Authors Without A Yacht (AWaY) discussion

11 views
Current Events Discussion > Outrageous suggestion by a Librarian

Comments Showing 1-10 of 10 (10 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Rowena, Group Owner (new)

Rowena (rowenacherry) | 685 comments Mod
http://librarianinblack.net/librarian...

If some misguided politician ever awards "first sale" rights to persons who buy one e-book, that politician had better figure out how to police it.

It would be utterly impossible to know how many "first sales" any misguided reader could deliver of the same e-book.

An author could make $1.00 on the sale of that one legal copy, and the reader could make $500 from repeat "First" sales.


message 2: by Brenna (new)

Brenna Lyons (BrennaLyons) | 93 comments Mod
I posted a comment, but I don't know if they will approve it.

B


message 3: by Rowena, Group Owner (new)

Rowena (rowenacherry) | 685 comments Mod
LOL.
Brenna Lyons, well done for speaking out and using your own name to do so.


message 4: by Rowena, Group Owner (new)

Rowena (rowenacherry) | 685 comments Mod
I perceive that the librarian is a hypocrite, so she will probably erase my response to her, also.

Here it is:

*********
This is telling, Sarah. Thank you for sharing your true motivation.

"Writing, and giving away my writing, helps others–which is why I got into libraries in the first place. It also even helps me by raising my profile and exposure, which leads to other paid engagements (like speaking and training). This blog, which has always been free and CC-licensed, helped me get more paid gigs than anything I was ever paid to write and that’s a fact."

For you, writing isn't a career. It is an advertisement for your paid services.

That is all very well, but some authors don't share your desire to make their living as paid speakers and trainers. They want to write books, and be paid a fairly and freely negotiated fraction of the price for which each copy of those books is legally sold.

Each copy.

Legally sold.

In pursuit of your own paid career as a speaker and trainer, you arrogate to yourself the right to demand that authors' private contracts are unilaterally renegotiated without their consent.

Why should anyone pay to be trained by you, or to hear you speak? Doesn't knowledge want to be free? Doesn't everyone in the world have the right to benefit from your wisdom regardless of their ability to pay for the experience? Do you allow your audiences to make audio and video recordings of your paid speeches and training sessions, and to then sell or "share" those recordings of your paid work ... without paying you?

Possibly, you do. You might consider that great publicity, and for a time it could be.

********


message 5: by Rowena, Group Owner (new)

Rowena (rowenacherry) | 685 comments Mod
Brenna wrote: "I posted a comment, but I don't know if they will approve it.

B"

Post it here, Brenna.


message 6: by Brenna (new)

Brenna Lyons (BrennaLyons) | 93 comments Mod
Both of ours show now, but here is mine anyway...

I am anti-DRM, and I agree with you that far. I think a lot of people are clueless about how the tech really works, since there are very few cases where you can’t move your books to whatever you own. Even as an author, access is one of my primary concerns, let alone as a reader.

I don’t agree with geographic limitations on sale…nor do I agree with Amazon’s policy of giving a lower percentage rate to authors, when an overseas reader purchases an ebook. That is complete bull! But that’s what we deal with from them. Is it any wonder that some publishers turn it off, when we get shafted just by having an overseas sale?

I don’t agree with using DRM, since it doesn’t work anyway and only inconveniences honest readers in the first place. Beyond that, it’s not difficult to break DRM to enjoy full access. I’ve told the senators and Justice Dept that the focus shouldn’t be on DRM breaking. It should be on piracy, where it rightly belongs. The circuit court seems to agree somewhat, since the newest case law (on software…not ebooks specifically) established a line between breaking DRM to access and breaking DRM to pirate. That’s something I’ve asked for for years.

Luckily, most indies don’t use geographical restrictions or DRM. NY Conglomerate is your #1 offender there. Can you force them to change? Maybe. Maybe not. It’s worth it to try. I’d jump on the bandwagon of any organized effort, because it gets really lonely over here telling them they are screwing up. Make them see their readers are upset by their actions.

Now…where do I part from seeing eye to eye with you?

I do not and will never agree that there should be first sale doctrine on ebooks, since you make copies of ebooks automatically (backups of your hard drive, for instance…saved in your download files…and sometimes the library saved for you on an ebook sale site, which you cannot delete, so you are making an illegal copy to sell the ebook in the first place). With paper books, you pass the book to someone else, and it’s gone from your hands…no extra copies. That’s not so with ebooks. There are dozens of possible places you still own a copy of one when you “sell” or “pass it along.”

For instance… Physically emailing the ebook to someone temporarily makes 6 or more copies of the book…the one on your C drive (assuming you don’t also have copies on handheld devices, other laptops and desktop machines you own, you didn’t copy it from one place on your machine to another and leave the first…), the one in your sent files, the one your ISP stores for a period of time, the one in the received file on the other end, the one their ISP saves for a period of time, and the one/s they ultimately save to their device/s. So, even if you don’t have any backups stored anywhere (on your machine or off), you’re making illegal copies to pass it. Since most people don’t even know all of those copies exist to remove them, and some can’t be removed (backups on CD/DVD, libraries on sale sites…), it’s almost a given you are making copies you can later access, even if you scrub the one from your C drive and the one from your sent mail file. Legislators took that into account when making laws for ebooks.

And don’t get me started on the pirates out there who misrepresent that burning a copy onto a CD makes the work their IP/copyright, so they can sell them. Rolling eyes. Back to the subject…

To boot, there is no wear and tear on ebooks. Where popular library books in mass market might wear out in a year of heavy use, that will never happen with an ebook. Backward compatibility makes this impossible, and programs like Calibre make it possible to keep reconverting the book into more useful formats. Another reason I say a lot of people are clueless about the tech. Unless the book is DRMd (in which case you’d have to break DRM first), you can convert nearly any format into any other format. I routinely do this for work. Piece of cake.

If you don’t want to invest in ebooks as a finalized transaction, that’s fine. There are legal library systems for ebooks that authors support. There are also sharing systems for ebooks on the Nook and Kindle. Get together with friends that own the same reader and have similar reading tastes and set up a system where you become each other’s share partners. That’s what the system is there for. Instead of screaming that you can’t resell an ebook, try using these methods to invest less money in them, which would (monetarily) work out the same for you as reselling the ebook after purchasing it…and less up front money and less hassle for you, in the long run.

Brenna


message 7: by Rowena, Group Owner (new)

Rowena (rowenacherry) | 685 comments Mod
The American Library Association has taken up the cry.

The current lending practices for e-books appear to closely mirror the procedure with a paper book (one loan of the only copy to one patron, and the loaned copy automatically deletes at the end of the designated loan term), and are therefore not problematic.

However, if libraries decided to lend multiple copies of the same single purchase, or to create (by scanning) e-book copies where none are available, that would be akin to copyright infringement as I understand the law.

The red flag that they might do this is the discreet reference to the Chafee Amendment (disabled persons). Under that Amendment, copyright infringement is lawful if done for the benefit of blind or disabled persons.

At the moment, I don't believe that the Chafee Amendment gives library staff the discretion to decide which individuals may be deemed to be disabled or blind or print-disadvantaged.

Quoting (there is no copyright claim made on the ALA site)

Link for proper attribution and credit
http://www.wo.ala.org/districtdispatc...



American Library Association tackles new challenges in the e-environment
March 08, 2011 ( 1 Comment )

Recent action from the publishing world in the e-book marketplace has re-ignited interest and sparked many questions from librarians, publishers, vendors, and readers. Two ALA member task forces – the presidential task force on Equitable Access to Electronic Content (EQUACC) and the E-book Task Force – were recently created to address these complex and evolving issues. EQUACC met this week in Washington, D.C., to provide ALA with guidance and recommendations for a coordinated ALA response to the challenging issues.

In light of recent publisher changes affecting libraries’ ability to provide e-books to the public (e.g., restricting lending of e-books to a limited number of circulations) and the refusal of some publishers to sell e-content to libraries entirely, the task force will:

* Work to establish meetings between ALA leadership and publisher and author associations to discuss model lending and purchase options for libraries.
* Establish mechanisms for interactive and ongoing communication for ALA members to voice concerns and pose questions to ALA leadership.
* Establish communication and solicit input with other ALA member divisions and units, including the Office for Intellectual Freedom.

In addition to the above, the task force recommends that ALA pursue the following:

* Conduct an environmental scan to understand the current landscape and project future scenarios.
* Work with appropriate partners within and outside of ALA to improve access to electronic information for all, with a particular focus on people with disabilities.
* Identify and support new and emerging model projects for delivering e-content to the public.
* Develop a national public relations and education campaign highlighting the importance of libraries as essential access points for electronic content.

ALA members and the public can communicate with ALA on these issues through a new website dedicated to the challenges and potential solutions in libraries for improved access to electronic content. This site will be live within 10 days, and the URL to be announced at launch. These efforts reflect on libraries’ long-standing principles on equitable access to information, reader privacy, intellectual freedom, and the lawful right of libraries to purchase and lend materials to the public.

ALA calls upon all stakeholders to join us in crafting 21st century solutions that will ensure equitable access to information for all.


message 8: by Brenna (new)

Brenna Lyons (BrennaLyons) | 93 comments Mod
I've found that it's very difficult to find middle ground with the librarians. I've tried with two separate librarians and had to walk away from both discussions without a single resolution made on the subject. I realize they have the idea that we're stripping away the benefits of ebooks by setting limits, and we are to some extent (but any DRM does...and while I'm usually anti-DRM, this is the single DRM I have supported since it was presented by Fictionwise/eLibwise at EPICon 2004!).

But there MUST be a middle ground that we find that does not include limitless lending on ebooks for libraries. Both sides will shoot themselves in the foot, if they keep up the way they are going. If I fight tooth and nail to stop limitless lending of ebooks on pirate sites, why in the name of all that's holy would I want to grant it to libraries? I wouldn't. No sane author, in a system like the US has (with no payment to authors for library lends), would want limitless lending, unless he/she isn't in this business to make money or is choosing to allow it with certain books as many of us use free reads or low-cost books to build an audience. In the same way that many of us give a handful of paper copies to the local library (knowing they will eventually wear out), how many of us would supply every library in the world with limitless paper copies of every book we write in perpetuity? It fails the common sense test. No one does that. No one would.

But librarians are notoriously blind to this fact, it seems. They don't see the impact on authors of limitless lending. They don't see the way this will affect the money we make from our work, and that cannot be left out of the equation and have any sort of consensus occur.

No one is FORCING a library to purchase a second copy of an ebook. Simply put, if they purchase a print book in mass market of a popular title, a title that is checked out every time it checks in, it may well wear out and start falling apart in a year or year and a half and have (basing it on the lending times of my local libraries) between 20 and 39 lends before it falls apart. It is THEN at the discretion of the library to replace it or not...or to purchase additional copies of a fast-lending book or not during that wear and tear time to extend lending life that way. No one FORCES the library to purchase another copy of a book that has worn out. They can choose to let it go out of their circulation and depend on inter-library loan to bring copies to local readers when their own copies have been retired. They often retire books for nothing more than shelf space for newer titles, to boot. Saying we are forcing them to do anything is a bunch of bunk. No offense, but it's a fact. No library is forced to replace a book that has lived its useful life, and this limit system is no more than establishing the useful life of an ebook to protect authors and publishers.

Could the number of lends allowed be higher? ABSOLUTELY, in my opinion. Personally, I'd see no problem with setting a lend of 52...even as many as 100 for a library. But that's me and not the entire industry. I'm willing to work to meet libraries halfway. This dogged determination of the libraries to accept no limits will never have us seeing eye to eye. It completely dismisses the author in their quest to have an endless supply of lends of a book. Unfortunately, without authors, they have no books anyway. Circular argument.

Brenna


message 9: by Rowena, Group Owner (new)

Rowena (rowenacherry) | 685 comments Mod
Thank you, Brenna. As always, your perspective is reasonable and fair.

I wonder whether librarians would be prepared to share their government-employee benefits with authors. It's easy to be excessively generous with other people's property.


message 10: by Rowena, Group Owner (new)

Rowena (rowenacherry) | 685 comments Mod
Public Knowledge and EFF have their own interpretations of Fair Use and First Sale Doctrine, but I wonder how many Librarians (and publishers for that matter) have read what the Copyright Office has to say.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92ch...

§ 108. Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives41

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title and notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy or phonorecord of a work, except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), or to distribute such copy or phonorecord, under the conditions specified by this section, if —

(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;

(2) the collections of the library or archives are (i) open to the public, or (ii) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field; and

(3) the reproduction or distribution of the work includes a notice of copyright that appears on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section, or includes a legend stating that the work may be protected by copyright if no such notice can be found on the copy or phonorecord that is reproduced under the provisions of this section.

(b) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to three copies or phonorecords of an unpublished work duplicated solely for purposes of preservation and security or for deposit for research use in another library or archives of the type described by clause (2) of subsection (a), if —

(1) the copy or phonorecord reproduced is currently in the collections of the library or archives; and

(2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not otherwise distributed in that format and is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives.

(c) The right of reproduction under this section applies to three copies or phonorecords of a published work duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen, or if the existing format in which the work is stored has become obsolete, if —

(1) the library or archives has, after a reasonable effort, determined that an unused replacement cannot be obtained at a fair price; and

(2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives in lawful possession of such copy.

For purposes of this subsection, a format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or device necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

(d) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to a copy, made from the collection of a library or archives where the user makes his or her request or from that of another library or archives, of no more than one article or other contribution to a copyrighted collection or periodical issue, or to a copy or phonorecord of a small part of any other copyrighted work, if —

(1) the copy or phonorecord becomes the property of the user, and the library or archives has had no notice that the copy or phonorecord would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research; and

(2) the library or archives displays prominently, at the place where orders are accepted, and includes on its order form, a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.

(e) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to the entire work, or to a substantial part of it, made from the collection of a library or archives where the user makes his or her request or from that of another library or archives, if the library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that a copy or phonorecord of the copyrighted work cannot be obtained at a fair price, if —

(1) the copy or phonorecord becomes the property of the user, and the library or archives has had no notice that the copy or phonorecord would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research; and

(2) the library or archives displays prominently, at the place where orders are accepted, and includes on its order form, a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.

(f) Nothing in this section —

(1) shall be construed to impose liability for copyright infringement upon a library or archives or its employees for the unsupervised use of reproducing equipment located on its premises: Provided, That such equipment displays a notice that the making of a copy may be subject to the copyright law;

(2) excuses a person who uses such reproducing equipment or who requests a copy or phonorecord under subsection (d) from liability for copyright infringement for any such act, or for any later use of such copy or phonorecord, if it exceeds fair use as provided by section 107;

(3) shall be construed to limit the reproduction and distribution by lending of a limited number of copies and excerpts by a library or archives of an audiovisual news program, subject to clauses (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a); or

(4) in any way affects the right of fair use as provided by section 107, or any contractual obligations assumed at any time by the library or archives when it obtained a copy or phonorecord of a work in its collections.

(g) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section extend to the isolated and unrelated reproduction or distribution of a single copy or phonorecord of the same material on separate occasions, but do not extend to cases where the library or archives, or its employee —

(1) is aware or has substantial reason to believe that it is engaging in the related or concerted reproduction or distribution of multiple copies or phonorecords of the same material, whether made on one occasion or over a period of time, and whether intended for aggregate use by one or more individuals or for separate use by the individual members of a group; or

(2) engages in the systematic reproduction or distribution of single or multiple copies or phonorecords of material described in subsection (d): Provided, That nothing in this clause prevents a library or archives from participating in interlibrary arrangements that do not have, as their purpose or effect, that the library or archives receiving such copies or phonorecords for distribution does so in such aggregate quantities as to substitute for a subscription to or purchase of such work.

(h)(1) For purposes of this section, during the last 20 years of any term of copyright of a published work, a library or archives, including a nonprofit educational institution that functions as such, may reproduce, distribute, display, or perform in facsimile or digital form a copy or phonorecord of such work, or portions thereof, for purposes of preservation, scholarship, or research, if such library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that none of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of paragraph (2) apply.

(2) No reproduction, distribution, display, or performance is authorized under this subsection if —

(A) the work is subject to normal commercial exploitation;

(B) a copy or phonorecord of the work can be obtained at a reasonable price; or

(C) the copyright owner or its agent provides notice pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Register of Copyrights that either of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (A) and (B) applies.

(3) The exemption provided in this subsection does not apply to any subsequent uses by users other than such library or archives.

(i) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section do not apply to a musical work, a pictorial, graphic or sculptural work, or a motion picture or other audiovisual work other than an audiovisual work dealing with news, except that no such limitation shall apply with respect to rights granted by subsections (b), (c), and (h), or with respect to pictorial or graphic works published as illustrations, diagrams, or similar adjuncts to works of which copies are reproduced or distributed in accordance with subsections (d) and (e).


back to top