More on TechnologyTell: Gadget News | Apple News
Library ‘piracy’ dwarfs e-piracy figures
January 19, 2010 | 3:33 pm
|
By Chris Meadows
Found via Slashdot: On the heels of Publishers Weekly’s report that e-book piracy could be costing the publishing industry as much as $3 billion (which we mentioned here) comes a tongue-in-cheek post by blogger Eric Hellman:
Apparently, over 2 billion books were "loaned" last year by a cabal of organizations found in nearly every American city and town. Using the same advanced projective mathematics used in the study cited by Publishers Weekly, Go To Hellman has computed that publishers could be losing sales opportunities totaling over $100 Billion per year, losses which extend back to at least the year 2000. These lost sales dwarf the online piracy reported yesterday, and indeed, even the global book publishing business itself.
He is, of course, talking about public libraries.
Even if the figures are questionably derived in both cases, it is still a reminder that library lending is considerably more extensive than e-book downloading—and publishers seem to have considerably fewer problems with libraries than e-books.
But it also reminds us that if e-books do eventually overtake print books in the mass market, this could have consequences for the ability of libraries to lend.
|
Related Posts:
Previous
SUBSCRIBE TO RSS
Comments:
In some nations, libraries pay royalties to publishers for each loan. In the US, we don’t have this policy. Whether this would be desirable or not could be debated.
Of course, libraries buy mostly hardbacks and many publishers set hardback prices high specifically because they know that some significant portion of these sales will go to libraries.
Comparing library lending to piracy is also disingenuous because libraries are not known for making unlimited copies, because physical copies suffer from a definite wear and tear, and because libraries actually pay for their copies.
Rob Preece
Publisher
Actually that’s a pretty funny article. As an author I think if a DRM could be made that would stop someone from copying a book but would let them lend it out to family and friends it would work out fine.
That is the way it is with dead tree books now. I buy a book, like it, lend it to a friend, he reads it gives it back. I don’t make copies of it and pass the copies around.
I think most sensible observers would conclude that libraries are a huge benefit to the book publishing industry. Which makes it worrisome to me that the transition to ebooks is happening with few serious considerations of how to continue the role of today’s library’s in tomorrow’s economy.
I think the comparison of libraries with pirates is actually quite a serious one; I hoped to sharpen the point with satire. Piracy is a serious threat, but an empty one if libraries are able to give people free access to books while continuing to help support the publishing industry.
Anyone who doesn’t see the publishing industry’s need to somehow provide free access to books needs to learn about heroin distribution.
Sorry, but I’m with Rob and Robert – the comparison between libraries and piracy is far more BS than it is meaningful.
Libraries may give “free access to books,” but with very real limits. They still have the physical scarcity issue (as do video rental stores, by the by). A library can only lend out as many physical copies as they own; if 20 library patrons want to borrow a new bestseller, they have to wait in a queue (increasing the chance they’ll buy their own copy) or pressure the library to buy more copies. Either way, the number of copies in circulation is equal to the number of copies purchased; if there’s more demand than the current circulation can handle, new copies have to be purchased to increase the circulation. This is NOT the case with e-piracy; circulation can be increased more or less infinitely without the author seeing anything back from it.
From the standpoint of giving authors incentive to write, I think this basic value equation – copies in circulation = compensation to author – needs to remain in place, in some form. If the author doesn’t get the benefit from circulation, then what’s the point in them writing?
This is also the flaw in the ‘increased circulation is a promotional tool’ idea that Eric is implying. A promotional tool is only valuable if it actually has something to promote. Library lending increases an author’s popularity, which increases the demand for their works. Fine so far. But if the demand is satisfied through free copying – instead of someone (people, libraries, etc.) having to buy more copies – the author doesn’t get anything back from the increased popularity, and the promotional value is nil.
I agree we need to do a lot more thinking about how to handle libraries in a digital age. The problem is that without a physical object to tie circulation to, the issue of circulation and compensation becomes very messy. A physical book has inherently limited circulation; it can only be in the possession of one person at a time. But when the book becomes the digital file, what happens? If lending is done without DRM and without restrictions, it becomes the equivalent of the library giving away free copies of the book to every borrower, so why would anyone ever buy one? And then where would authors make enough income to survive on?
There are all kinds of ways things could go from here, for example: DRM to lock down e-books and approximate the circulation models of physical books; simple limits on the number of times a library could give out a book per month, with them paying the author a given compensation for a set number of ‘slots’; even going all the way and turning libraries into the new bookstores, paying the author “sales” royalties for every copy given out. (The equivalent of a new-sale royalty, not the tiny amount awarded in some European nations.) Of course, to do that, libraries would need a lot more funding than they get today…
Travis: (re your last paragraph) And someone would have to invent DRM that couldn’t be cracked, too. Hasn’t happened yet.
Same argument, same response: DRM doesn’t have to be 100% uncrackable, it just has to be uncrackable enough that the average person – who doesn’t haunt Usenet binary groups and torrent sites – won’t bother. Just like with most other forms of security, it doesn’t have to be perfect, it just has to deter enough people to be “worthwhile” (for some value of worthwhile).
Of course, DRM brings all of the pain and hassles associated with it. However, I think this is a valid point to raise: many of those pains are related to ownership, like losing access through a format or device failure. How are these issues changed with something you don’t have any claim of ownership on? (Of course, these issues are then bumped to the library level, instead of the individual reader…)
A couple of other possibilities I didn’t mention above:
* Library copies could be made inferior (or bookstore copies superior) so that the copies the library gives out wouldn’t be as good as the copies the bookstore sells. It’s not something I’d like to see, but I can see some publishers trying it – witness the talk that’s been swirling lately about ‘e-book extras.’
* Likewise, just as some publishers are talking about delayed release for e-books compared to hardcovers, and some movie companies are trying to delay rental availability past the ‘purchase’ release date, I could see some publishers trying to delay library sales of e-books past their release date for general purchase. Not sure it’ll work any better there…
If “the average person – who doesn’t haunt Usenet binary groups and torrent sites – won’t bother”, then why on earth is e-piracy considered to be such a big problem now?
Travis,
Most of my posts are serious. This one addresses many of the points you raise.
In general, I think the threat from piracy is systemic rather than specific. In other words the threat to any individual book is negligible, but the threat to the entire system is significant. That’s why I feel systemic solutions are the only ones that will work, and libraries, coupled with an enforcement regime, present a possibility of a systemic solution to piracy.
[quote]and publishers seem to have considerably fewer problems with libraries than e-books.[/quote]
This is simply false, the big content companies (RIAA, MPAA, sony BGM, etc) have gone on record calling libraries piracy and saying they are the ultimate target for them (just one that is out of reach at the moment)
@Chris: You’re still trying to classify it as an either/or issue, and insisting on absolutes, when this is not the case. If DRM prevents ‘the average person’ from pirating, this is enough of a reduction for it to be considered valuable by a publisher – while at the same time, enough savvy users exist to make e-piracy a “big problem now“. For the sake of argument, let’s say DRM deters 70% of potential copying; which is good enough for producers to call it a win. But 30% of potential copying is still a big enough number to be a problem.
Or to turn the argument around – they can quite plausibly claim that it’s a big problem now when free copying is confined to the tech-savvy and the seedy back-alleys of the ‘net, but that it would be a much bigger problem if it were simple enough for average people to do. In particular, as related to this discussion: borrowing from a library is supposed to be easy for the average person, by design. If ‘borrowing’ becomes ‘free copying’ – because the file is open and not restricted in any way, functionally identical to a copy bought from an e-bookstore – I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to claim that the amount of free copying would balloon, at the expense of book purchases. (“Why should I buy it when I can borrow it and keep it for free?”) Hence the question about how to make libraries work without killing the sales that compensate the author.
@Eric: I read the post, and it makes a number of interesting points. But I don’t think it addresses my thesis, because it doesn’t discuss author compensation at all – just a reference in passing to author royalties as a publishing expense. Authors, or more generally content producers, are the core that drives the book universe – without content, there’s nothing. And whether it’s an independent author submitting a manuscript, or a publisher-driven production team pulling together research for a book on a particular topic, there’s a cost involved in generating that content, which must be paid. (And don’t forget the production costs involved in editing, layout, and otherwise turning a raw manuscript into a finished product for distribution.)
Additionally, if you want the author/producer to continue generating new content, you have to compensate them well enough to make it worth their while; whatever demand aggregation issues the tropical fish farmers of Florida might have, they’re completely irrelevant if demand doesn’t translate into enough compensation to make it worth producing books on aquaculture. “[C]apitalism has a funny way of turning demand (at any price) into financial opportunity” has a magical thinking feel to it, in the ‘x + y + <undefined missing step> = PROFIT!!!’ sense, and doesn’t address the issue at all for me; technical people in particular place a high value on their time, expect to be paid well for their work, and aren’t likely to write a book for ‘pennies on the dollar,’ as it were. Circulation must be turned into compensation by some method, at a rate high enough to sustain production, or books don’t get written.
> Comparing library lending to piracy is also
> disingenuous because libraries are not
> known for making unlimited copies
This is not disingenuous, just a little complicated. The issues that needs to be identified in comparing e-book “piracy” and library “piracy” are:
1) valid number of ebook downloads (under copyright protection)
2) Valid number of library circulated items (under copyright protection)
3) Assumed lost sales via ebook downloads.
4) Assumed lost sales via library circulation.
Yes, libraries do pay for their copies, but every circulated item (under copyright) represents a lost sale—which detracts from the Publishers’ bottom lines. The issue here is money .. nothing else.
“In other words the threat to any individual book is negligible, but the threat to the entire system is significant.”
Wrong. My mother is an author and upon looking at ONE torrent site, found that her first trilogy was downloaded over 2000 times. She makes about 1-1.50 per book sold. Therefore, 2000*3 books in the trilogy = about $6000 worth of intellectual property taken from her from that website alone. And no, we are not rich. Maybe these people “wouldn’t have purchased the book anyway”, but it’s really no different than counterfeiting money. It causes inflation- and devalues legitimate copies of the book.
Authors and publishers should be in charge of the distribution of their intellectual property, not anonymous people on the internet. Or maybe inventors who’ve spent years working on a blueprint should have their materials freely distributed to companies over the internet without their consent? It doesn’t make sense, stop trying to justify it.
Keith,
Funny you should mention inventors, because your fevered description is exactly how patents work. The inventor is required to distribute blueprints (i.e. the description of the invention) and companies download them from the internet to learn what can be learned. In return, the inventor *may* be granted a 17-year period of exclusive commercial exploitation of the invention.
What will they think of next?
I can’t wait to go to my local used currency sale and pick up some benjamins for a few cents on the dollar.
As a publisher, I’ve made it a point never to sell to libraries.
In my part of the world – Scandinavia – popular authors are given a miniscule ‘royalty’ per loan given at libraries, but this programme only covers the super popular bestseller authors, and anyone else is on their own! So small publishers like myself dont stand a chance, when libraries expect us to sell them the same amount of books with the same discounts (practically want the books for free, because there is no funding anymore), and if I dont get anything out of it, then where’s the point for me? “Promotional value” is bollocks – when you read a book in the library, you dont run out to buy it in the bookshop afterwards, just as you dont run off to buy a DVD after having illegally downloaded it and seen it. Humans just arent built that way – why pay for something you’ve already enjoyed for free? Makes no sense, and that’s just how things are. Idealists who think that this is untrue – go ahead and attempt to prove me wrong.
I never sell my books to libraries, and I prosecute when they break the copyright laws by buying them in bookshops to lend them out – it’s clearly stated in each and every copy of my publications, that they are not to be loaned out, resold, etc. Oddly enough, the libraries dont understand this – a culture of them ‘owning literature’ has grown in the last 50 years, and frankly it’s disgusting.
The author owns his work – not the library, not the reader. Just how it is, and how it should remain.
Anything else is completely wrong, unethical and selfish on the part of the reader. You dont have a god given RIGHT to entertainment, and certainly not entertainment created by ME, however you’re able to purchase it as what it is… a luxury.
“Authors and publishers should be in charge of the distribution of their intellectual property, not anonymous people on the internet. Or maybe inventors who’ve spent years working on a blueprint should have their materials freely distributed to companies over the internet without their consent? It doesn’t make sense, stop trying to justify it.
”
Quoted for truth.
Also, stop comparing the production of entertainment, which is only interesting if you havent read or seen it before, with ‘information’ or patents or other non-sensical comparisons in wildly unrelated fields of business, creation, etc.
You dont have a god given right to read my novels and derive pleasure from them. Sorry, you just dont. Stop trying to justify your stealing my books, my comics, my films. You dont have a right to them – period.