
| Philosophically at least.
|
| Libraries as a repository of knowledge and prose as a concept
| have existed for millennia.
|
| Copyright is a modern device that was originally designed to
| protect authors, not publishers. Copyright law being expanded
| over and over again for the benefit of the publishers, long
| after the death of the author is far more out of whack,
| philosophically, than libraries having a few copies of a book
| on the shelf (IMO).
| AlexandrB wrote:
| I like this perspective. The idea that Copyright is some kind
| of natural law or is inherently good needs to die. Copyright
| is a compromise between the goals of society and the need of
| authors to eat, but business models like "books as a service"
| maybe mean we should re-visit the compromise so commercial
| interests don't supersede those of human progress and well-
| being.
| mhypoq3vc7ajn2 wrote:
| Creating a throwaway to post this.
|
| I used to work for a big player in the digital books space.
|
| This article is riddled with unsubstantiated claims. I can tell
| you for a fact that as digital library lending grows, publisher
| (and author) revenue declines on a per sale/borrow basis. It is
| not the same as physical lending. The difference in friction is
| massive, customers love painless instant book delivery.
|
| Imagine being an author and seeing your units increasing but your
| earnings not.
|
| Something fundamental needs to change with digital library
| licensing, it is on an unsustainable path. Macmillan tried
| windowing (ie for the first x weeks new releases can only be
| purchased, kind of like movies only being available in theaters
| at first) but the backlash was fierce and they abandoned it
| looking like a bully as COVID swept the globe.
| https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/l...
| cpymchn wrote:
| > Something fundamental needs to change with digital library
| licensing
|
| What do you recommend?
|
| The artificial scarcity model they have now is broken. Pay-per-
| use seems better if the cost per read is adequate enough. All-
| you-can-eat-at-fixed-price (Oyster and Scribd) have the
| economics upside down.
| mhypoq3vc7ajn2 wrote:
| I really liked the windowing approach that Macmillon wanted
| to try, which would funnel demand to purchases for new
| releases. Libraries already pay quite a lot for licenses, but
| I think there needs to be more scarcity too. The trouble is
| substitution ... customers just build a queue of free borrow
| options and read whichever comes available. Maybe tighter
| limits on the library side, instead of 25 concurrent borrows
| per library card make it 1. Or some way to introduce friction
| because instant wireless delivery is just so excellent.
|
| Don't have a good answer, I'm an engineer not an economist :)
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| Book publishers? As an author, I feel like the real problem is
| the EFF, the IA and the tech community here (who will mod this
| down as they always do). Remember, if the authors go bankrupt --
| which is what happens when they don't get paid -- only the
| independently wealthy and the secretly paid will be able to
| generate books. No authors means no books. That's another way to
| destroy the library.
|
| Authors deserve a right to make a living with their work product.
| Carpenters, plumbers and the like get the right to sign over
| their work product in perpetuity to any customer. Book authors
| only get the term of copyright.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| << Authors deserve a right to make a living with their work
| product.
|
| Sure, but your right stops at my device. At that point, I do
| whatever I choose to do with it.
|
| << EFF, the IA and the tech community here
|
| Really broad brush. You will find a lot of discussion here
| about both groups on this forum and while sentiment appears
| mostly positive, not everyone is of single mind. HN is a big
| herd of cats.
|
| << No authors means no books.
|
| Somehow I doubt that with the amount of humans on this planet
| that will ever come to pass. Case in point, I am writing
| something now ( passion project though so different rules may
| apply; I certainly do not expect to see a dime from it ).
|
| << Carpenters, plumbers and the like get the right to sign over
| their work product in perpetuity to any customer. Book authors
| only get the term of copyright.
|
| Hmm. I might be misreading it so please correct me as needed.
| Would you rather the roles are reversed ( plumbers and
| carpenters getting royalty for each performance on their
| repair/build ) and you having to write a new book each time for
| a one time payment of $299 plus tax?
|
| I genuinely do not understand your complaint here. If anything,
| your legal position is much better than that of a carpenter or
| plumber. You get to claim copyright over stuff that was already
| done. As a society, we artificially protect it ( and I
| personally argue for way too long ).
| cpcallen wrote:
| If I understand correctly, the linked article is grossly
| misleading.
|
| Yes, it could well be that publishers would like to kill
| libraries and controlled digital lending--but AFAICT this suit[1]
| is about UNCONTROLLED digital lending: during the pandemic,
| archive.org began lending out more copies of eBooks than they
| actually owned, on the (IMHO morally justified but legally
| tenuous) basis that, because libraries were closed, it was
| reasonable to allow people to access electronically books that
| they were unable to access physically.
|
| I think it would be great if the law allowed that, but I'm fairly
| sure it doesn't, so while I think the publishers are being jerks
| here, they seem to be legally in the right, and while I'm
| concerned that the Internet Archive's liability will be
| devastating to that organisation's future (losing web.archive.org
| would be an abhorrent consequence), claiming that this suit is
| about CDL or trying to shut down libraries seems to be rather
| disingenuous.
|
| [1] https://publishers.org/news/publishers-file-suit-against-
| int...
| jcranmer wrote:
| > AFAICT this suit[1] is about UNCONTROLLED digital lending
|
| Yes and no. The publishers didn't file a lawsuit until the
| policy of uncontrolled digital lending was temporarily enacted,
| but the lawsuit is targeting controlled digital lending as
| well. You can read the complaint itself to find this out,
| helpfully linked by the plaintiffs themselves in their own
| press release about the lawsuit.
|
| Were it only about uncontrolled digital lending, the suit would
| have been tossed as moot two years ago.
| misnome wrote:
| > Were it only about uncontrolled digital lending, the suit
| would have been tossed as moot two years ago.
|
| You don't think that publishers would have had any case at
| all against deliberate mass-copyright infringement under
| flimsy pretences? I don't think "we stopped doing it when
| ordered to by a court" is much of a sign of good faith...
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| The lawsuit is unquestionably about controlled digital lending.
| It was filed after the start of the National Emergency Library,
| but all the contents of the lawsuit are attacking CDL with the
| pandemic actions only a way of showing the Internet Archive is
| an organization that can't be trusted.
|
| You can see this in the filed paperwork, where amusingly they
| also attack the IA by saying they've occasionally incorrectly
| labeled things as in the public domain, which was clearly done
| maliciously.
|
| If this lawsuit was only seeking damages over the National
| Emergency Library, nobody would be writing stories about it.
| And publishers were openly hostile to CDL before the pandemic,
| you could see them preparing for this lawsuit in 2019.
| misnome wrote:
| > all the contents of the lawsuit are attacking CDL with the
| pandemic actions only a way of showing the Internet Archive
| is an organization that can't be trusted.
|
| I mean, that seems like a reasonable position given the
| circumstances? I'm sure if a physical library started their
| own book printing business and handing out unlimited copies
| of books that they had bought one of, that the publishers
| would be equally pissed, and not stop being pissed if the
| library said "oopsie I got caught I've stopped doing it now".
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| I don't think it's reasonable to use actions taken in an
| unprecedented situation as indicators of how they act in
| normal circumstances.
|
| To use your example, if a library started publishing
| illegal copies of some kind of emergency materials while
| their town faced a major flood, I wouldn't think the
| library was trying to replace publishers.
|
| Circumstances matter, and while you can argue the IA
| overstepped it's bounds I don't think that shows they can't
| be trusted.
| mintaka5 wrote:
| a document-based blockchain would curb publishers hard. the CDL
| is sadly a lousy way to implement lending, as it doesn't offer
| reassurance that people borrowing documents aren't replicating
| them. everyone lost their minds making silly useless NFTs of
| shitty artwork, but did any of those "geniuses" in the dying
| publishing empire bother to implement any NFTs of their
| publications? no instead they bitched about libraries being the
| number one cause of their profit losses (which is an absolute
| LIE). the problem isn't lending books (in whatever medium) the
| problem is a lack of an effective brain trust in the upper
| echelons of industry to embrace tech and use it to innovate and
| prosper. there is no reason why books can't be woven into a
| blockchain, and then license the usage to libraries for lending.
| everyone wins!
| rasz wrote:
| >doesn't offer reassurance that people borrowing documents
| aren't replicating them
|
| in contrast to the system libraries all over the world use to
| prevent paper books from being scanned/photographed
| anticensor wrote:
| Does that exist?
| [deleted]
| 988747 wrote:
| [dead]
| coldacid wrote:
| I'm sure that being an NFT will prevent me from downloading the
| next monkey JPEG I come across.
| afrcnc wrote:
| GOP "deregulation" capitalism at its finest
| Freak_NL wrote:
| That (now withdrawn) copyright notice Mike Masnick shows which is
| part of (some editions of) _The Awakening_ (Zodiac Academy #1) by
| Caroline Peckham and Susanne Valenti is really shocking to anyone
| who even remotely likes books:
|
| > This book is licensed for your personal enjoyment only.
|
| > This book may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If
| you would like to share this book with another person, please
| purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you're reading
| this book and did not purchase it, or it wasn't purchased for
| your use only, then please return to your favorite book retailer
| and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard
| work of this author.
|
| They apologised after getting criticized1, but as Mike notes,
| someone consciously put that text there. Was that some experiment
| by their publisher? To get young adult readers to get used to
| such silly stipulations in order to turn it into law later? If I
| was one of the authors I would be pissed at the publisher2 for
| slipping that in and damaging their reputation.
|
| 1:
| https://www.facebook.com/100063768668342/posts/pfbid02WRJwn8...
|
| 2: I am hoping this was not actually put in at the author's
| behest.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > They apologised after getting criticized1, but as Mike notes,
| someone consciously put that text there. Was that some
| experiment by their publisher? To get young adult readers to
| get used to such silly stipulations in order to turn it into
| law later? If I was one of the authors I would be pissed at the
| publisher2 for slipping that in and damaging their reputation.
|
| My bet it was put there by the author (who blames their
| "formatter"), because wording and sentiment are amateurish. I'm
| also getting strong vibes that that book is self-published. For
| one, it's a looks like it's a trashy romance novel, and I
| understand self-publishing is pretty common for those, and the
| apology Facebook doesn't mention a publisher and makes it
| sounds like the authors are running the show.
|
| In any case, the inclusion of that example give me a poor
| opinion of this article. The author isn't above digging up
| stupid stuff done by some random ignorant boob to fuel the
| outrage machine.
| mejutoco wrote:
| If some of the billionaires of today created libraries instead of
| rocket companies to cement their legacy, that would be great.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| [flagged]
| mejutoco wrote:
| To save me? I buy a lot of books myself, thank you.
|
| It is just a wish, that is all. Don't you think education is
| important for entrepreneurship? I think it would be in their
| self-interest too, if they want to cement a legacy.
|
| I sure hope you will be there to tell some billionaires to
| pony up their own money when the government bails them out
| too.
|
| I am all up for discussion but let's not be rude.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Of course education is important to entrepreneurship, that
| is why I donate my money to those causes.
|
| Instead of yelling at HN on how Gates or Musk should spend
| their money, you should, first, actually look at their
| donation records and see that they do in fact give
| significant amounts to libraries. Gates has built more
| libraries than you can visit in your lifetime.
|
| Second, you should walk the walk and not just talk the
| talk. Talk is cheap.
|
| You would benefit from reading up on those "bailouts" by
| the way. Whether you mean TARP or the recent FDIC actions,
| as you seem to not understand them. The recent FDIC action
| was paid by a banking insurance pool, not tax payers.
|
| Complaining of tone is a defense to the indefensible.
| mejutoco wrote:
| > Instead of yelling at HN
|
| Who is yelling?
|
| > Complaining of tone is a defense to the indefensible.
|
| Tone cannot be a problem but volume is?
|
| You could ask and I will gladly tell you who I was
| thinking of. I was thinking of Bezos. Gates is actually a
| good example I had in mind. This is why I said "If _some_
| of the billionaires of today".
|
| > was paid by a banking insurance pool, not tax payers.
|
| Who do you think will pay the increased fees the banks
| will have to replenish their insurance pool?
|
| As another example, in 2008 it was not a bank insurance
| pool.
|
| I am open to being wrong, and do not pretend otherwise,
| but as I said, since I do not enjoy being talked in the
| tone you are using I will walk the walk, and stop being
| part of this conversation.
| superkuh wrote:
| Ah, sure. Let me just go back in time and make sure my
| parents are rich to get the small millions dollars loans I'll
| need to start the capital accumulation ball rolling and
| provide me the positive liberty needed to risk and fail a
| handful of times till it sticks.
|
| That said, I am providing a vast online digital library to
| the public already. Digital libraries don't need massive
| amounts of capital or real estate. I just host a tor onion
| website with a directory listing and now anyone can read the
| books I have. And that is the kind of thing the book
| publishers are trying to stop here.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| People have built libraries for thousands of years. My
| neighbor runs a small library using donated books. Your
| local library could do with donations.
|
| It does not take a billionaire to build a library. That you
| are giving me this excuse that you can't do anything
| because you are not rich is just an excuse.
|
| And had you researched this, you would see that most of the
| top billionaires DO contributes millions to building
| libraries. Gates alone has built a significant amount
| around the world.
| superkuh wrote:
| I guess we're ignoring the part where I explained I've
| been running my own digital library for the public (for
| almost 20 years now) and how the original article is
| about digital lending and how publishers are trying to
| kill it.
|
| But re: building a physical library, most of us (myself
| included) don't even have the capital to own the places
| where we live. Buying (or renting) another space is
| totally out of the question. Tiny libraries (essentially
| large mailbox size) in people's yards are cool and I've
| put some books into them before.
|
| Saying "Just build a library." is out of touch. And even
| if it was a community project (time is money) that
| succeeded we'd have the publishers come in with legal
| attacks to try to shut down digital lending.
| kerpotgh wrote:
| [dead]
| ticviking wrote:
| Once again we have ample evidence that many companies are lying
| to us when they say they are "Selling us" things.
|
| They are merely collecting the first payment of some recurring
| revenue stream they imagine us to be.
| nfriedly wrote:
| FYI: the Internet Archive is a nonprofit organization that runs
| on donations - https://archive.org/donate/
| jmclnx wrote:
| When Amazon(?) deleted 1984 from everyone's electronic book
| reader years ago, it is another indication of the control
| publishers want over what we read. They said it was a "mistake"
| and only when people when after them did the do something to
| correct that "mistake". So yes, publishers want Libraries gone.
|
| If you ask me, the publishers want to move to a "rent model" like
| many software companies and even some Auto makers are moving
| towards. That means every time you read you electronic book, you
| pay them a small amount. With Libraries gone, that could be the
| next step.
|
| Plus its seem, just by accident, they are getting help from
| extremist in many US States. Those extremist are also conducting
| their own war on Libraries, but for different reasons. If they
| "win", the results will be close to what publishers want. From
| what I have seen, none of the big publishers have come out
| against the extremists (are there any small publishers left?).
| JohnFen wrote:
| > If you ask me, the publishers want to move to a "rent model"
| like many software companies and even some Auto makers are
| moving towards.
|
| Everyone wants to move to a "rent" model. It's the easiest way
| to fleece the largest number of people.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Wasn't the deletion of 1984 because some third party had sold
| bootleg copies of the ebook?
|
| Deleting it from the customers devices is the wrong way to
| handle it, but I can genuinely see how the mistake would happen
| as they remove the bootleg copy from the server and then the
| e-readers would update and see the book doesn't exist so delet
| it from the device.
|
| A dumb event, but I'm not really seeing it as evidence of the
| publishers desire for licensed only books, something I agree is
| happening.
| jmclnx wrote:
| As you said, it was the worst response from them.
|
| But I remember it was due to something odd, but forgot what.
| But the point is, they sold you the book. So if they were
| scammed they should eat the cost, not delete it from your
| device.
|
| At the time I was getting interested in these readers, that
| activity turned me off every getting/using an electronic
| reader.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I think we are missing the forest the trees. The issue is
| not that they took action. The issue is that this action
| was even possible and an option to begin with.
|
| If there was ever an argument for an analog library, this
| is it.
| Crosseye_Jack wrote:
| Amazon have said that in the future if this happens again
| they will not remove the books from customer devices.
|
| https://mashable.com/archive/amazon-remote-delete
|
| > The statement, from Amazon's Drew Herdener, reads:
|
| > These books were added to our catalog using our self-
| service platform by a third-party who did not have the
| rights to the books...When we were notified of this by the
| rights holder, we removed the illegal copies from our
| systems and from customers' devices, and refunded
| customers....We are changing our systems so that in the
| future we will not remove books from customers' devices in
| these circumstances.
|
| My Kindle is jail broken because I prefere using KOReader
| over Amazons own reader software. But even before it was
| jail broken if I ever brought books from Amazon I would use
| the "Download book to your computer" function and then run
| it though the DeDRM plugin for Calibre.
| https://github.com/noDRM/DeDRM_tools
|
| That way even if Amazon decide to no longer host the book
| (so you can't redownload them) or go back on their word
| about not remotely removing content I still have a DRM Free
| copy of the content I can put on the book. However it is a
| shame we as consumers have to go though these steps, our
| other option is to buy content from store that do not apply
| DRM to the books, but that as decision that is basically
| forced by the publishers.
| cpymchn wrote:
| Technically, it wasn't a bootleg. Outside the USA, Orwell is
| in the public domain. A public domain copy was uploaded to
| Amazon with 'Global' rights. People in America bought it for
| 99 cents. The American rights holder complained. The rights
| listing was changed to "the rest of the world".
|
| Then Amazon had a problem. What to do?
|
| They couldn't give the 99 cents from the US customers to the
| American publishers because it (A) belonged to the publisher
| outside the US and (B) the American copies were $9.99 so it
| wouldn't have been enough.
|
| They could have prompted the American customers to pay the
| difference, then compensate the American rights holders.
|
| They could have done nothing.
|
| But in the end they said 'we didn't have the right to sell
| you this in the first place so we are taking the book back'.
|
| Gross but similar to what happens when you change the country
| code for your Apple ID and things you bought disappear.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >Outside the USA, Orwell is in the public domain
|
| This happened in 2009, Orwell hit the public domain in
| 2021.
| lp0_on_fire wrote:
| Let's not pretend this was a large dilemma for Amazon to
| solve. They screwed up by offering this copy for sale so
| they should have eaten the cost.
|
| Instead what happened was the digital equivalent of Amazon
| breaking into your house during the night, removing the
| book from your shelf, and leaving the refund on the kitchen
| table on the way out.
|
| I don't think it's similar to the Apple situation since in
| that example you (in theory) know you're getting a region-
| locked product.
| klyrs wrote:
| This is the "you wouldn't download a car, would you?" hot
| take flipped on its head. If a dealership accidentally
| sells you a car for less than they can get it from the
| manufacturer, they eat the loss. They can't go out and
| repossess the car. But amazon? They totally turned around
| to repossess your electronic book because of their own
| pricing mistake.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Consumer rights are still stuck in the 90s. Digital
| purchases are treated like some kind of special case
| where the vendor can do whatever they want and get away
| with it instead of an exchange of goods for money.
| [deleted]
| marcosdumay wrote:
| You and all the current replies are focusing on the wrong
| problem.
|
| Amazon should not be able to retract a book from your device.
| Why they did it or whether or not it was a good response
| aren't relevant. It should be impossible.
| wazoox wrote:
| " _You 'll own nothing, and you'll be happy about it_".
|
| Klaus Schwab, head of the WEF, in the book "The Great Reset".
| chaghalibaghali wrote:
| Actual context is described in this Reuters article "Fact
| check: The World Economic Forum does not have a stated goal
| to have people own nothing by 2030":
| https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-wef-
| idUSKBN2AP2...
| barbazoo wrote:
| Is this actually from the book and if so, what was the
| context in which it was said?
| vanilla_nut wrote:
| It's especially sad because community libraries are one of the
| few public spaces _left_ in America. Sure, you can hang out at
| a coffee shop or a bar, but those spaces require you to buy a
| product just to exist in them.
|
| Just another example of capitalism destroying resources that
| make us a civilization (instead of just a bundle of
| subscriptions).
| q7xvh97o2pDhNrh wrote:
| > That means every time you read you electronic book, you pay
| them a small amount.
|
| Why not just interleave ads inside the book and monetize via
| standard CPM/CPC/affiliate business models?
|
| Imagine if you could tap a single button to sign up for horse-
| riding lessons after you've _just_ read about the ride of the
| Rohirrim. Or maybe you could tap a button to get a tasty
| sandwich delivered to you -- in the exact moment that you 're
| reading about Frodo and the gang surviving off lembas bread.
|
| Especially with the advent of LLMs, it seems like in-stream
| advertising for classic literature ( _especially_ books that
| are already out of copyright) is a massive opportunity just
| waiting for someone to pick it up. I 'm genuinely surprised
| it's not already being done.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Yes, Amazon, in 2009:
|
| <https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106989..
| .>
|
| <https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18am..
| .>
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| > If you ask me, the publishers want to move to a "rent model"
| like many software companies and even some Auto makers are
| moving towards.
|
| Of _course_ they do. From the image in the article:
|
| "This book is licensed for your personal enjoyment only."
|
| Key word being _licensed_. You don 't OWN it.
|
| The wealthy don't want you to own anything. They want a nation
| of renters so that they can continue to see revenue off of
| everything in perpetuity.
| briandear wrote:
| [flagged]
| SamoyedFurFluff wrote:
| Gender Queer isn't a children's book. It's a book for older
| teens, and I think it's quite appropriate in like a
| highschool setting for example. Go Ask Alice has worse than
| that(rape and prostitution and addiction), was published
| decades ago, and is considered a classic staple of American
| literature for teens.
| tokai wrote:
| Just looked through worldcat and not a single US library has
| it in the children section. Even the publisher specifies that
| it is intended for readers +16. Also only like two handfuls
| of libraries have it in their collections.
|
| Either you have been bamboozled by polarizing lies or you are
| making up those lies yourself.
| eynsham wrote:
| > insist kids should read it
|
| It is fairly trivial to leave books in the library without
| forcing children to read them or recommending that they
| should. I hope that all school libraries have copies of
| Rudin, Marx and Kripke too--and that's it; there's no need to
| force all the contents of the library on every pupil.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > I hope that all school libraries have copies of Rudin,
| Marx and Kripke too--and that's it.
|
| Honestly, I kind of doubt that would ever happen. Marx's
| most famous books might be kept only because of their
| extreme fame, but you'll rarely if ever see mathematicians
| or analytic philosophers like you listed. They'll rarely if
| ever be checked out, and will be weeded. A school library
| isn't an university library.
| hooverd wrote:
| Capital is a doorstopper and I can't imagine kids reading
| it.
| tablespoon wrote:
| I agree, but my old high school library apparently has a
| copy available (according to their online catalog). I'd
| bet it's rarely been checked out, and never actually read
| (beyond a couple of pages).
|
| They also have the The Communist Manifesto, which seems
| more like the kind of thing a precocious or edgy teen
| might actually read (at least in the pre-smartphone era).
| kevviiinn wrote:
| Do you have any citations for schools having Gender Queer in
| the ciriculum? I wasn't able to find any
| aaomidi wrote:
| https://apnews.com/article/dont-say-gay-desantis-florida-
| gen...
|
| Inform yourself.
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| Your next President...
| Mezzie wrote:
| > If you ask me, the publishers want to move to a "rent model"
| like many software companies and even some Auto makers are
| moving towards. That means every time you read you electronic
| book, you pay them a small amount. With Libraries gone, that
| could be the next step.
|
| They already enforce this on libraries. Unlike physical books
| which can be kept until they physically wear out or are
| destroyed (and even then they can be rebound and most libraries
| have some kind of book binding tools or access), the ebooks
| that libraries 'buy' are often artificially limited in terms of
| number of times they can be used. So libraries 'buy' an ebook
| that can be lent X amount of times with 1-2 'concurrent' lends.
| It's all so stupid.
| kevviiinn wrote:
| Rent seeking is the end game of capitalism, especially with
| minimal regulations
| pdonis wrote:
| No, rent seeking is the end game of _regulations_. The only
| reason publishers can pull this kind of stuff is copyright
| law and the Berne Convention; "we're just protecting
| copyrights!" is what gets them the political support they
| need to get away with it.
| comte7092 wrote:
| Interesting you consider copyright to be a regulation
| rather than a definition of a property right.
|
| To the extent that private property is an essential
| component of capitalism, and that intellectual property
| is a component of private property, your classification
| of copyright as a regulation rather than capitalism
| itself makes little sense.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Copyright is explicitly not a property right. It is a a
| deal between the creators of a work and the public in
| order to benefit society. In exchange for a temporary
| monopoly over the work, it becomes public domain.
| comte7092 wrote:
| What you're talking about flies in the face of the
| entirety of the western legal tradition.
|
| It is explicitly a property right. Hence the phrase
| "intellectual property".
| JohnFen wrote:
| This isn't quite correct. Check the history of copyright,
| it's really fascinating. There was a lot of debate about
| it in the US because of a fear that it would be
| interpreted as a property right.
|
| In many ways it resembles a property right, but it is
| missing fundamental aspects of property rights.
|
| What copyright actually is is a limited-time monopoly
| right. When it expires, the creator of the work loses
| that "right". It exists not for the benefit of the
| creators of a work, but for the benefit of the public.
|
| Copyright is a temporary restriction on the rights of
| others. As a society, we deem that acceptable because
| it's temporary and because it encourages people to make
| their works publicly available, thus enriching culture
| and society.
|
| If it were a property right, then it would make no sense
| that you lose that property at the expiration of
| copyright.
| comte7092 wrote:
| You're placing an artificial requirement on the
| definition in order to support your argument.
|
| Copyright may be owned, bought, sold, transferred or
| otherwise discharged in the same manner that any other
| form of property is. Nothing about property inherently
| implies such claim exists in perpetuity.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > In many ways it resembles a property right, but it is
| missing fundamental aspects of property rights.
|
| No, its not.
|
| > What copyright actually is is a limited-time monopoly
| right.
|
| Limited time monopoly rights are property rights. A life
| tenancy in real property is a property right.
|
| (Copyright lacks what some consider essetmbtial features
| of _ownership of the subject matter of a property right_
| , as opposed to ownership of a property right _in_ that
| subject matter, but ownership of the subject of property
| rights is not the only kind of property right.)
| pdonis wrote:
| _> intellectual property is a component of private
| property_
|
| That is precisely the question that is disputed in
| discussions of copyright. "Intellectual property" in
| itself is an ambiguous term: does it mean the ideas
| themselves, or particular expressions of them? Copyright
| law says the latter: ideas themselves cannot be
| copyrighted (or patented), only particular expressions of
| them can. That is because ideas are non-rivalrous: people
| can give them to others without losing the use of them
| themselves. That takes away the justification for private
| property rights, namely, to avoid conflicts over who gets
| to use the property.
|
| Prior to computers and the Internet, one could argue that
| particular copies of a particular expression of an idea,
| such as a book, _were_ rivalrous: I can 't both give a
| book to you and read it myself at the same time. But with
| digital copies that is no longer true. So the same logic
| that makes ideas themselves not private property, now
| pushes us towards not treating copies of digital works as
| private property either.
|
| The original justification for copyright law was to
| encourage people to _create_ works. But that was always a
| questionable claim, because nobody creates works in a
| vacuum. From the standpoint of creation, the Internet has
| made clear that many _more_ works get created when there
| is free sharing of digital copies. And the Internet has
| also enabled other ways of _paying_ people whose creative
| works you like, besides having to pay for individual
| copies; that 's what systems like Patreon are for. So
| that original justification for copyright law has now
| lost whatever validity it once had.
|
| The best piece of evidence for who really benefits from
| copyright law, though, is who is pushing hardest for
| draconian enforcement of it. Is that content creators,
| i.e., actual authors and artists and musicians, etc.? No.
| It's the media companies, whose business model depends on
| being able to, not to put too fine a point on it, exploit
| content creators by convincing them that working through
| the media companies is the only way to get them a large
| audience--and then siphoning off most of the profits for
| themselves instead of paying them back to the creators.
| comte7092 wrote:
| I agree with many of your points, but my original point
| still stands. Supporters of capitalism _typically_
| private property as innately good. Copyright isn't a
| perversion of capitalism, nor is it a regulation that
| bends the shape of some pure form of capitalism, _it is
| capitalism_. What's notable about intellectual property
| is the fact that it is a relatively recent concept in the
| history of property, so we can trace its original
| justifications. It is however, not all that different
| from other forms of property.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> It is however, not all that different from other forms
| of property._
|
| As I said, this is precisely the point that is disputed
| in discussions of copyright law. You certainly can't just
| assume it as a fact. But the capitalists who are
| exploiting copyright law to their own benefit would
| certainly love it if everyone would just take it as given
| that "intellectual property" is private property. That's
| an example of the general pattern I have described
| elsewhere in this discussion, that capitalists want
| people to think regulations are for the people's benefit,
| instead of for the benefit of the capitalists. That is
| the capitalists' ideal state of regulatory capture.
| comte7092 wrote:
| I don't see how you can't consider this to be the case
| for all forms of property.
|
| Enclosure of the commons was certainly for private
| benefit. There are numerous aspects of physical property
| ownership that we just take for granted that are not at
| all straightforward.
|
| You seem to be using a "is it for the benefit of society"
| test to determine whether something is an intrinsic
| feature of capitalism. I'd posit that is not how the
| system is structured nor is it how it is intended to be
| structured. That's not regulatory capture, that is
| inherent to what it is. You can't just take out the parts
| you don't like and treat them as a separate entity.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> all forms of property_
|
| The problem is that _you are assuming that "intellectual
| property" is property_. You _cannot_ assume that.
|
| _> Enclosure of the commons was certainly for private
| benefit._
|
| Enclosure of parts of the commons that are rivalrous--
| only one person can use that part at a time--was, yes.
| But as I have already said, "intellectual property" is
| non-rivalrous, so this argument does not apply to it.
|
| _> There are numerous aspects of physical property
| ownership that we just take for granted that are not at
| all straightforward_
|
| This is quite true; it's why we have a complex system of
| private property common law for physical property, and
| some kinds (such as real estate) have even more
| complexity in the law attached to them.
|
| But "intellectual property" is not physical property, and
| you can't just assume that all of the law that has been
| developed for physical property is automatically
| applicable to "intellectual property" as well.
|
| _> You seem to be using a "is it for the benefit of
| society" test to determine whether something is an
| intrinsic feature of capitalism._
|
| I am doing no such thing. Indeed, the feature of
| capitalism I have been describing, namely regulatory
| capture, is _not_ for the benefit of society; it is a net
| loss to society. But it is a benefit to the capitalists
| who buy the regulations they want. That 's why they buy
| them.
|
| _> That's not regulatory capture, that is inherent to
| what it is._
|
| In the sense that regulatory capture is a common end
| state of capitalism (where "capitalism", as I have said
| elsewhere in this discussion, is _not_ the same thing as
| "free markets", although capitalists would love for
| people to think it is), yes, it is "inherent" to
| capitalism. That still doesn't mean it's a net benefit to
| society. It isn't.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The problem is that you are assuming that "intellectual
| property" is property.
|
| Intellectual property is property.
|
| Whether or not it _should be_ is a different question,
| but it factually is property.
| vkou wrote:
| > Intellectual property is property.
|
| Why? Is there some natural law that gives me ownership to
| the meaning of the words I say? That bars you from
| repeating that meaning in those words?
| comte7092 wrote:
| Apply the same test to any other form of property.
|
| What natural law gives you the right to own land?
| vkou wrote:
| What natural law indeed?
|
| There isn't one. It's an arbitrary social construct. The
| argument that IP is property is built on a circle of
| quicksand.
|
| In the case of land, at least, exclusivity of use can be
| an argument one could make (Only one person can
| physically use any one plot of it for any one particular
| purpose, and gosh, maybe it's in the social interest to
| have some set of rules for ajudicating disputes between
| two people who want to use it for different purposes, and
| one of many solutions to that question is private land
| ownership), but that's not even an argument that has any
| applicability in the IP space.
|
| What's most interesting is that the IP commons can be
| freely plundered, at no cost, to build IP that is _owned_
| by someone. If we 're going to treat IP as property, why
| does the creation of new IP not require a tax, levy, or
| dividend to be paid to the collective owners of the IP
| commons? All ideas are, after all, derivative.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Property is a creation of human law, and intellectual
| propety is a subcategory of it; natural law is a label
| for subjectve preferences used to give them the illusion
| of objectivity as a rationalization for human law, not a
| provable thing that exists.
|
| You are literally inverting the facts (actual law that
| exists) and subjective preferences that are not facts
| ("natural law").
| JohnFen wrote:
| You can assert that as fact, but I don't think it's
| actually established as fact.
| comte7092 wrote:
| Please provide a coherent definition of private property
| then, because the one you seem to be using appears quite
| exotic.
| coldtea wrote:
| And who said regulations are not an inherent part of
| capitalism? After capitalists have acquired wealth,
| they'll use it to get the regulations they want.
|
| Sure, you can imagine a society with capitalism and no
| regulations. But that would be a wish, not something you
| can bring about (or that ever occured for long).
|
| In fact, when unregulated capitalism is left free things
| get even worse for the little man and the small business
| or upstart: they can be crushed with no regulations to
| protect them. People not liking this doesn't matter. The
| power is on the ones with the money and the connections,
| which would be the capitalists, not with the masses who
| think voting means they rule.
|
| And if we restrict it purely to copyright laws, who said
| removing them only makes things better? Million creators
| getting paid because of copyright - authors, recording
| artists, session musicians, illustrators, movie crews,
| programmers, etc would beg to differ.
| pdonis wrote:
| The post I responded to said "especially with minimal
| regulations". That's what I was responding to. I said
| nothing about regulations and capitalism being
| incompatible. Of course they're not, although capitalists
| love it when people think capitalism means the same thing
| as "free markets" and therefore regulations are opposed
| to capitalism. Great camouflage.
|
| As for ordinary people's opinion not mattering, it
| matters because it affects what the capitalists, and more
| generally the people in power, can get away with. That's
| why capitalists like the camouflage of people confusing
| capitalism and free markets.
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| > Of course they're not, although capitalists love it
| when people think capitalism means the same thing as
| "free markets" and therefore regulations are opposed to
| capitalism. Great camouflage.
|
| Why should capitalists love it when people think that
| regulations (which also include copyright, patent law,
| trademark law, ...) are opposed to capitalism?
| smsm42 wrote:
| Because there's a difference between the benefit to the
| whole society and the benefit to a particular person. If
| one person can set up things so that resources flow to
| him without him contributing any value in return, it's
| great for the person, but bad for the society. Some
| regulations work exactly in this way. It's great for
| certain people occupying profitable positions, and if
| it's less great for everybody else - well, sucks to be
| everybody else, tough luck.
|
| "Capitalists" are just people living in the system, and
| some of them would seek such positions if available, and
| love it if they successfully occupy them. Those are the
| people that think it's ok to demand money from people
| singing "Happy Birthday to You". Why wouldn't they love
| it? Yes, it's not good to everybody else, but it's good
| for them.
| pdonis wrote:
| Because it means people think the regulations are for
| their (the people's) benefit, instead of being for the
| benefit of the capitalists, as they actually are.
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| While I agree that is true for our current phase of
| capitalism, when capitalism was first conceptualized it was
| as an _escape_ from rent seeking! The free market was
| supposed to be free from rent seeking, like the monopolies
| and place men of King George 's day.
|
| To me it's one of the most fascinating examples of how the
| wiles of human nature change concepts over time.
| kevviiinn wrote:
| And just like capitalism was better than feudalism which
| was better than what came before it, capitalism has been
| inching towards its end game and we need a better system
| that works for all citizens rather than the few who have
| the capital to capture rents
| phpisthebest wrote:
| 100% incorrect, Most of the western world has been moving
| AWAY from free markets for a long time, the problem we
| see is the result of that. To blame free markets for the
| problems created by government, and regaltory capture
| shows a complete and profound ignorance of the root cause
|
| Free Markets make a free and fair society. Regulations
| make for a move to larger corporations, more less
| competition, and corporatism or mechanism and eventually
| oligarchy as the power of the state is used to enrich the
| elites.
|
| you have to Smash the state to Eat the rich...
| yamtaddle wrote:
| > > capitalism has been inching towards its end game
|
| > 100% incorrect, Most of the western world has been
| moving AWAY from free markets
|
| Capitalism does not equal free markets.
| afiori wrote:
| For all the good properties that a free market has it is
| not a stable property game-theory wise.
|
| Unless a god-emperor intervenes to prevent (natural)
| monopolies and unfair competition free markets are bound
| to degenerate at least a bit.
| kevviiinn wrote:
| Do you think markets can exist without regulations? I
| think you're failing to acknowledge that without
| regulation, it's far easier for violent monopolies to
| control everything
|
| Do you honestly think that without government saying that
| corporations can't do violence that they would all get
| along in happy lovey dovey fairy tale land? No, they
| would absolutely have their own standing armies. We need
| regulation to even have markets otherwise we go back to
| feudalism
| phpisthebest wrote:
| I am not ready to go full AnCap... but I believe
| Governments role in society is as a Night Watchman, to
| prevent violence, fraud, and physical abuse (i.e murder,
| property theft etc)
|
| I would even go as far as expanding the Lockean proviso
| to its natural conclusion in the establishment of a
| Single Tax system around natural resources / property i.e
| Geolibertianism
|
| In short I believe government should be about 1/10 or
| even 1/20th of the size we have today. Total government
| expenditure in the US (State Local and Federal) should be
| no more than 15-18% of GDP, today federal alone is over
| 25 approaching 30%
| kevviiinn wrote:
| The problem is that corporations will take every single
| advantage that isn't explicitly denied to them at the
| cost of consumers and citizens in general, that's why we
| have and need regulations to protect the environment and
| make sure that corporations don't completely destroy
| ecosystems for profit. But we can see that they do
| anyways, they just go to countries without the
| regulations and destroy the environment there
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > Free Markets make a free and fair society.
|
| Citation needed. The robber Barrons of the 19th century
| and companies like Standard Oil needed no help from
| regulators to become oppressive monopolies and rent
| seekers. No corporation _wants_ to operate in a truly
| competitive market and will use any means available to
| become a monopoly and exert pricing power. Sometimes that
| means buying up all your competition or driving them out
| of business by "dumping" products on the market below
| cost for a while. Other times it means subverting
| regulators to erect barriers to competition.
|
| At _least_ with regulatory capture you have _some_
| ability to influence the politicians involved. What
| influence does a single consumer have on a Standard Oil
| style monopoly?
| Joker_vD wrote:
| Careful there; you sound almost like one of those silly
| German guys who moved to England in the middle of the XIX
| century.
| barrysteve wrote:
| Rent seeking? Taking books off the market is straight power
| over the supply of knowledge. Having to learn everything
| the hard way, because the good books on your topic of
| choice have been nerfed and/or black-holed, is a nightmare
| that makes rent seeking look tame.
|
| You pop off the book supply and disconnect russian piracy
| websites and suddenly we only know what Amazon editors,
| pricey Scientific journals and extended university courses,
| allow us to know.
|
| The internet is excellent for technical knowledge around
| STEM subjects, primarily computing... but it routinely
| deletes valuable information from all media types. The
| popular http sites are a curated garden. Half of all
| youtube videos from 2015 onward, have been deleted.
|
| I don't really care about paying $20/month to access all
| the rare and good books. Keeping it on the map is more
| valuable than rent-seeking.
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| I think renting or some other form of pay per read is a
| much better way of paying for books that single outright
| purchases.
|
| Tolkien deserves much more of my money than the author of
| the cookbook I bought a Costco and never read, but with
| single purchase they get roughly the same amount of
| economic value from me.
|
| (For the purposes of this example, Tolkien is still alive)
| pdonis wrote:
| _> Tolkien deserves much more of my money than the author
| of the cookbook I bought a Costco and never read_
|
| You're perfectly free to send him a check for the
| additional portion of your money you think he's entitled
| to.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > Tolkien deserves much more of my money than the author
| of the cookbook I bought a Costco and never read, but
| with single purchase they get roughly the same amount of
| economic value from me.
|
| I think in a thriving society it would be fine for
| consumers to enjoy a value surplus from the products and
| services they buy. Having every bit of value a consumer
| obtains from a product monetized by the producer is a
| great way to move wealth from the bottom of the economic
| ladder to the top; it's a society of scarcity and not
| abundance. How did the popular imagination go from
| bountiful societies like the one in Star Trek to ideas
| like "You will own nothing and you will be happy" where
| you pay rent for _everything_ you use.
|
| It's particularly galling that these ideas are spreading
| to _information_ products, which would be freely copyable
| and available to everyone - a public treasure like no
| other - if not for artificial restrictions on such
| activities. I remember the "information wants to be
| free" attitude of hackers in the early 2000s. But now
| it's ok if we pay _per instance_ for reading a book?
| Crazy stuff.
| jodrellblank wrote:
| The real question is how did society get to a state where
| "you will be happy" is an evil goal that people copypaste
| everywhere nodding conspiratorially to each other?
|
| "You'll never guess what Mrs Jones told me about Agnes'
| husband"
|
| "Go on?"
|
| "Well, she was sitting at the table next to him in the
| cafe and overheard him saying he wanted to make Agnes
| happy!"
|
| "No!"
|
| "Yes! Can you believe it?"
|
| "The _bastard_!"
| AlexandrB wrote:
| I think the common way to read "you will own nothing and
| you will be happy" is not as a prediction/statement, but
| a command about how people should feel.
|
| For example, if I told said "you will live naked in a
| ditch and you will be happy", the "you will be happy"
| part reads like a dictate about how you should feel about
| the "living in a ditch" situation. The obvious disconnect
| between telling people they will be paying monthly dues
| to a bunch of rent-seekers and that they will somehow
| feel happy about this situation even though it sounds,
| frankly, awful has the same effect.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > The real question is how did society get to a state
| where "you will be happy" is an evil goal that people
| copypaste everywhere nodding conspiratorially to each
| other?
|
| I haven't noticed this at all. Where are people talking
| about being happy as an evil goal?
|
| The phrase "you will own nothing and be happy" is
| dystopian because it's not really saying that you'll be
| happy. It's more like a threat: "we will monetize every
| aspect of your existence and you better like it".
| webnrrd2k wrote:
| Outright purchase has worked pretty well throughout the
| history of publishing. So renting would have to offer
| enough of an improvement over that model to make it
| worthwhile.
|
| I _might_ be ok with renting a book if more of the money
| went to the author. Theoretically it could work out well
| for everyone. A lot of cookbooks would be a great option.
| Rent them for a month or do for, say, $1? Cheaper access
| to books for a period of time, like O 'Reilly's Safari
| for technical books.
|
| But I don't think that's how it's going to work out if
| renting is the only way to get books. I think that
| everyone will for forced into onerous terms of the
| publishers get too much power.
| whateveracct wrote:
| Why exactly does a cookbook make more sense to rent than
| a novel? I'm very confused by this consensus in this
| thread.
|
| Cookbooks if anything seem more useful to buy since they
| can sit in or near your kitchen and you can grab them and
| use them. Whereas you read a novel only every so often
| past the first read?
| currency wrote:
| Probably depends on how you use recipes. If you prop the
| book up next to your work and don't want to worry about
| getting it messy, you'd want to buy it. If you tend to
| use one or two recipes per book, and copy them out and
| make notes and changes, you'd be happy borrowing the book
| for a bit.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > with single purchase they get roughly the same amount
| of economic value from me.
|
| Only if they're priced the same. They don't have to be.
| Tolkein could charge much more than the cookbook if he
| wished.
|
| I don't see that your point is dependent on renting vs
| buying. It's just about pricing.
| hilbert42 wrote:
| _" Tolkien deserves much more of my money than the author
| of the cookbook..."_
|
| Perhaps so but why?
|
| Tolkien was educated at mainly public expense and his
| wherewithal and worldliness that enabled him to write his
| novels came from the society in which he lived.
|
| That is, he was intimately coupled to his society without
| which he would not have been able to write his books. He
| owes society some payback for what it gave him.
|
| Tolkien has rights that need protection but they are not
| exclusive morally speaking. That the law gives him full
| and exclusive rights is an unfortunate product of history
| when Victor Hugo and cronies forced the Berne Convention
| in the days before the reading public had any idea that
| it was about to be shafted.
|
| That unfair treaty has to be made fair despite
| protestations from greedy publishers. If not, they will
| eventually lose out because every new computer technology
| only makes it easier to copy works. Even now it's a
| cinch, in 20 years it'll be so easy that if any text or
| video has _any_ public exposure it 'll be copied by
| consumers as a matter of course--copyright holders
| bedamed. (Think Google Glass--like tech that captures
| everything a human sees in high definition. If a human
| sees it then it will be copied automatically. Right,
| copyright is on the wall without major reform.)
|
| What we are witnessing from these greedy publishing
| bastards are the last gasps of the old elitist copyright
| order. If they were smart they would realize that they
| need to be much more reasonable and consolatory to even
| survive.
| spacebanana7 wrote:
| > Perhaps so but why?
|
| So that economic resources get directed towards creating
| books that people actually read and enjoy enough to keep
| reading.
|
| At present, writers and authors are incentivised to
| merely sell as many copies as possible because that's how
| they get paid. If they were directly incentivised to
| create books people enjoy reading we might have more
| books that are enjoyable to read.
|
| > Tolkien was educated at mainly public expense and his
| wherewithal and worldliness that enabled him to write his
| novels came from the society in which he lived.
|
| That can be addressed by using the tax system to pay back
| society from his wealth, but it's a separate discussion.
|
| > That the law gives him full and exclusive rights is an
| unfortunate product of history when Victor Hugo and
| cronies forced the Berne Convention in the days before
| the reading public had any idea that it was about to be
| shafted.
|
| I'd also prefer a world where books were more open
| because I reckon the increase in creativity from millions
| of people modifying stories would outweigh the loss of
| economic incentives for original authors.
|
| But that's not the world we live in. To the extend that
| hard copyrights exist that force us to pay to read we
| might as well structure the payments in a way that
| motivates the authors to write in a way that is more
| beneficial to us.
| hilbert42 wrote:
| Fine. With copyright being in such a dysfunctional state
| at present something will have to give. I don't know what
| the final outcome will be but there's little doubt the
| middlemen will have a far lesser role to play in the
| future.
|
| Policing copyright in its current form will become such a
| burden that it will force change, and with coming AI
| advances even publisher's editors will become redundant.
| Technology will make publishers much less important.
|
| Authors ought to see the writing on the wall and start
| planning to deal directly with their readers. As you say,
| that would aid in creating books that people want to
| read.
|
| My personal opinion is that authors will have more to
| fear from AI than copyright violations. I'm not against
| writers being given their fair dues but I am against
| unfair copyright laws.
|
| What concerns me most is that if we're not careful we'll
| end up reading books and viewing videos created by AI--
| and I don't want that nor would author/creators. I'm
| defending human creators here, I don't want them replaced
| by machines. That's why it's more important than ever
| that authors and readers have a more solid and direct
| relationship--one that's much more than just a monetary
| alliance.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| The mechanism to do this sort of already exists, in that
| you really love Lord of the Rings, so you watch the
| films, you've bought the whole series and given it away
| as gifts, read to your kid and she grew up to buy them,
| etc. while none of those streams exist for the Costco
| cookbook.
|
| But even if you're on the rational consumer mindset and
| want to give the JRR estate an extra penny shaving per
| word you read, are you really comfortable with the level
| of intrusive monitoring of your habits this will entail?
| You want the publisher to know how many times you open
| their book, which passages you read most, what time of
| day, etc. to charge you appropriately? What if JRR wants
| you to pay extra to read about Tom Bombadil because you
| can't just watch the movie about him, isn't that fair if
| people are willing to pay?
| Mezzie wrote:
| It makes sense as an incentive.
|
| It just results in very silly situations where the library
| buys the terrible copies and just _happen_ to also have
| information on how the DRM works and which programs can
| bypass it and since libraries exist to provide information,
| if someone asks for it, of course you tell them. Same way
| as there tend to be copiers that are out of sight (and
| camera) range. At least a couple of libraries I worked for
| had information by the copiers on _exactly_ how much of a
| book you could copy before it was considered copyright
| infringement, thus informing people that they could copy
| the books.
|
| It's very kayfabe-esque.
|
| You're right that it's a fundamental values mismatch.
| Personally, I'm an extremist who would crash every F500
| company to prevent another Library of Alexandria. Knowledge
| > money.
| ketralnis wrote:
| > how much of a book you could copy before it was
| considered copyright infringement
|
| So they help people follow the law?
| nine_k wrote:
| Much like one of my acquaintances, a professor, sent
| their students a messages that obtaining copies of their
| textbooks online, e.g. on Libgen (a list of URLs
| follows), is not officially approved.
| Mezzie wrote:
| _Technically_ , yes.
|
| Lawyers and librarians fighting is always fun because
| each group is very detail-oriented, very pedantic, and
| amazing at malicious compliance.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| Now any limits on how much of the book you can copy are
| irrelevant, since you can LLM yourself a brand new book
| by paying MS a few bucks and somehow there is no
| copyright violation in _that_ process...
| rnk wrote:
| What do you mean, can you ask chatGPT to write the
| contents of of some book, and it would just regurgitate
| them?
| throwaway290 wrote:
| No I mean prompt a sufficiently capable LLM based on what
| you wanted to read, chances are the LLM was trained on
| that book
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Rent seeking, in the manner we see here, is a product of
| regulations not due to the absence of them
| mindslight wrote:
| It seems like you agree with OP?
|
| "Capitalism" revolves around maximizing what can be owned
| as _capital_ , including by divvying up what would
| otherwise be the commons by creating various types of
| imaginary properties.
|
| One type of capital is government-created privileges
| obtained through regulatory capture, that keep upstart
| competitors from entering a market. If you're arguing for
| having fewer regulations, then you're actually advocating
| _against_ capitalism! Contrast with focusing on "free
| markets", which at least keeps the emphasis on the
| competition mechanic rather than the suffocating dynamic
| of rent seeking.
| floor2 wrote:
| It seems to me rather, that you are using a definition of
| "capitalism" that is distinct from and perhaps at odds
| with how other people are using the term.
|
| The definition you're using seems to be clearly a far-
| left, anti-capitalism interpretation which has
| essentially inverted goals/motivations with side-
| effects/externalities compared to what a pro-capitalist,
| market-oriented type of person would suggest.
|
| Basically, you're suggesting that regulatory capture is a
| goal of "capitalism" and while most people would say
| that's an anti-capitalist failure of government.
|
| Everyone agrees regulatory capture is bad, so maybe we
| could all work together to fix that badness regardless of
| abstract differences of opinion.
| mindslight wrote:
| I agree there is a stark difference between what I'm
| pointing out and what most people who describe themselves
| as capitalist would say they're advocating. But there is
| always a difference between what proponents of an
| ideology claim in theory, and the actual dynamic of an
| ideology in practice.
|
| Consider how copyright itself is strong demonstration of
| the distinction between markets and capitalism. When
| expressing anti-copyright opinions, one often gets
| labeled an _anti-capitalist_ even though they 're
| expressing a _free market_ opinion - why is this?
|
| Fundamentally, a free market does not have copyright - if
| I have series of bits A, and you have series of bits B,
| then in a free market we can trade copies of each. It's
| only by creating a privilege of imaginary property that
| party C can force themselves into our voluntary exchange,
| declaring that me and you cannot trade our series of bits
| without their permission. C's privilege of dictating that
| you and I cannot freely trade is a form of _capital_ that
| has been created out of whole cloth with the deliberate
| economic purpose of creating an income stream - aka rent
| seeking. Arguing against the existence of this privilege
| is _simultaneously anti-capitalist and pro-market_.
|
| The distinction between capitalism and markets becomes
| ever more important as more capitalist activity shifts
| from direct application to managing intrinsic problems of
| the natural world (eg facilitating investment in a
| machine that produces widgets), to the circular
| application of inventing new forms of intermediated rent
| streams. For example, the freedom-destroying trend of
| companies "selling" physical products while retaining
| control over them through software backdoors makes
| perfect sense from a capitalist perspective - the ongoing
| right to control the device is a form of capital that can
| be separated and retained to create a revenue stream. But
| from a pro-market pro-freedom perspective, the chipping
| away of individual autonomy in favor of centrally-owned
| control is abhorrent.
| Supermancho wrote:
| Expanding the logical progression of capitalism, we get the
| future presented in Continuum (imdb.com/title/tt1954347/)
| as well as other shows like Altered Carbon, etc.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Hm. I paid 'rent' to my local library for books - a fee for the
| membership card. I know, Amazon likely will charge more. But
| it's not unprecedented.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| How much does it cost you, and where are you located? It's
| free at our local libraries in Michigan. We have a property
| tax millage that provides most of the library budget.
|
| Is it anywhere close to the cost of providing the services
| your library provides, or a nominal fee to print the card?
| barbazoo wrote:
| That sucks, public library memberships should be free.
| eldritch_4ier wrote:
| [flagged]
| banannaise wrote:
| These allegations are a combination of extreme hyperbole,
| wild misrepresentations, and outright lies, with the general
| goal of portraying queer people and minorities as evil people
| who want your children.
|
| Astute readers may recognize it as a variation on the Blood
| Libel, an antisemitic conspiracy theory.
| debacle wrote:
| You are very off base. Please educate yourself. Also, the
| concern has nothing to do with LGBT people - most LGBT
| parents I know also do not want these things in schools (or
| aren't aware, which are the majority).
| rob74 wrote:
| > _With CDL it's a scan of that book, but the scan is tied to the
| physical copy, so that if a digital copy is loaned out, no one
| else can take out another copy._
|
| Er... how exactly does that work? DRM? Or can you simply make a
| copy of your "loaned out" digital copy before returning it?
| Because I can see why publishers would take issue with that. I
| mean, of course you _could_ do that with a real book too (copy
| /scan it), but it's orders of magnitude more effort...
| matwood wrote:
| There are lots of 1 book/1 user DRM schemes in the library
| world. That's how all checkout based digital systems work
| today.
| bonzini wrote:
| Yes, it's DRM. Both "normal" e-book lending and CDL use the
| same DRM and to be honest it's the only use of DRM that I don't
| object to.
|
| Controlled digital lending however gets rid of the publisher's
| license to make loans (where the library pays per checkout or
| for a fixed amount of time); instead, the library buys the
| hardcopy book, prepares a self-made ebook version, and pinky-
| promises that they will abide by the 1 copy-1 loan rule so that
| they can claim fair use.
|
| It's certainly dubious, but it's not out of this world either.
| And what's even more dubious, are the publishers' attempts at
| eroding the first-sale doctrine.
|
| (Adobe Digital Editions is a fairly trivial DRM to bypass by
| the way--I won't even say crack because on macOS the private
| key used to be hidden in plain sight in DER format--but it
| seems to be okay for publishers to use it when they make money
| out of loans. So the weakness of the DRM is not the issue).
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| It's even easier to just download a pirated copy than to
| bypass the DRM.
|
| The mere fact that someone is using CDL is strong evidence
| that they are following the rules and not trying to make an
| illicit copy.
| dublinben wrote:
| It's only dubious from the publishers' perspective.
|
| It's not much of a stretch to apply modern technology like
| streaming video, interactive screen sharing, or virtual
| reality to the established concept of a reading room, and
| wind up with something like CDL. There's no technical reason
| why a patron shouldn't be able to virtually 'step into' a
| reading room, and peruse something in the library's
| collection. This would have been possible one book at a time
| using 20th century cable television broadcast and a telephone
| line. The internet just multiplies the number of 'channels'
| or books available concurrently to different patrons.
| bonzini wrote:
| It's dubious in the sense that you _are_ distributing a
| copy of the work. So, just like a lot of other fair uses,
| you have to accept that it ends up being litigated, or
| forbidden when the law changes.
|
| The API copying in Oracle v. Google was also dubious in the
| legal sense, or it wouldn't have ended up in front of the
| Supreme Court. That's just what the situation was like from
| the legal POV ten years ago, even though it was standard
| practice in the field and it ended up winning nicely in the
| Supreme Court. Now it's not dubious anymore.
|
| > It's not much of a stretch to apply modern technology
| like streaming video, interactive screen sharing, or
| virtual reality to the established concept of a reading
| room, and wind up with something like CDL
|
| That's a good point.
| RedCondor wrote:
| It makes sense though. It's similar to the dismantling of
| universal healthcare in Canada. There's too much money to be
| made.
|
| It's very silly to imagine one can be a staunch proponent of
| privatizing everything, especially all the popular things, but
| then try to carve out a niche exception for books and a couple of
| other impopular things.
|
| The only reason America has any kind of large-scale public
| property at all is because it was forced to by external
| circumstances (legacies from feudalism or the pressure exerted by
| rival socialism). All of it is alien to capitalism, like bolted-
| on patches.
|
| https://redsails.org/concessions/
| AuthorizedCust wrote:
| Who cares? Libraries are already in a death spiral. Circulation
| is way down and still plummeting, and there's no realistic future
| that changes that.
|
| The traditional function of librarians and libraries has been
| obsoleted by technology for common use cases.
|
| Look at what your local library does now, and you'll find far
| much more than ever has nothing to do with physical books or even
| books at all!
|
| The future of libraries is a ground-up reinvention of their
| purpose.
|
| Also, no matter your concern about tech, warehousing physical
| books and providing staff to help us organize books and locate
| information isn't the answer.
| gravitronic wrote:
| I care. A lot.
|
| If libraries didn't exist today or were removed even for an
| instant can you imagine someone arguing for their creation?
|
| "I want to make a public space where people can go and take
| home media. All for free. Paid for by the government."
|
| They would be laughed out of the room.
|
| Libraries are the last remnant of a past society where people's
| needs were considered more important than corporate needs.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| That wasn't the origin of libraries, though, at least in the
| US. The first libraries were _private_. Think of the Carnegie
| libraries, for instance. (I know, they weren 't the first...)
| mdp2021 wrote:
| > _The traditional function of librarians and libraries_
|
| The traditional function of librarians and libraries remains to
| collect and disseminate knowledge.
|
| The amount of critical knowledge disseminated in a society is
| critical to determine its quality, so there are the fullest
| grounds to propose the strict opposite of a <<Who cares>>.
|
| An assessment for reform can be proposed, but the problem is
| not solved with the current snapshot of technology use.
| cableshaft wrote:
| > Look at what your local library does now, and you'll find far
| much more than ever has nothing to do with physical books or
| even books at all!
|
| And they're better for it too. My local library has a
| makerspace in the basement, with 3D printers, multiple sound
| studios, computers with Adobe suite (and other things) on them,
| embroidery machine, sublimation printer, and soon to get a
| Glowforge laser cutter. It's great.
|
| And I have another friend in charge of library events for young
| adults (20s/30s). She hosts geek movie nights, board/video game
| nights, "how to adult" sessions (like buying your first home,
| money management, etc), craft nights, adult coloring, open mic
| nights, trivia nights, cookie decorating, karaoke, "art
| therapy" nights (actually one of the more popular ones), etc.
|
| If you're not in the habit of checking the events and
| facilities at your local library as you assume it's all book
| related, give it a try. It might not be anymore.
| fallingknife wrote:
| So you don't support libraries either. You support something
| entirely different which you are calling a "library"
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| The purpose of a library isn't (only) to store books. It's
| to distribute knowledge.
| cableshaft wrote:
| I still support libraries. I check out books from them
| periodically (and I do not support book publishers in what
| they're doing in the linked article).
|
| I just also like the additional roles they've taken on and
| would like to spread awareness so more people check out
| their local libraries (and possibly also check out books
| while they do so).
|
| A few other things I've done at my local library include
| foreign language conversation sessions, tutoring an ESL
| student (that was only a couple of times, pandemic started
| soon after), attending various lectures, early voting,
| renewing my driver's registration and sticker, and with my
| local writing group we've done many write-ins and also
| periodically had readings of Shakespeare plays using one of
| their meeting rooms (with some light acting and dueling
| with foam swords).
|
| Also when my previous company closed their office space
| (before the pandemic), we used to sometimes meet at a
| meeting room at a library to conduct work meetings. We
| stopped doing that when the pandemic started.
| Loughla wrote:
| It's almost like the model, that was outdated, was updated
| and the concept of library has appropriately changed?
|
| Words and concepts are not static; they can and do change
| often?
| allturtles wrote:
| This is an exaggeration. Paper book lending has declined
| gradually over the last decade. Overall use of book collections
| (paper + electronic) is way up. [0]
|
| [0]: https://wordsrated.com/state-of-us-public-libraries/
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I suppose it really depends on where you live. In my little
| corner of the world, the library parking lot has near constant
| traffic ( which gets worse towards the evening ). It is likely
| nearby school is part of the reason, but this library also has
| activities, 3d printing, pc classes and so on. It is a small
| little knowledge hub I used to equate with a university
| setting. If library near you is dying, it is an issue, but it
| is not nearly as widespread as you may think.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| As a poor child I read thousands of books from libraries to
| make my life bearable. If we reinvent libraries without
| providing the same facilities for a new generation it'll be a
| sad regression for humanity.
| allturtles wrote:
| The Internet Archive model of CDL to _everyone on the Web_ , not
| just local library card members, is a particular threat.
|
| There are many books for which a single CDL copy is probably
| sufficient to satisfy the entire global demand for that book.
| They will be referenced from time to time by academics or
| independent researchers and almost never read cover-to-cover.
|
| If every college/university and big city library needs to own a
| copy so that their members can get access to it, that's not such
| a big problem, you can still sell maybe 1,000 copies. But if
| everyone can share a single copy, that is a big problem.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > If every college/university and big city library needs to own
| a copy so that their members can get access to it, that's not
| such a big problem, you can still sell maybe 1,000 copies. But
| if everyone can share a single copy, that is a big problem.
|
| And if they can do that, it probably means that copy will never
| be written, or priced at $20,000 or something.
| Kalium wrote:
| If it's that large a problem, they should have no difficulty at
| all showing that the Emergency Library did them major financial
| harm. Right?
| allturtles wrote:
| What I'm talking about has nothing to do with the emergency
| library, it's true even under _controlled_ digital lending
| (which is what the suit is about).
| Kalium wrote:
| The Emergency Library is relevant because it's the matter
| currently in court where the publishers have an excellent
| chance to prove exactly how much this is hurting them. What
| I was implying is that they can't prove any such thing.
|
| Perhaps I am mistaken, but I am not the only skeptical
| party: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/book-
| publishers-...
| allturtles wrote:
| You are mistaken, the matter currently in court is a suit
| targeting controlled digital lending, not the Emergency
| Library.
|
| e.g. see [0]. This confusion about what the suit is about
| seems common though.
|
| [0]: https://www.eff.org/cases/hachette-v-internet-
| archive
| imchillyb wrote:
| I think it's high-seas time again for the planet.
|
| It's time to kill these greed-monsters. The only way to do that
| is to copy and pirate them out of business.
|
| Yo-Ho, Yo-Ho, it's the Disney-Life for me! Time to change the
| channels on these modern day robber-barons. It's time they felt
| the wrath of the populace, and the righteousness of the Freedom
| of Information.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-23 23:03 UTC)