TeleRead Home Page | Web Log Home

Library fines and zapped books--and a better alternative

Update, Jan. 14, 2003: I remain keen on the permanent check-out approach discussed here--but would be flexible. I've told how one system could blend this approach with other lending models. Also, I'll emphasize my enthusiasm for the library-related experiments now underway with commercial e-books in Cleveland and elsewhere, regardless of the models in use. Both the Cleveland library and OverDrive deserve credit for trying electronic versions of best-sellers. - David Rothman

In the p-book era I've racked up enough library fines to build a headquarters, not just a branch. Hey, it could be worse. I think of the fines as donations to my favorite library system in a near-by county (alas, my own city's library is too understocked for my needs). The issue is one of time. I'm self-employed, and in effect it costs me money when I must fight traffic. Simply put, I've got the most selfish of reasons to be keen on Project Gutenberg, whose public domain classics can remain on my computer forever. I love to skip around from title to title after I download them for keeps. Just finished At the Earth's Core and have King Coal and several others going right now.

But what about books still under copyright? I'm grouchy about OverDrive-style solutions. I don't want books to vanish from my PDA or otherwise be disabled after such-and-such number of days. Might not always be able to renew 'em.

So what to do? Well, for years, the TeleRead plan has advocated perennial checkouts--the ability to keep even copyrighted library books on your machine forever. If it takes the inclusion of Digital Rights Management to sell the industry on this concept--well, if need be, I'll stomach it. Jon Noring has told how the industry could at least make DRM less obnoxious through use of nonproprietary approaches.

But how would perennial checkouts work allow publishers to make money, given the possibility of file-sharing? Well, suppose Reader A couldn't successfully pass on a book to Reader B unless Fair Use or one of two other situations existed. First of the two others: B lived in the same library-service area and could check out the books with the same provisions for payment to copyright holders as in A's case. The payment process could begin automatically, triggered by the file-sharing. In the second situation, A or B (or B's own library system) could pay the content-provider directly.

Result? Library users could keep library books on their systems as long as they wanted, while also being able to share. I think it would show foresight on the part of the Open eBook Forum experts to develop such a capability. Then libraries would have yet another lending model available for copyrighted content.

My own hunch is that libraries right now will want to experiment with different models, but the TeleRead-style one is my favorite since it would allow users to build custom libraries on their own machines without worrying about zapping of overdue items. And at the same time, as you'll notice, creators would receive compensation. Ideally this could happen someday through a national digital library fund--to reduce the famous savage inequalities of our schools and libraries.

posted by David Rothman at 5:18 AM [June 27, 2003] | permanent link

Update, Aug. 19, 2003: The above vanished mysteriously--and very frustratingly--from the TeleBlog while I was updating the blog files structure to allow for faster downloading. Perhaps it'll be back, given Blogger's changing moods. Meanwhile, however, I'll reproduce it here for safety's sake.

Odds and ends--related:

1. In the future, I'll say "permanent checkout" rather than "perennial checkout," just to reinforce and clarify my belief that the checkout ideally should happen just once, after which library users can keep the books. No need for regular repetition. Once should be enough.

2. E-Book library spam--and a cure tells how we could use a mix of business models, including, gasp, "Zap after two-weeks," to cover as many books as possible. I realize that content-owners would want higher royalties for permanent-checkout books--hence, my willingness to be flexible and allow for more conventional alternatives, however painful this would.

3. Do remember that "Zap after two weeks" is normally accompanied by limits on the number of simultaneous accesses. We're talking about information-rationing, big time.

4. Considering that the average American will spend only so much time and money on books without special incentives anyway--particularly the young--wouldn't too much of this zap-style rationing actually be to the disadvantage of publishers or society in the end? Better to have a well-funded library system in our $10-trillion economy. While doing our best to control costs, we should worry about library expenditures in a total social context as opposed to the market models cooked up by callous and myopic economists with comfortable salaries and easy access to libraries. See Sick on the Great Plains: The perils of 'efficient' information policies.