That is a good question. I admit I am curious as well.
-
-
The issue is that the price of buying a physical book to lend in circulation and the price of an ebook lending license are different - the latter is much higher - because an ebook can be lent many more times to many more people than one physical book and depresses sales more
2 replies 2 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @downix and
Especially since, no matter what restrictions you slap on ebook lending, it's much easier for an ordinary person with a computer to crack your DRM and rip the file than it is to physically scan a physical book, so the piracy risk is higher
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @downix and
It may seem like an arbitrary distinction to you but arguing that restrictive terms on ebook lending means you don't want libraries to exist at all because ebooks and physical books are "the same thing" is disingenuous as hell
2 replies 3 retweets 17 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @downix and
It's like saying that because a studio was willing to broadcast a TV show over the air "for free" they should be fine with recording the episode and throwing it up on YouTube for no additional money because it's "the same thing"
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likes -
I understand you're upset, bro, but I'm not the one saying you shouldn't get paid. I literally just asked what libraries do for authors.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Okay, and the answer is that libraries traditionally buy one physical copy of a book for every copy they have in circulation, so authors get paid in proportion to how much "bandwidth" their "file" uses on the physical shelves
1 reply 1 retweet 18 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @soc_lee and
Publishers negotiate licenses for ebooks based on how much more they think ebooks being available for free will cut into sales than physical lending, and scale their fees based on how many copies the library will allow to be "borrowed" at once
2 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @soc_lee and
What IA has done that's pissed people off is advance a novel legal theory that if they own a physical book and they scan it they can unilaterally decide to make it available for borrowing under terms they set, without asking permission or paying more money to the author
2 replies 3 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @soc_lee and
What they've done RECENTLY that's pissed people off MORE is to unilaterally relax their lending restrictions (allow infinite copies of a file to be borrowed at once) because of the virus, again without asking or paying anybody
2 replies 2 retweets 7 likes
And it's not so much about the scale of the money involved as the fact that they think they have the authority to just unilaterally decide this that means this sets a very dangerous precedent
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
No, but they are partnered with several as an ebook distribution handler, much as OverDrive does for my local library.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
-
-
-
Yes it is. And who we need to focus on is IA's partners, those who have the licenses.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.