Buzz Out Loud Lounge: Why is lending a book OK?
Why is lending a book OK?
by DangMI - 11/4/09 9:03 AMThis keeps digging at me. It keeps coming up that of course "they" should work it out to let people continue lending books to each other freely. I've lent books, I've borrowed them, it has never seemed a problem to me until now, but how is it not a (low)level of stealing? It has to be costing sales--I don't go out a buy a book AFTER I've already read it. (Which I might do for music--after listening to someone's cd or whatever--so in that sense books are "worse".) The hundreds of books my dad and I have traded over the years has cost the authors hundreds of sales. How is that OK?
I'm feeling like we're starting with "I've always been able to do this" and proceeding directly to "and so it is OK" and then sliding into home with "and so it's my right to do so forever and ever amen". "Everybody's always done it" is usually a bankrupt argument from the start.
The same reason it is ok for libraries...
by paintguru - 11/4/09 9:25 AM In reply to: Why is lending a book OK? by DangMIFirst, let me say I agree with your sentiment that people in the tech industry (commentators) like to take the stance that "I've always been able to do this, so that makes it right". It seems like a way to avoid a real debate discussion on the merits of doing something that is a gray area legally.
However, I think when it comes to books, lending is allowed because people aren't copying the book to create and distribute. When you lend a book, the "owner" no longer has physical possession of it, so in essence, he is giving his copy away to someone else. Libraries purchase one (or more) copy of a book and let people check that book out. There are no terms of service associated with the purchase of a book, and it is no different then buying a toy (or any other manufactured good) and lending it to another kid to play with. The publisher's worry with electronic books is the relative ease in which these works could be copied and distributed without their knowledge or ability to collect royalties.
you sure about that?
by jonah jones
- 11/4/09 9:42 AM
In reply to: The same reason it is ok for libraries... by paintguru
#There are no terms of service associated with the purchase of a book#
don't most books have a "no part of this book may be reproduced" clause somewhere?
apart from that, i agree 100% with your post, sums it it up perfectly
jonah
,.
That;'s not really a TOS. Its just the law.
by minimalist - 11/4/09 6:03 PM In reply to: you sure about that? by jonah jones
Whether you agree to it or not does not change the illegality of copying a book.
But I essentially agree with both of you, books can (and should) be loaned, just like DVD's can be rented as long as the author has been paid for the original copy and their is no duplication occurring. Borrowing a book (or renting a movie) for a short duration is not the same thing as having possession of a copy of that book on hand 24/7/365. If you really care about an author you will buy his or her book. But forcing you to buy books you are just sampling would be a horrible marketing move. Its just plain stupid.
And since book culture encourages loaning to discover new writers it would be wise for the eBook people to acknowledge this and find a way to bring that to the digital world. The Nook is a good first step but the one time loan limitation is not enough The publishers will ignore this book reading habit at their own peril. People won't buy if you force them to wear onerous DRM straightjackets and treat them like thieves. Treat people like responsible adults with the knowledge that what you gain out of such customer goodwill will come back to you tenfold via enthusiasm, loyalty and increased sales and it will offset the any problem you might have with pirating. Just look at how well digital music is doing now that it has shed itself of DRM?
Couple points...
by DangMI - 11/6/09 5:18 AM In reply to: The same reason it is ok for libraries... by paintguruFirst of all, I was not by any means talking about only "people in the tech industry"--the attitude I was talking about is VERY widespread. If anything, I think that the tech world is the opposite, not wanting to be tied down by the old ways of doing things/conventional wisdom. Although the one comment about "book culture encourages loaning" is in that ballpark. So, because a culture has formed, it should automatically be legal? Tell that to people in the drug "culture".
Looking over all the thoughtful replies, I'm still left with the fact that the practice costs the author a sale. Lending toys, not making copies, are all good examples but they still skirt the issue--the toy is not used up, but the I'm not going out and buying a book that I've already read. Some now put a new book free on line, that's their decision--doesn't let me demand it of all authors--and their primary hope is that I'll buy a future book, not the current one, and maybe that word of mouth will encourage others to buy it.
I agree with a lot of Nicholas' points on copyright, except for "Remember copyright law is not there to enable people to make as much money as possible with their creations, it's there merely to promote creativity." People writing writing books are, with very few exceptions, hoping to make money. They have something to say--even a passion to make a particular point or tell a particular story--but almost all of them hope to at least make a living and dream of making much more than that. The consequence is that creativity is promoted--copyright protects people so they can make a living being creative--but there's very little creativity when you aren't eating. Or, at leat, it's pretty self-limiting!
I agree with your criticism of the
by minimalist - 11/6/09 7:35 AM In reply to: Couple points... by DangMI"copyright exists solely to promote creativity" argument.
Non-artists often have this mistaken notion that artists live in some wonderworld where they can just pine away all day with no consequence and that money shouldn't really matter and that its all about the art. Lord knows enough kids have used this as an excuse to justify their stealing of music "Art should be free" they claim. How pathetically glib.
Real creativity involves deadlines, schedules, agents, time limitations, etc. Copyright not some nefarious do-good concept. Its a way to protect property which is easily copied.. intellectual property, for a period of time, to guarantee that the artist/author may reap some benefits from his or her labor. By allowing this we do good for society and eventually the work returns top the public domain (which I agree has been manipulated buy special interests over the last 40 years). But the basic concept is a good one. Allow people to make money by given them some control over and ownership of their works.
However,
by minimalist - 11/6/09 9:17 AM In reply to: Couple points... by DangMII think you are mistaken when you claim that loaning books "costs the author a sale". There is no evidence whatsoever that people wouldn't just forgo the book altogether instead of shelling out 15 bucks for an unproven author. In order to become well known you need word of mouth and you need to give people a taste. Loaning, both privately and via public libraries, is arguably a form of marketing. What good is forcing every single reader to pay for a book if you've got no readers interested in you because you are unknown? Enforcing such a system would be a Pyrrhic victory for the publishers and authors. The losses would vastly outweigh the gains.
Not to mention there is a very real legal precedent here, not just book culture. Loaning, both publicly and privately, is clearly protected under the doctrine of first sale. If you buy a book you are free to give, loan it, or sell it to whomever you want. There is no license agreement and of course you do not "own" the content of the book so there are limitations as to what you can do with that. But the physical copy is yours with which to do whatever you please. As long as you are not keeping a copy for yourself when you give, loan or sell it, you have broken no laws. Same thing with DVD's and several other forms of media. With digital its a bit different of course but one could argue that DRM can actually do some good here and give digital media the same flexibility as physical media.
Only one person can have a copy of a loaned book at any given time which means that every single copy of a book has been paid for. But nobody in their right mind would call that the same thing as "owning" a copy of a book. If someone wants to be able to revisit a book on demand then they do indeed have to buy a copy for themselves. This is a fair system and one that, I think, could reinvigorate public libraries for the 21st century. I'm very excited about the Overdrive system of public libraries lending eBooks to readers like the Nook and the Sony.
Drug culture,by the way is a bad analogy. Buying and selling illegal drugs is by its very nature "illegal" (although we could argue that it shouldn't be). Loaning a book you paid for is not.
I'll give you most of that
by DangMI - 11/6/09 9:34 AM In reply to: However, by minimalistAt some point (unfortunately, only in my head!) I DID recognize that not everyone reading a borrowed book would have bought it otherwise. The rest of the time I was thinking about the fact that my dad and I had favorite authors--If I bought the next book in the series I gave it to him when I was done, and vice versa. For sure, we were both willing to buy the book ourselves, so the author got 1 sale instead of 2. Recently heard people in my office making a list of who got a book next--they set up a waiting list like 6 deep for a new book by someone they all like. Those kinds of experiences slanted my examples.
And, right of first sale is a tough one for me--I used to own a store that sold used software, so I can show you the scars from the battles over that--the theory is great and in my opinion you are correct in your application of it but the reality and practice is under such determined attack that often it is hard to overcome the willingness of the big boys to tell the big lies. So I may be too skeptical on that score.
And I intended the circular reasoning of the drug culture reference--I meant that having a culture ('cause there sure IS a culture there)doesn't make it auto-right/legal etc. <g>
Good discussion--thanks.
Dan
Remember: "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
by minimalist - 11/6/09 10:04 AM In reply to: I'll give you most of that by DangMIThe rest of the time I was thinking about the fact that my dad and I had favorite authors--If I bought the next book in the series I gave it to him when I was done, and vice versa. For sure, we were both willing to buy the book ourselves, so the author got 1 sale instead of 2. Recently heard people in my office making a list of who got a book next--they set up a waiting list like 6 deep for a new book by someone they all like. Those kinds of experiences slanted my examples.
Well I just see that as one of those fringe benefits, sort of like the ability for family members to share iPhone apps, CD's, DVD's etc or friends to load CD's or DVD's to friends. Even if they did have a legal leg to stand on, there's certainly no company in the world that would want the bad PR that would accompanying a lawsuit attacking a family who shares its possessions.
Even so, you still had to wait for your father to finish the book, right? So you didn't really have all the benefits. If you had be rabid fans you both would have bought your own copy one release date (don't laugh, my partner and I did this with the last Harry Potter book :-P). And which is better, having two happy fans eager for more who share a book or not having those fans at all and selling no books?
Its sort of like water. Water is virtually free yet bottled water companies have made a fortune selling us the benefits of bottled water. Its seems to me that's what book retailing should be focusing on, offering extra value you don;t get when you borrow a book.
And, right of first sale is a tough one for me--I used to own a store that sold used software, so I can show you the scars from the battles over that--the theory is great and in my opinion you are correct in your application of it but the reality and practice is under such determined attack that often it is hard to overcome the willingness of the big boys to tell the big lies. So I may be too skeptical on that score.
Just because the companies use their goon squad of lawyers to intimidate small stores does not negate the doctrine of first sale. They only win in those situations because they have more money, not because they are in the right legally. Software is a slightly different beast however than Books, CD's and DVD's as it is not just concerned with copyright but the intricacies of license law.
You've misunderstood that quote
by Nicholas Buenk - 11/6/09 4:46 PM In reply to: Couple points... by DangMII was saying, that loaning a book is not going to put an artist out on the street and stop them from making a living. It's only going to lose them a few penny's. And hence in that specific situation, there is no argument for favouring the finaicial reward for creativity, over the public good of free flow of information and right of first sale.
And that is the problem with copyright law today, it's become forgotten that it's a compromise to support creativity. And you have creators and publishers treating it like a matter of property rights, demanding they get everything their way and every penny that can possibly be rewarded to them.
I think unknown artists appreciate the exposure that loaning
by minimalist - 11/6/09 5:14 PM In reply to: You've misunderstood that quote by Nicholas Buenkgives them. They understand the importance of generating buzz and see it as a cost of doing business.
Because copyright law has become ridiclous
by Nicholas Buenk - 11/4/09 6:17 PM In reply to: Why is lending a book OK? by DangMIIt was originally meant for books. And only as a way of rewarding the creation of them with a revenue stream, so you compromise and reduce rights of copying for the greater public good. You see copyright was an attempt to make a compromise between the public right of free flow of information and what a financial reward can do for creativity. And lending and public libraries don't cut off the revenue stream only impact it slightly. So it would harm the public good more to disallow libraries and lending than it would aid the public. Remember copyright law is not there to enable people to make as much money as possible with their creations, it's there merely to promote creativity.
In the digital age, though, copyright has come to be though of an an issue of property rights and ownership. So all the new laws are becoming absurdly restrictive and go far beyond the purpose of copyright.
(NT) I wonder if book prices include a small "lending fee"...
by shmody - 11/6/09 7:21 AM In reply to: Why is lending a book OK? by DangMIThat's a great point
by DangMI - 11/6/09 9:16 AM In reply to: (NT) I wonder if book prices include a small "lending fee"... by shmodyReally, it has to be in there somewhere, whether formally/ consciously recognized or not. Somewhere, when "they" are setting prices, they have to have learned there's a certain amount of "slack" they need to allow for, for libraries and less formal lending etc. Nice catch!
thanks man! so now the question is...
by shmody - 11/6/09 11:08 AM In reply to: That's a great point by DangMIthanks man! so now the question is...who is going to be the investigative journalist to break in to the secret society of book-price-setters? 
--S
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
%20I%20wonder%20if%20book%20prices%20include%20a%20small%20%22lending%20fee%22...%20-%20CNET%20Buzz%20Out%20Loud%20Lounge%20Forums&srcUrl=http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7813_102-0.html?messageID%3D3168220){kind=small}