The question proper: For a given book, does the library pay more than, less than or the retail price?
I understand that there are special library bindings for heavy-use books and those cost more than regular bindings, but many libraries have magazines, paperbacks and trades that appear to be the same version as what I’d pick up at my local bookstore.
My question is about those books.
Here’s a follow-up: in debates about copyright/lending/pirating, some numbskull always says, “but a library can lend out books to any number of people, blah, blah, blah.” Without getting into the ethics of intellectual property theft/redistribution, does a library have a special “license” for their books that allow them to lend them out? Is there something in the copyright law that exempts libaries?
Of course, a library is just lending out one copy of a work to one person at a time (or, to be technical, any given copy is only lent out to one person at a time) and copying the works (except for archival purposes and damaged works?) is still prohibited, so is any special exemption necessary?
I was told that libraries actually pay more for a given book because they lend it out. Is that true?
If I had ten copies of a book and I lent each copy to a friend to read, where is there a copyright violation? Now if I bought one copy of the same book, photocopied the book ten times to lend a copy to ten friends, that would be a copyright violation.
I cannot stop one of my friends to whom I lend a copy of the book from making their own photocopy of the book before they returned it to me. In this case, the friend violated the copyright and not me.
In my area, the libraries buy their books and other materials from standard distributors, notably Baker & Taylor. I assume they get the same volume discount as any other volume purchaser would. Some books do come in higher priced, reinforced library editions, but these are usually children’s books expected to have heavy use. Any standard “trade” title, trade being the term for most regular fiction and nonfiction books you would see in a bookstore, is identical, shipped from the same warehouses.
I took a quick look at the U.S. Copyright Law and couldn’t find any clauses related to the standard borrowing or lending of books. Some other types of specialized media are mentioned, but not books. Libraries do have some restrictions against making copies of the books and other materials they own, but merely lending a copy of an owned book is not an issue.
I don’t know, honestly. I know we get a deal from certain vendors, so that we do pay less than retail cost (on some books at least), but I don’t know how much less or what volume we have to do through that vendor to get the discount.
It’s due to the “Right of First Sale” content in U.S. Copyright law. From here:
Amazon.com uses Baker & Taylor to get many of its titles, so everyone can buy books just like a librarian!
One difference is that when you buy a book at home you likely aren’t going to bind it, but a dust jacket on it, stamp it all over the place, catalog it, stick a barcode on the back, and maybe put a security strip in it. (Or an RFID tag in some cases.)
I happened to be reading an article today, it sounds a bit far fetched to me- or is it? http://www.newstarget.com/z001346.html.
Is this a reputable site?
At least half of my books are second hand.
Except that I checked those provisions in the copyright law. There are no words like right of first sale or library exemption to be found.
Section 108 is titled “Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives” and it is entirely about reproduction of an item, not an original item.
Section 109 is titled “Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord” and allows the sale of a legally owned copyrighted work. I see nothing in it that relates to a library lending a book, as opposed to other specialized forms of media.
Maybe case law has interpreted these sections in that way, but the plain words of those sections don’t say what your cite says they do, unless I am just missing something.
Very possible, of course, so if I am could you point out the passage for me?
Section 106 has the explicit language "Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;"
So that’s where lending comes in. It’s not an exclusive right to libraries; it’s the privilege of any owner of a copyrighted work.
Vetch, as the article itself notes there’s no legal way for the publishers to do anything of the sort. That article is an ignorant rant, not a prediction.
Independent bookstores and libraries can buy direct from the publisher, but are more apt to buy books from wholesalers who purchase them at large-quantity discount, and may often pass part of that discount on to their clientele.
There are a couple of companies that take paperbacks and mount durable bindings, permitting them to have the “shelf life” of a hardcover book. Our librarian Dopers may be more familiar with these than I am; it’s been over 25 years since I ordered anything through them.
Also interesting, in passing, is the fact that the U.S.P.S. offers a special discount rate for the shipment of book parcels to and from libraries, much lower than normal parcel post rates.
Yeah I would describe that as a bit far-fetched. Eliminating lending libraries as an outlet for book purchases would pretty much kill some publishers.
Who will Congress back in such a dispute? Public libraries, with pictures of cute little kids peerring in looking for books to read? Or a big publishing house?
Enforcement of such a law would also be troublesome.
Furthermore, more and more publishers are making full text of publications available to libraries online (the library pays for the database, but the use is almost always free for the end user), that it seems unlikely that they would suddenly decide to cut off this source of revenue.
Not of the owner of the copyrighted work; that describes a right of the owner of the copyright. In other words, if I write a book, I can sell it or give it away as I like. If a library were making copies of a work and distributing those, then it would run afoul of that section, since the library is not the copyright owner.
Also, the USPS book rate applies to any shipper or receipient, not just libraries, as long as it’s books. I’ve used it myself to loan books to friends.
I thought I was being clear in context, but if not, I meant that the owner of an individual copy of a book or record can lend that legally purchased item. The physical thing, not the copyright ownership. Ownership of copyright can be sold or transferred but not loaned.
And I believe Polycarp was referring to Library Mail, not Media Mail.
Copyright is the right to make copies. If you don’t make a copy, you can’t be in violation.
So copyright law does not apply if you lend a book. It is also perfectly legal to sell that book (otherwise, bookstores would be in violation – they don’t have copyright, and are granted no license by the author). It’s also legal to burn it (as long as it’s yours), give it as a gift, or lend it. The book itself, as a manufactured object, is treated like any other manufactured object.
Once you start making copies of that book, then copyright applies. Libraries have some exemptions under the law (they can make a copy for archive purposes), but the business of lending books itself is not an issue of copyright, any more than lending your bicycle to someone is a copyright issue.
It’s the same thing with CDs. There are places that buy used CDs and resell them. The RIAA doesn’t like the practice, but they have never tried to sue these stores for copyright violation, simply because they have no case since no copy is made. If I sell the CD I bought to a store that intends to sell it used, it is perfectly legal.
I hate to say it, but you’re right. I was going backward from reading sections 108 and 109, which are about what one can do with a copy, and assumed that the lead-in referred to the same.
It doesn’t. So I’m left with two questions. Where is the lending right of a owned copy of a copyrighted work explicitly stated, if it is? And what does it mean for a copyright owner to lend copies to the public?
In Section 109, Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord:
I can see why it might not be clear that this covers lending. One doesn’t normally think of rental, lease, or lending as being ways to “dispose” of an item, since one gets it back. However, the fact that disposition encompasses these activities is made clear by the exception in clause (b):
In other words, rental, lease, and lending are forms of disposition. You can do them with an owned copy of a book, but not an owned copy of music or software. However, even here an exception to the exception allows:
So, if you buy a book, you can keep it, burn it, sell it, give it away, lend it out for free like a library, or even lend it out for profit. With a CD or computer software you can do all of the above except lend it out for profit.
Copies is the operative word here. As we just saw, anyone can lend an owned copy of a copyrighted work to the public (subject to the exception about lending music out for profit). But only the copyright owner can make and distribute copies to the public. Or, more commonly, and in accordance with Section 106, they can authorize someone else (a publisher or a record company) to do so on their behalf.
I get what you’re saying, but that is not what the words themselves indicate. And the second question’s answer is a meaning of licensing a publisher to publish that I’ve never seen before.
Is this your interpretation as a lawyer experienced in copyright law, or similar professional, or your interpretation as a layperson? Sorry, but I have to ask.