ROBUST discussion
DELETED
Though if one could get all 15,000 participating libraries to buy a copy of one's book (or two) that would be some nice $$$ (or Euros and Pounds but I can't figure out how to make those symbols in this book).
No, Larry, you're missing my point. OverDrive works by libraries purchasing copies. It's not some giant content spigot. Many existing publishers already use systems that limit the frequency and times you can lend system. That is not new, nor secret, nor different. The Big 6's main concern wasn't that they weren't getting paid, but just that they didn't like the idea libraries wouldn't be replacing their books on a regular schedule.
As an author you make money if libraries purchase your content, just as other publishers make money when libraries purchase their ebook, electronic or otherwise.
Amazon hasn't said anything special because it doesn't really change how you make money. Somebody (a library) purchases your content.
As for your other point, yes, you do lose money, but like I said that's no different than if you had a physical book the library purchased and they loaned it.Again, that's a position to take but you basically have to argue that libraries themselves are wrong in in their general function.
If you truly believe that libraries lending out books (physical or otherwise) in a time-limited fashion is intellectual piracy, that puts you at odds with general society for the last several centuries.So, straight-up, do you take the position that libraries, in general, shouldn't exist because their mere existence means that some publisher or some author somewhere is not getting individual sales on every person reading your book?
Should we basically ensure that libraries have no content other than reference content?
Library loans often lead to secondary purchases.
BTW, Simple solution to this is to pull your books from Amazon. I would caution, though, against communicating to readers that you dislike the very concept of library lending. I'm doubting it's going to be something people sympathize with.
In that sense, no, it doesn't benefit you directly, immediately, it does potentially raise your visibility.
I find this kind of funny actually. One of the big things people used to do in the old days of pure physical self-publishing was purposefully try to sneak their books into library so people would check them out, tell their friends, and they would get ancillary sales from that.
The worse thing an author can be is unknown . . . not losing a few sales here and there to libraries. Heck, if you want an extreme example of this check out some commentaries by Cory Doctorow or Neil Gaiman on true piracy.
You obviously don't understand the business nor have you read the numerous comments on Goodreads, Publishers Weekly, Publishers Lunch or Facebook. You said: "So, straight-up, do you take the position that libraries, in general, shouldn't exist because their mere existence means that some publisher or some author somewhere is not getting individual sales on every person reading your book?" That's one of the most incredible leaps to a wrong conclusion I've ever seen. In never said a word about their ceasing to exist. I said: AUTHORS SHOULD BE PAID FOR THEIR WORK. Lending libraries essentially are arms of the government and feel they're above the law. If that's also your feeling, then I feel sorry for your lack of awareness.
Your comment that: "Library loans often lead to secondary purchases" is an absurd argument that I only have seen made by librarians. If a person reads a book borrowed from the library, WHY would anyone in their right mind then go out and buy it??
J.a., ah, now I understand after looking at your profile. You're a reader not an author. Your vested interest is in free books. Assuming you have a job, would you work for nothing??
Larry,The author is getting paid. They ensure artificial scarcity even with the e-product by limiting the number of copies loaned and time limits.
What you seem to be suggesting a library pay for a book every time they lend it versus their initial purchase despite the artificial scarcity.
That's not a library, Larry. That's basically just a book store bleeding money because they aren't charging their customers per book.
Libraries operating under that model would cease to exist (they couldn't afford to buy a book every time it was loaned out) or stop carrying a lot of books not covered under certain mass content deals.
Just to be clear, is your beef with just e-lending or also with physical lending?
Larry,I have absolutely no problem with the publishers, Amazon, or authors limiting the number of loans.
Why don't you calm down? I've never called anything you've said absurd, insane, or anything like that.
J.a. wrote: "Well,Typically what happens with is the library is sold a copy and then they loan out that copy. At least based off what I've seen with ePub and others. They are using OverDrive, a system I'm alr..."
The argument about losing enormous potential royalties only works for an author who likes being victimized and robbed of royalties forever.
Actually, I'm currently working on several books that I intend to seek publication on.No, I don't work for a library. I get it. You don't like libraries. Fine. Insulting me, demeaning me, and otherwise being extremely rude because of a philosophical difference over the existence of lending libraries isn't accomplishing much.
I understand your position, I don't necessarily agree with it, but, seriously, I would calmly suggest that you not spew this much rage and vitriol at the idea of libraries.
Larry, I've spent tens of thousands of dollars on books throughout my lifetime. A good chunk of my entertainment budget is currently devoted to purchasing books, mostly indie books because I want to help the out more. Heck, in some indie cases I purchase multiple copies just to help them out. I don't even grocery shopping without purchasing a book typically
The idea that I'm 'no friend of the author' because I support the existence of the library is, as you noted earlier, leaping to a very wrong conclusion.
I'm curious how other people feel. It may very well be that I'm in the minority or deluded.I'm particularly curious what Andre thinks about all of this. To the best of my knowledge, he's the only other Robust person with a significant history in traditional publishing.
Larry,I already said I support the idea of limiting the number of times and/or the duration the book can be lent out.
I go back and forth on the 26-loan limit, but it's not something I would rage at the publishers for enforcing or think they were being hyper-unreasonable.
So no, I do not support the scenario you're outlining where I, you, or anybody else loses 5 million dollars.
May I very timidly step in here? I don't think we are necessarily going to lose a lot through this, Larry. There have been quite a few authors that I've come across through library borrowing, that I've really liked and then gone out and bought their other books because I can't be bothered trying to order them all through the library or wait for them to come back from other people. So they've actually sold books because their books were borrowed.
Reread my last post.I wasn't saying you raged at any publisher.
I was saying -I- wouldn't rage at the publishers for enforcing the limits.
I was saying I disagree with infinite lending.
J.a., I think Larry believes the 26 loans is per year, rather than lifetime -- when the library has to buy the book again. I think he also misunderstood you about how library borrowing leads to sales (he thinks you're saying to the same borrower, rather than by word of mouth praise). I've been traditionally published five times and I'm totally with you on your take on this. Larry is obviously agitated about it, but I don't think his reasoning is on track with the facts.
I've had a very similar experience, Katie.
Amusingly enough,I actually haven't been to a library in ages. :) Mostly Amazon, Smashwords, and Costco (when I go grocery shopping).
My wife used to borrow books for a while, but there was such long hold lines, she now usually just purchases them rather then wait.
Patricia wrote: "J.a., I think Larry believes the 26 loans is per year, rather than lifetime -- then the library has to buy the book again. I think he also misunderstood you about how library borrowing leads to sal..."Oops, didn't mean to insult you earlier RE: experience in publishing. I'm still getting used to everyone's background. I see Andre EVERYWHERE, so I just know his background well.
Katie, I agree that libraries encourage sales. I gave my local library 18 copies of two of my books. Those disappeared over time and the library kept replacing them. They also kept replacing another of my books that also kept disappearing when they bought copies (I didn't donate any that time because the American Library Association had recommended the book to librarians and they bought it). I was delighted to see my books disappearing. I was also delighted to see waiting lists to check out a copy.I doubt any Indie authors publishing via Amazon's KDP will need to "worry" about libraries loaning out their books. With library funding what it is today, at least in the States, Indie books are unlikely to be on the list of titles to be purchased. The books most likely to be purchased will come from major publishers and they'll be written by well-known authors. I'd put money on that.
Larry, I don't know about a lawsuit challenging libraries' rights to loan the books they purchase. You'll have to give me a link to that info. I'd be beyond shocked if such a lawsuit could succeed given our long and happy history of maintaining library lending in this country (the US). Libraries are considered an important public resource, and they do add to an author's income just from the library sales alone -- and also from that word of mouth praise from borrowers who liked the books they read. I'm a great fan of libraries.I do know about a lawsuit involving Google, but the one I know about involves orphan books that Google wants to sell without paying anyone because they can't locate the author. Authors of books still under copyright but out of print have the option of declining to be part of Google's endeavor. I know because I opted out with my titles. Mailings went out to authors to allow them to do that. They managed to track me down despite my having moved three times, and not within the same city. Naturally, books still in print would be automatically protected from Google's scheme. If you know of some other Google lawsuit, I'd like to read up on that as well. Links welcome.
One other thing, Larry: Google will pay authors for downloads of their work -- except for authors of orphan books (a point still to be determined by the lawsuit). On NPR I heard an interview with a relative of someone who wrote a book decades ago (in the 1920s, I think). The author was dead and the relative was glad the author's work would (potentially) reach an audience that never could have had access to his out-of-print book without Google.
There was also an issue with Google making books full text searchable from centralized sources. So there was some concerns about that kind of potential 'content spigot' issue.
Larry, it's not just libraries that won't be buying Indie titles. There are exceptions, of course, but most Indies have no ad budget, no way to get noticed in the marketplace, and no way of getting the consumer's money to any meaningful degree. Amazon gives us all a chance, but it takes more than that. It takes a lot of luck; an alignment of the stars in our favor. It's not a big conspiracy. It's just the way publishing has always worked. You can cross out the word "Indie" and write in the words "mid-list author" and the same is true. Promotion has always gone to those who need it least, and the sales have followed. Libraries stock what they know their patrons will want most. That, too, is just the way it works. You can be upset about it, but it's not going to change anything. Authors certainly aren't losing royalties for every book borrowed because not everyone who borrows a book would buy it. Not nearly.
J.a., didn't that search issue go away with earlier rulings? Maybe I'm not up to date on that, but I thought it did. Google had some very ambitious goals. I think they wanted to digitize every book ever written, ever thought about in the past, and ever dreamed of in the future. Something like that.
By far, the majority of authors do NOT earn a living from their writing. A real writer will always write, money or not, and some will make a living at it. More will make little money or none at all.I looked at your first link. I know the lawsuit is active, but I thought the copying part was settled (it appears publishers' concerns about that have put to rest given the info at a link embedded in your first link: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by... ). Copyright is still a copyright, Google or no Google.
It looks to me like orphan books are the biggest part of the battle. I chose not to participate in Google's scheme, but that could be a mistake. They may help authors earn money they wouldn't otherwise earn. I don't recall the proposed payment schedule, but after looking at it I decided to keep my out-of-print titles out of their catalog.
Something else authors are able to do: If their titles have been digitized already (there's a way to check but I didn't save the link that was sent out to authors), they can have the digitization removed if their work is still under copyright.
The way publishing contracts are going today, publishers aren't letting books go out of print so authors will go on earning royalties from digital downloads if Google prevails.
I have seen absolutely nothing indicating that Google is going to somehow put Indie authors' digital books into their catalog. I don't even see how that's possible. It would be a blatant copyright violation. If your books are in print, exclude them from Google if you don't want to participate. If they're only in digital form, relax. Google isn't going into the Kindle Store and swiping Indie books. If you don't want to take the risk that on the off chance some library buys copies of your digital book, you're going to lose royalties, withdraw the book from the Kindle Store and put it on the Nook and/or Smashwords.
Mod
And what about lending a book via Kindle to a friend? That's not a sale so presumably the author is not compensated beyond the initial purchase of the book?
Claudine, that surprises me. You pay to use your library? The ones in the US are free. What would a fee cost? And why multiple cards? Is there a fee per card which entitles you to x-number of borrowings?
Well, libraries aren't always free in the US.When I was a kid, I lived out in the county and not in the city limits (so we didn't pay the relevant city property taxes and what not supporting the library that was a city institution), so we had to pay a fee to get a card.
Mod
The library I used as a child/young adult had a charge for every book after the first 6 up to a maximum of 12.
Costs for using a library vary but in general the services you have to pay to use would be if your card has to be replaced or if you want to use their database or research services including photocopies or digital downloads of documents.
The local library here for instance is also not properly funded, is only open 3 days a week and every third Saterday. Their books are also not often replaced, new books go on order but the wait lists are enough to drive any reader nuts.
Books in general are also very expensive here. To give you an idea, the price on any Kindle book + 2 US $ for the Whispersync fee doubled or sometimes tripled is what I would pay for a print copy of any book. Import duties are horrific on books. I recently bought a book for my husband's uncle, a photography book. It cost us about US $150, excluding delivery, with a further US $50 import fee when he collected it from the post office.
When we take the kids to visit family over December, we get a visitors family card at the local library which costs us around US $8 per book, maximum of 7 books. They go to the library maybe twice in the time we are there.
[b]By digitizing, archiving, copying and now publishing the copyrighted works without the authorization of those works’ rights holders[/b], the universities are engaging in one of the largest copyright infringements in history.”[/b][b]. . .Those scans are unauthorized by the authors.[/b]
That's an important piece to this. The Google suit and related things like this latest lawsuit are not just about the mere idea of e-book collections, lending, et cetera. They are about libraries in this suit and Google and libraries in the other suit going forward themselves and just scanning in works with their own methods, DRM, permission, or actively working with the authors and/or publishers. Google also had anti-trust concerns raised in their case.
[b]The lawsuit also objects to HathiTrust’s method of determining which books are so-called orphan works, whose rights holders are unknown or cannot be found. About 150 books in the HathiTrust digital library have so far been identified as possible orphan works, Mr. Wilkin said, and many more are expected to be identified.[/b]
Just like in Google, an orphan works issue as well.
[b]In addition to copyright infringement, the suit also cites concerns about the security of the files in the HathiTrust repository[/b]
So, they also don't like Hathi's particular DRM management system.
Note no one is suing OverDrive or NetLibrary despite having been involved in e-lending for years before Google Boks or Hathi or just suing libraries in general for lending because they are using books that don't involve copyright violations, e-books used with permission, and e-books restricted by agreements (such as the 26 limit). OD has the number of downloads limited, but groups like AG and Harper Collins (which has otherwise been very vigilant and aggressive about these sorts of issues) haven't pointedly not made an effort to stop them in general.
The law suits are very important, but they aren't just about objecting to the very concept of e-lending or lending in general. Otherwise publishers and the AG would be suing OverDrive and NetLibrary as well, as both of those companies have been doing electronic lending before Google Books or HathiTrust even existed.
That doesn't mean one thing another about whether lending or e-lending should be allowed (or lending of books in general) and depending on interpretation can just parse it as the big boys protecting themselves, but let's be clear about what's actually going on with the legal cases and the implications should they succeed.
Going back to Amazon, the only thing the AG has made a strong peep about that I recall is that for a while all books had an automatic 'text-to-speech' feature (so thus potentially taking away author sales of audio books). The AG subsequently pressured Amazon to allow the author and/or publisher to opt-in into that feature.
A similar provision should be included for authors in regards to lending, though as it currently stands, not all Amazon books are available via the program.
Amazon has been talking about this OverDrive thing for a while now (I remember hearing about it at least back around Christmas last year if not earlier), yet the AG had made no move against it or even attempted to move against it.
Again, the approval of the AG or the Big 6 doesn't really make it right or wrong, but it does demonstrate the general attitude toward lending by both authors' groups and the Big 6.
The other thing is, thus far, as far as Amazon/Overdrive the vast majority of Kindle books actually aren't actually available yet (less then about 10-15% of Amazon's total).
I do readily support the idea that all authors should have to opt-in with the Amazon lending deal (just as they have to now opt-in with the text-to-speech feature). That way authors (or publishers) who have no issue with it can make their works available and those who do can prohibit it.
Previous iterations of OD/e-content partnerships have required rather explicit publisher authorization, so we'll have to see going forward how it's handled.
Mod
1. Libararies, philosophically, have a special position because they are supposed to aid in the self-education of the underprivileged classes. It's a Victorian thing. Most of the people who use libraries are of course middle class.
2. The anomalous position of libraries vis a vis writers is recognized in civilized countries by Public Lending Right schemes where the author of a book is paid a small fee per book per number of time lent (over a certain minimum), the payment coming from government as a sort of reverse tax. In some systems they don't pay per loan but per unit on library shelves. (Australia, I think, works like that.) Notice that the minimum cutoff penalizes those who need it most. Most systems also has a top cutoff, in the UK £5000, about 7 or 8 grand US.
3. It doesn't matter whether Larry is right about libraries. They're here to stay, part of our political and moral scenery. Don't get your blood pressure up, Larry; instead find a way to adapt and exploit the situation.
4. Larry has a really good point. A physical copy that a library buys and lends out is typically worn out in around 20 loans, and then it is either rebound (rarely now, because of cost of labor, and the skill is being lost) or replaced with a new copy. By contrast, an electronic copy is good forever, or until lost by a computer glitch. It seems to me fair and right that an electronic copy should not be lent out forever without further payment to the author. 20 loans per payment would be fair, 26 loans seems a concession too far already, but I'd be prepared to negotiate as long as there is a limit and it is enforced.
5. It is not a big deal embedding code that counts down and wipes the file when x number of loans have been made. What is the limit on these Kindle-format loans? Surely there is one. If there isn't, it is what Larry describes it as, pure theft, and should be resisted. If there is a limit, then J.A. is right, it's business as usual, an electronic version of lending paper books.
6. Here's a nightmare for y'all. What stops a library from buying one electronic copy from Smashwords in one format, downloading all the other formats free of charge, downloading multiple copies of each? It's possible. Nothing but fear of being caught and exposed.
7. Fear of being caught and exposed has recently become less as big libraries, especially college libraries, have become more arrogant, as witness how many of them joined in Google's barefaced theft of writers' property.
8. Google and these universities simply stole the property of a great many authors, and when backed into a corner about it, promised them a one-time payment of $60 to distribute their property forever. Sierra says meekly that you can opt out. Who the fuck does Google think it is to tell us we can opt out of its theft of our property? Why should authors, uniquely, be victimized by the Google class of mercenary scum? Try to take as much as a candy bar of Google's property and your own government will assist them in criminalizing you. Fortunately, the judge was smarter than the Guild, and all the dumb lawyers working for the Guild and the publishers, and saw that what Google was doing is theft, pure and simple. That judge isn't going to let Google do anything like what was proposed, and certainly, I have no intention of bestirring myself to beg some thieves in California not to steal my property; if Google steals one page of my property, my government will go all the way to the International Court with it, and other Europeans with influence are already laying det cord to similar nasty little explosive surprises for these thieves.
9. With scum like Google out there eyeing your property, Larry, libraries are chickenfeed. The future of ebooks doesn't rest with library card-holders but with the sort of people who would feel out of place in a library. Let your eyeteeth grow, friend, smell the blood of innocent virgins.
10. The Google model is free content, meaning the author gets nothing (or sixty bucks for a lifetime license to steal from him), with the income raised on the content streamed through the peripheral activities (meaning Google gets the advertising revenue and the library charges for the copies and both keep all the money). We should resist Google root and branch -- except that Guild has already limply climbed into Google's pocket.
Mod
11. I seem to remember a tickmark on KDP to permit lending, and when I tried to remove it, I couldn't. In short, permitting lending has now become a condition of using KDP. In the light of J.A.'s most recent tour de horizon of copyright suits and attitudes, i wonder what the Attorney-General thinks of that.
Thanks for your thoughts, Andre. If twenty is the typical replacement cycle, then the e-book cycle should also reflect that. I've actually rather angered people on the other side of this debate in the past by objecting to infinite lending.
AG in my posts meant 'Author's Guild' not Attorney-General.
RE: Current KDP lending
If you are at a 35% royalty (at least it used to be that way), you can disable lending, but not at the higher royalty rate. That's very questionable (at best), and I'm not quite sure what is underlying the thought process about the royalty/permission differential.
Need to see how the Amazon loans play out. Like I said, not all titles (10-15% currently at the libraries with the largest collections) are currently available nor is there any particular indication that all titles will be available anytime soon, and it's unclear how they're deciding. If it's similar to what's happened with the ePub format stuff, then authorization will be involved. One of the complaints on the other side has been, "Most of the books I want to read don't even seem to be available." The highest number of books available I've seen was, I think, in NYC with 15,000 Kindle books and several 'best sellers' were not available.
I'm wondering if a year from now the complaint of some self-pubbed people will be, "I can't get my self-pubbed eBook in the library. I'm being discriminated against as an indie."
Anyway, the default position in all these intellectual property matters should be opt-in, not opt-out. The former is respectful of the rights' holders. Though, in the end, there's always leaving KDP entirely (as suggested in the first post). Granted, that results in a lot of ability to leverage Amazon's customer base, algorithms, and what not, so I can definitely see the need to try and encourage/force/cajole an opt-in provision.
Another future rather potentially frightening sticky wicket: Amazon wants to start its own eBook-based subscription plan (think NetFlix for eBooks).
NO, we don't need to see how the Amazon loans play out. That's like saying we need to see how successful the pirate ship is before we decide whether to take action against it. This discussion has gone from being about author's rights to being about sanctioning their theft. All that from someone who's not even an author.
I'm outa this absurd discussion.
I've deleted my comments and am leaving the group. J.a. is a wannabee with little or no writing experience and appears to me to support intellectual piracy.I'm gone.
Am I just being deluded or was he just wound too tight?I mean it's been a LONG time since I've driven someone from a message board or group, and here I was going out of my way to try and keep my tone measured despite the constant insults.
Andre, don't lose sight of the fact that despite what Google is doing, an author can opt out. It's the orphan books that are open to potentially unwanted exploitation. I wish I held onto the link for authors to show you what I'm talking about. Authors can stop Google from using their material. If they allow Google to use it, they'll be paid (if it's under copyright).The copying issue came up when it was learned Google had already copied, digitally, books for which no permission was asked or granted. That's when the notifications went out so authors could opt out. People were (rightfully, in my opinion) outraged that Google would do what they'd already done. And if an author's work hadn't already been digitized, they were able to stop it before it happened. But as the link I posted last night makes clear, people won't have access to entire books -- violating copyright -- on those books that are protected by copyright. Orphan books are the ones at risk of being offered in their entirety.
Back when the issue was text-to-speech, the Big Six tried to frame it as a contract issue with their authors -- pretending that text-to-speech was the same as an audio book, and insisting that audio rights are separate from text rights despite no audio book being created. The big guys are still controlling that, but I've noticed that some are enabling TTS. My publisher told me I could enable TTS and I did so, but it's been spotty. Sometimes it's there, sometimes not.
I don't know where the notion came from that libraries replace print books after twenty circulations. Maybe that's what they're supposed to do, or what the average is when you factor in kids books and paperbacks, but the libraries where I live have ancient books on the shelf and some books have hundreds of requests for them. They aren't replacing those books as they work through the requests. Maybe people here just take better care of checked-out items than they do elsewhere. The only abused items I've come across at the library are DVDs, handled by people who seemed to have known nothing about the proper care of the surface.
Note to Larry: I was talking about tax-supported libraries when I said ours are free. Everywhere I've lived, that's been the case. It's why they're called public libraries. I don't understand why you quoted my post and wrote "I don't believe the weird leaps of logic and rationalizations I'm hearing from those who are NOT writers. Because so few authors make a living as writers, corporate entities should be allowed to steal the ethical property of those that do, thereby also reducing them to a form of indentured servitude?" I am a writer, and I'm one of the lucky ones who does earn a living from writing. Because I've been able to do so for many decades does not negate the fact that most writers cannot support themselves with their writing. Check the statistics. There was no leap of logic in what I said. Nor did I say anything about stealing or reducing writers to a form of indentured servitude (those remarks represent your view of libraries, not mine). You must know that nobody owes an author a living. Authors must earn it, and doing so is often more a matter of luck than talent.
Claudine, I was fascinated by your description of your library system. No wonder you like used book stores.
Patricia,My remarks apparently drove Larry away (see messages 36-37).
Mod
Frankly, I thought this conversation was reasonably polite and rational. But even if it wasn't, we don't distribute blame here (except for Sharon and Claudine barbecuing Bambi).
If we all ever agree 100%, our group would be a very dull place. There are already enough homogenous, damped down, dumbed down places on the net.
Mod
That's a serious loss.
Mod
That's what I mean. Who the devil do Googfle think they are to steal my property and then grandly tell me to fill in a form to beg them to stop? Surely even rapacious scum like Google -- particularly rapacious scum like Google! -- shouldn't be allowed to steal people's property so blatantly.
The directors and executives of Google are thieves, pure and simple.
Also, for Google unilaterally to fix the price of their theft at $60 is an oppression of the most brutal kind, arising out of the same arrogance. It is an abuse of a dominant position that the Justice Department should investigate.
At a jumped local technical college I found a lecturer making 40 copies of an entire book, my Designing and Building Special Cars. When I told him to stop, he gave me backchat about me having no rights, and it soon became clear that the poor dumb fuck honestly believed that buying one copy gives them the right to make as many xeroxes as they want. What is the difference between this thief and Google, except that Google thievery is on a larger scale?
Andre, I don't know how Google decided they could just start digitizing books without, um, sorta kinda asking if it was okay. I didn't know about the $60 payout you've mentioned. What I had read was -- if my memory is correct -- pennies paid for downloads. I wondered how in the world they could do that. Would authors also have to give them access to bank accounts for depositing payments? There's a lot that seems unsettled here besides just the lawsuit.While an opt-out process is far from ideal, it's better than letting Google do whatever they want with authors' work. With so many authors planning to put their back list on KDP and other platforms, it struck me as nutty that Google could assume that because a title wasn't being sold in a store or couldn't be ordered it was fair game. I remember having to fill in something about what my plans were for a title or two that I have rights to. It seemed they considered such work abandoned property and they had a right to it.
J.a., I know -- I followed the thread. "Interesting" reading. I thought you were remarkably well-behaved, by the way.
Didn't that start long before the Kindle evolution? I picked up a copy of a book on Ashtabula that was scanned into a PDF file.The book was at least 100 years old. I never could have gotten my hands on a copy otherwise.
That book would have been out of copyright.
The Google thing was rather ill-conceived from the beginning. I wonder how much of this has to do with it being a company still heavily defined by a programming culture (disclaimer: I spent several years as a non-Google corporate IT drone, though I do know several Google drones).I mean it's like they treated this whole thing as some grand software engineering challenge first (i.e., How to Make the Grand Record of All Human Knowledge) and thought through all the legal implications later.
Given some of their other high-profile screw ups where they seem to think application first, implication later, I wouldn't be surprised.
They may have thought they were doing ALL writer's a favor. Talk about a cosmic 'Oops.'
Typically what happens with is the library is sold a copy and then they loan out that copy. At least based off what I've seen with ePub and others. They are using OverDrive, a system I'm already familiar with. OverDrive does not equal total access to everything. It's just of managing their purchased content in a serial loan DRM fashion. Libraries still have to purchase individual copies of everything they loan and they can't loan out the same copy at the same time. Ironically, I've often found in our local library that the waiting list for the e-version is longer than the waiting list for the physical version.
So, even though it's 'electronic' the library doesn't loan it out to 15 people at once, they still have a limited number of copies. We've made big use of this with our local library and other ePub. They enforce the lending with DRM and what not (so yeah, a person could take, strip the DRM, blah, blah, but that's no different then the same stuff applied to other media from the library and the average pirate has far easier ways to get at the content).
So, yeah, in the sense that libraries will be buying copies and people may not, this could be a loss, but how is that different than normal books? You'd still be getting the same royalty from the sale to the library.
Some of the Big 6 have complained that 'ebooks are forever' and so have either refused to participate or are trying to mandate only 26 serial e-loans (which is kind of silly because it's not like a library typically has to replace a given physical book after only 26 loans, but yeah, there shouldn't be infinite loan).
I see no reason to believe given that it's OverDrive, a system already in place with established procedures, that Amazon's use of the system would be any different than any other vendor already using it.
Sure, it'd be better if everyone always had to purchase your book individually, but then you'd be positioning yourself as general anti-library. I mean that's a perfectly valid position to take, but it's not one that people are going to probably sympathize with.