Nope, I don’t want Washington to pay for all library costs, and I think the idea should be to help everyone provide more and better books—not drag down the better library districts. A TeleRead-style approach could respect local differences and avoid “one size fits all.” Some books might be universally available, but in other cases local librarians could pick the ones most suitable for their users.

As shown by their high usage rates, public libraries are rather popular with taxpayers. And the efficiencies of E could help them get more for their money.

To address the copyright issue, you’re welcome to your opinion—I suspect you’re a libertarian or objectivist—but I myself remain a strong supporter of copyright even if the current system is broken.

I worked on The Solomon Scandals on and off for 30 years. While I’d have written the book with or without copyright, it’s a much better work than otherwise. I could toil away while knowing I had some chance of getting decent compensation. Will it actually happen? I don’t know. But given people’s needs to consider the welfare of their families, not just creative urges, I’m pro money-making.

By providing me with such incentives, the copyright system is doing its job—contributing to the progress of the arts and sciences. So three cheers for copyright even though the current system is hardly flawless!

Thanks,
David

I think you are right that ebooks should be embraced by schools and libraries since they can provide the same information for a fraction of the cost. But it is not the role of the federal government to implement these programs. For one thing, it is unconstitutional. For another, they would be bound to do it inefficiently and create more problems than they solve. There are major costs and difficulties associated with trying to replace paper books with ebooks and I can see many schemes failing. Such risks shouldn’t be taken with taxpayers’ money.

A better way would be for people to get involved at a community level by starting an ebook program at your local library or school. It may not be as grandiose as a federal government imposed ebook revolution but I think there is a much higher potential for success. Most importantly, such programs tap into local knowledge and allow different communities to experiment with different systems. A government program would likely be a one-size-fits-all approach that would result in inferior results (if not complete failure) at much higher costs.

As for expanding fair use versus abolishing copyright, I understand your fear that producers of creative content wouldn’t get compensated if people could freely copy their works. However people only have a right to earn what profits they can make through voluntary trade. People are not entitled to stop the exchange of information between 3rd parties because they fear it will hurt their profit margin.

The technology is going to improve, and meanwhile there are ways of gracing making the best use of current tech for young people and others interested in using it.

As for fair use, I don’t want it substituted for fair compensation for writers and publishers. But when a grassroots documentary maker can’t even use short segments from Hollywood products without fear of being sued, we’ve got a problem.

Thanks,
David

Us proponents of eBooks should continue to educate people about the benefits of eBooks. And if you want to really encourage people to use eBooks, buy friends and family digital readers for Christmas. You could even donate a few to your local library or school if you are feeling generous. But it’s wrong to advocate that government takes other peoples money to spend on schemes to push your favourite technology.

If government really wanted to make learning cheaper and easier, it should end the monopoly on books granted to authors and publishers by abolishing copyright. Why play around the edges with “fair use” reforms? Either authors and producers have a right to decide how their creative works are used or they don’t. I claim they don’t insofar as it involves interfering with the peaceful dissemination of information.