i agree entirely about e-ink. i dunno how people like to read books on lit screens. but for the record i dont think kindle necessarily the best. it probably is, but the nook is very similar, i think the screen is identical. anways, it raises an interesting question. how will library e-book lending work out? why, for instance would a library not lend out infinite copes of a book? isnt that the whole point of the library, to get books to people? and now they wont be limited by having to own the big expensive book that takes up a ton of space. like the day harry potter comes out, why couldnt the library just lend out 10 billion copies? is t that what libraries want to do? and what would that mean for publishers? i used to have a sony reader and i could get library books for it. but sometimes they were "checked out". that is fascinating. its information, it cant be checked out in the traditional sense. and red and i have debated this sort of thing for years, and i always take on the "spread free information" side. i dunno how it will shake out. i do know i would love it endlessly if the government had a like a national library and i could just read anything i wanted forever. me wanty.
Google book search library project Google is trying to make all books free to us. I guess the copyright people would get paid by the ad revenue from Google.
It works the same way as books. A library would buy a certain number of books to meet anticipated circulation demand and it varies by book. Now a library buys a certain number of licenses for the copyrighted e-book and loans them. It works the same way as books as far as intellectual property rights. It just saves everybody the printing, shipping, and ultimately disposal costs of the hard product.
given that the goal of the library is to give the public free reading of whatever they want, why should the library be limited in the number of copies they can give out? that is a limit imposed by old technology, when you cant have 20 thousand copies of harry potter to loan. now you can. nothing should ever be unavailable because it is checked out. over the years, a book might be loaned 500 times. why cant they loan that same book 500 times in one day? if the answer is that we are protecting the publishing industry at the expense of the reading public, then why do we have libraries at all? this is like the movie industry saying "you can only loan your dvd to a friend if he watches it alone, cant let too many peep access the info at once."
I know you can't understand because you are a thief without principles. But I will try. You see the library doesn't steal books from publishers and a e-book is still a book legally. They don't steal those either. There are no "limits imposed on the number of copies that a library can give out". They can loan as many copies as they have purchased licenses for. Without a publishing industry and without authors no books would be available for press or electronic versions. Look people have to be paid for writing, editing, and publishing books (publishing is more than printing, if you didn't know). That is a ridiculous comparison. You simply ignore copyrights and intellectual property rights. You have the selfish, childish notion that you should have everything you want for free. You don't mind stealing from creative people. Have you no shame at all. Thieves get no respect from anyone.
i am not discussing what is legal i am discussing what is best for society. ask yourself why the library even bothers to exist. why is it good to spread knowledge? i know plenty of people in publishing, and they tell me theirs is a dying industry. books dont actually need to be published anymore, they are purely about marketing now. and i dont need to be marketed to. you dont need a publisher, to print up a heavy ass expensive paper thing. its ridiculous. books take up space and waste resources. publishers are distributors of information. but we no longer need them. we can transmit more information, faster and cheaper than ever before, the restraints that made us need publishers no longer exist. and you ignore drug laws. it isnt about laws, its about figuring out what makes society work better. i think you are too old to understand why conventioal definitions of stealing do not apply. with information i cant take it from you in the sense that you no longer have it. you can steal every book on my kindle, i really dont give a damn. i still have them. you may argue that artists are not getting paid. well, too bad for them. there are plenty of tasks that you can perform without getting paid. nobody pays me for lots of things i enjoy. used to be you could get paid for lots of things that now automated. should we smash the robots because of the loss of jobs? we are not making decisions here based on maximizing the number of things that you can do and get paid. writers can do something else if they want to get paid. or figure out a way to get paid writing, which shouldnt be too hard. there are other revenue models. again, i am not discussing laws. i am discussing what is best for society. why do you think libraries are a good idea? because they spread information. a library can buy ojne copy of a book and loan it out over and over forever. why do you think that is a good thing? if it is a good thing why wouldnt it be better if they could do it more? and why should they be limited by the wishes of the publishing industry? we dont even need a publishing industry. nowadays if you have something to write, you can distribute it yourself, completely free. publishers are done, unless they change their entire business model. there was a time before publishers, before copyright. there were still plenty of things to read. you need to understand one simple thing. copying information creates another copy, leaving the first intact. it doesnt take the first copy and give it to another. this is so simple, and it invalidates your points about "stealing". i could go into your house and secretly photocopy every book you own, and you would never know the difference. but i would be happy because now i have things to read. net happiness has grown. and that is the goal. philosophy 101, junior.
self-contradiction. why should they be limited at all? isnt their goal to spread info. serious question: why do you think libraries exist? (hint: it isnt to make money for publishers or writers) also you are wrong, publishers defijnitely want to limit total lends; "http://librarianbyday.net/2011/02/25/publishing-industry-forces-overdrive-and-other-library-ebook-vendors-to-take-a-giant-step-back/ Under this publisher’s requirement, for every new eBook licensed, the library (and the OverDrive platform) will make the eBook available to one customer at a time until the total number of permitted checkouts is reached. HarperCollins Puts 26 Loan Cap on Ebook Circulations "HarperCollins has announced that new titles licensed from library ebook vendors will be able to circulate only 26 times before the license expires.
my question is why the government should be in the business of protecting dying revenue models, rendered obsolete by technological advancement that is a net gain for the betterment of society. lasalle, please yell at red, he is trying to stop the free spread of knowledge. he is a metaphorical book burner.
i am always borrowing books from my local library, i reserve them online and they have them reserved on a shelf there and i go pick them up. i feel like a caveman when i have to go physically pick it up. books are delivered to my kindle in like a quarter second. and i have to actually walk to library to return the book as well. such an inefficient system. and then they have to pay idiots to reshelve the book and process it and such. a total waste.
