I have a tough time seeing the difference except for this: In the former case, the library patrons have to specifically request the book and so have expressed an interest in it. In the latter case, however, the purchaser has (presumably) read the book and liked it enough to give a copy to friends as a suggestion that they read it, something they probably would not have done otherwise.

In both instances there has been a single purchase for which the publisher and author have been compensated.

I know that some people argue that in the former case there is still only 1 copy available whereas in the latter there are now 21 copies. But what does this really mean? The publisher/author is more likely losing sales with the library loaning system than with the friend distributing system — library patrons have to already be interested in the book to request it whereas in the friend distribution there is likely to be little to no interest in the author’s work beforehand.

Please do not construe this as being opposed to fair compensation. I am certainly not opposed to that. I just find the compensation argument to be a weak argument especially when comparing a library distribution system to some other distribution system.

Guess this is the installment 1000 in our debate on copyright. We both agree the present laws are a mess. I just happen to believe in the royalty system, etc., as one option. I don’t want all creations to be free labor or funded by schools, etc. Here’s to choices for creators as well as consumers!

Cheers,
David

I am not really interested in fair compensation for publishers and writers. Nor is your current copyright law. Chiding a librarian for not living up to what you’d wish the law would be is disingenuous, especially since you keep admitting that you don’t know the whole story.

“It seems somewhat perverse to delete a digital document after someone else received it, just to mimic the fact that a physical document can not be in two places at once”

Spot on!

“I’m just talking about the here and now.”

But how do you know that the librarian was doing the same? It doesn’t follow from your posting.

“Update: 10:53: Just as I expected, Katherine Brown, city librarian, was “appalled” when I told her of her staffer’s comments at the SF panel.”

Well, if the librarian does get fired on the strength of your posting, she’ll have a doozy of a libel suit against you.

As for biz models and copyright, yes, I agree with you. They need to be changed, just as I emphasized in the addendum—about the same time you were doing your own posting.

While moral issues do arise as I see it, I’d not mix that up with lobbying for existing models.

I’m just talking about the here and now. As bad as the current laws are, people should pay writers and publishers. Do not confuse them with lobbyists and lawmakers in the U.S. or elsewhere.

Thanks, and good hearing from you. If you want, maybe you can give as an update on these issues in Germany.

David

It seems somewhat perverse to delete a digital document after someone else received it, just to mimic the fact that a physical document can not be in two places at once, and that someone has built a business model on that particular shortcoming of physical documents.

The issue of compensation remains. But please do not mix that moral issue with lobbying for mainaining existing business models.

For instance, publishers have two roles: they do not only act as an aid to the author (i.e. do some part of the authoring process), but they also act as a gateway that prevents rejected authors to reach their intended audiences. In the past, publishers have been the only gateway. With the publishers toll-booth, the gate will go away, too. Authors can go indie. This has drawbacks, and it will change literature. Change is inevitable. But perhaps the benefits will outweigh the drawbacks. And even if they do not, they will not kill writing, just as shutting down the RIAA would not kill music. There is more creative writing than ever, and I do not see how it is going to stop.

As a reader, I do not want scarcity of books. I want a copy of every book in existence! Most authors worth reading are dead, anyway. And I am still going to buy hardcovers as presents, and I am willing to donate to authors.

As an author, I want to be read! As much as possible, by as many people as possible. Do not delete my books from your harddrive, if you happen to give a copy to your friend or colleague. (But I need to make a living, so lets think about business models, too.)

David

The context was a talk about “the library of the future.” It said so right there in the comment you at’s the were quoting. Amazing how a guy running a project to promote the digital library fails to notice talk about that library right under his nose.

As for the librarian’s comment: yes, one of the advantages of e-books is that you can share it endlessly. Why should she apologize for noting so?