I read a lot of books from my local library on Kindle. I have discovered that, at least on my version of Kindle, that the books never get removed from my Kindle until I turn Wifi on.
I assume most libraries have a similar process: I use a computer to check the book out on their website, it takes me to the Amazon page, I click “download to device” and then it shows up on my Kindle once I turn Wifi on. I let the book download, then turn Wifi off, to save battery.
But here’s the deal - I can “return” the book on the library’s website, but since the Kindle Wifi is off, the book stays on my Kindle until the next time I turn Wifi on.
Since I assume someone else may want to read the book, I will typically just return the book immediately after downloading it and turning the Kindle Wifi off. This frees it up for someone else to check out.
It seems like a “win-win” to me, since I get to read it and the next person gets to read it sooner. But since it seems a little “sneaky”, or like a loophole, I always wonder if there’s some kind of ethical issue here. But I can’t figure out what that might be. Am I hurting anybody (financially) by doing this? Am I maybe violating the library’s terms of service or anything? I honestly don’t know.
Sometimes, I will have multiple books loaded on the Kindle that I wouldn’t be able to read all of before the due date, but since Wifi is off, it doesn’t matter - they never expire.
Presumably the library has some kind of agreement that buys one electronic “copy” and allows it to be read by only one person at a time. And payments would go to the publisher (and thus the author) based on that agreement. Your method is subverting that. If you “keep” the copy as long you are actually reading it, then another reader might not want to wait, and might buy their own; or the library might buy multiple copies. So the publisher and author are potentially losing out on that.
Understand this is a bit of hypothesizing as I’ve not looked into Amazon’s code library, though I’ve referred students of mine to it.
There’s two possible ways this is going to play out:
Flagging the novel for return is the software switch that “releases” the book for redistribution. It secondarily flags the novel for deletion on your Kindle, but doesn’t wait for confirmation.
Flagging the novel for return initiates a process that also deletes the novel on your Kindle, but this doesn’t complete until your Kindle reports back that the operation was successful.
If I were a betting man, I would bet option 1 is actually how it works out. It relies on fewer bits of network communication. Option 2 requires a bit more code and has more points of failure.
If you were up for a bit of science, are there late penalties? Return a novel on time, but “wifi-keep” it late. See if you get charged. That will bring some ironclad proof to you.
Unless I’m misreading it, the OP is working under the assumption that as soon as they ‘return’ it, even though it’s still on their Kindle, the next person can borrow it. That would mean more people can read it, not less.
I remember hearing, way back in the day, that Blockbusters had to pay something like $70, per copy, for movies.
Or return the book via the website, as the OP did, but wifi-keep it on the Kindle. Then have somebody else check to see if it’s available for checkout.
Got it. I was working on the assumption that the publisher got royalties per rental by the library, not per copy sold to them.
(also, I see I misread what I quoted anyway)
If that were the case, it would still not be a great thing to do. Because if you can return immediately but keep access, you are probably going to borrow a bunch of things that you might want to read, and your library is going to have to pay the publisher for all of them.
But I’m pretty sure that’s not the model. Publishers just charge libraries a fixed amount for 1 license. It’s a lot more than an individual would pay, because there’s an assumption it will impact sales. The assumption is that the library can lend it out as many times as they want - but only to one person at a time.
I’m sure that (“my” way) isn’t how it works. However I misread the OP or the reply or something made me assume it was the case.
However WRT:
I think that’s basically what the OP was asking. Regardless of my comments, the OP is asking if there is any reasons, specifically ethical reasons, why they shouldn’t continue the practice.
And I addressed that in my first response. You are violating the terms of the license that the publisher sold to the library, and thus taking potential revenue away from the publisher (and thus the author).
This, I believe, is correct. According the the Washington Post (not paywalled for me, and I don’t have a subscription):
A library typically pays between $40 and $60 to license a new e-book adult title, which it can then loan out to one patron at a time, mimicking how physical loans work. Each publisher offers different payment models. Under one, a library only has an e-book for two years or 52 checkouts, whichever comes first. Another agreement covers 26 checkouts per book.
So the library buys the title for a set fee, and can then loan it out x times before it has to ‘rebuy’ it. What the OP is doing shouldn’t be screwing the library or the publisher.
That’s a very odd conclusion to reach. Given that DRM exists, it’s not likely that nobody is going to be penalized by circumventing it.
If the agreement is for a fixed term, it is for one license, on the assumption that only one person can read it at a time. OP’s mechanism allows any number of people to use that one license at the same time. That hurts the publisher (and thus the author).
And OP’s mechanism seems to set up a situation where a borrower might be more inclined to just grab a bunch of books that they might want to read, i.e. more books than they actually read. If the license agreement is for a certain number of checkouts before the library must re-buy, the the library is paying for books that the borrower does not read.
So either the publisher (and author) or the library is hurt by violating the terms of the license.
But I can borrow an ebook and return it later without reading it, right? The borrowing process adds to the libraries count, not the fact that I’ve read it or not.
If all those people use the OP’s mechanism, yes. But as soon as anybody wants to borrow another book and downloads it, the first book is removed from the device.
Sure. But violating the licensing in a manner that makes it more likely that you will do this, and do it more often, is not doing the library any favors.
So what? The licensing agreement is not based on each borrower having access to only one book at a time, regardless of whether multiple borrowers have access to the same book at the same time. If that were the case, the library would only ever need to purchase one license for each book. And the potential impact on sales per license would be much larger for popular books.
Person 1 borrows the book, downloads it to his Kindle, reads it, and returns it.
As soon as Person 1 returns it, Person 2 does the same thing.
And so on through Persons 3 through 10. At the end of this process, there have been 10 checkouts and 10 returns.
If it’s done via the OP’s mechanism:
Person 1 borrows Ebook and downloads it to his Kindle, which he then takes offline. He goes to the website and returns the book. He then reads the book at his leisure.
As soon as Person 1 returns the book, Person 2 borrows it and downloads it to his Kindle, which he then takes offline and returns the book via the website. He then reads the book at his own pace.
And so through Persons 3 through 10. So now there have been 10 checkouts and returns. 10 people have the book on their offline Kindles. And on each of those Kindles, as soon as they go back online, the book disappears.
The bottom line is that in both scenarios the ecopy has been borrowed 10 times and returned 10 times. I fail to see how the OP’s strategy has hurt either the library or the publisher.
Is it an agreement that only one person can read it at a time - or is it an agreement that only one person can borrow it at a time? It’s not the same thing - it would be with a physical book, but it isn’t with an ebook.
And TBH- I don’t think amazon care- because they also give you the option to download the book and transfer it to your kindle via USB. Which means I never have to connect my kindle to wifi and could have hundreds of library books on my Kindle at once. Seems to me that they could have found a way to disable that for library books if they were worried about more than one person having access at a time. rather than worried about how many people had active loans.
too late to edit - Amazon apparently doesn’t care, and either the publisher also doesn’t care or they just accept it as the price of having a Kindle edition available to libraries.
I did this inadvertently. I read the book while flying, with the wifi off, and never turned it on again. I got a notice the loan was expiring, never got charged, and when I did turn the wifi on again the book didn’t vanish.
I don’t use my Kindle much, and it is a very old Kindle if that affects anything.