I have reread your posts. The only takeaway I see from them is that in the two scenarios I outlined, the OP’s method might make the library consider purchasing another copy of the book. This would hurt the library and help the publisher.
Otherwise, I really don’t see much difference.
That is the difference. To a publisher and author that could mean thousands of books across the nation’s libraries. A small theft for you sums up to a large loss for the copyright holders.
No, it would be a boon to the publisher and author, because the libraries would buy more copies of the ebook. It would, however, hurt the libraries.
You’re saying this as though the zero-sum game makes it okay. When something is stolen, of course one party loses and one party gains.
You also missed the part where if readers have to wait their turn to read a library copy of a popular book, they might decide to go out and buy it themselves instead. So violating DRM to allow an unlimited number of people to read a single library copy has an impact on potential sales to consumers, too.
There are no late fees for Kindle books - because there’s no real way to return it “late”. Assuming I was connected to Wifi all the time, it would just disappear from my Kindle automatically on the due date - and simultaneously be available for the next person. I’m finding a “loophole” (in my opinion) by turning off Wifi.
I’ve checked it myself - it’s immediately available for the next patron (or for me, if I wanted to check it out again).
Thanks all, this has been a very interesting discussion.
I must assume that nobody (publishers or library) really cares, because it seems like it would be trivial to encode something in the book that makes it inaccessible after a certain date. Oh, I’m sure there would be other loopholes there too, like changing the date on your Kindle, but that would seem to be even more of a fringe case than the “turn Wifi off” thing I’ve been doing. (Not that this is an “excuse”, if I even need one, but that it seems technically possible.)
What I haven’t really seen yet is a strong, ethical reason to NOT do what I’m doing. I do see lots of good hypotheses on how things work, but nothing definite yet. About the only reason I can come up with is “if I’m returning it immediately, then the next person doesn’t have to wait, whereas they might have gotten tired of waiting and just gone ahead and bought the book, therefore I’m potentially hurting the publisher.” But that doesn’t really seem too likely to me - it seems like there wouldn’t be a lot of overlap between people that use the library to get Kindle books and those that aren’t willing to wait two weeks to read it.
Yes, there’s a related phenomenon that I discovered with Amazon Music, which is a subscription service. It’s a slightly differently model than borrowing a library book, you can listen to anything they have available any time, but there is still DRM & licensing involved. I spend long periods off the grid, both backpacking and in Africa. The app evidently checks in periodically when you’re online to check licensing on the music that you have downloaded for offline access. A short period offline is not a problem, but if you’re offline for too long eventually the licensing verification expires, and you lose access to all your music.
That is what I was going to bring up as why I don’t see an ethical issue. It’s an obvious thing that will inevitably happen (as many people don’t turn on the Wifi on their kindle except when loading books) that they didn’t bother doing anything to prevent. And it requires no deliberate effort on the user do to. Since it would be easy to implement some method to keep it from happening, and they did not do so, they are effectively saying they don’t mind.
I use the same principle for video and audio available on YouTube. The copyright owner could easily stop it, and they haven’t (and often have monetized it), so they clearly are okay with it. The same with a few other sites where they clearly aren’t hiding anything.
I’m actually surprised they don’t, to be honest. I’d have expected a time limit that would be the same as the time limit for an physical book, with the option to renew. For my
local library, that was 2 weeks.
I’ve also encountered the ability to check out books from archive.org, and they limit you to an hour, which seems so utterly ridiculous that I assume they expect you to download it within that hour and return it. Though, admittedly, I’ve never actually tried checking a book out from there. It was more that this told me that the owners must not mind giving away the stuff that is offered for free on the archive.org site if they have other options.
Just a minor nit on this point. This was true in the very early days of home VCRs when movies on videocassette were just becoming available for the first time. Studios at that time were struggling with a pricing model for these things, and the first movie releases on cassette were indeed priced at around that level – for everyone, not just the rental stores. It took a little while – not long – before they smartened up and realized they weren’t going to make a lot of sales at those prices.
I’ve borrowed many books from archive.org. Most have a 14 day return time, but I’ve seen one or two with an hour return time. It’s long enough to look up a reference, or read a short story, but nothing else.
On the other hand, if there’s no waiting list, there’s nothing to stop you checking it out repeatedly.
How do you get to the conclusion that libraries would buy more copies of the ebook? Library purchases are based on popularity, yes, but mainly measured by how many people are on the waiting list. Cheating the system and returning the book immediately shortens the waiting list, letting the library spend their budget on copies of other books instead.
It’s a small, indirect loss per incidence, but if it was common behavior publishers would eventually demand a more rigorous system. That they haven’t isn’t an ethically valid excuse for doing it.
So in your opinion, it would help the libraries for their patrons to enlist in this practice? I assumed that, as more people borrow a book, the library would realize that they need more copies. My experience has been that a long waiting list doesn’t necessarily mean the library will purchase another copy. I’ve waited as long as four months for a recently released best-seller. Yes, I’m cheap.
As the article I linked earlier said, patrons have accounts at multiple libraries. So I don’t think people will go out and buy their own copy of a book, even if there’s a long waiting list.
I should state that I am not advocating this practice. As I said earlier, I don’t think it really helps or harms either the library or the publisher. Obviously, others have come to different conclusions.
Libraries have limited resources, so whether or not additional copies are bought depends on: how many copies they already have of a book
how much room they have left in the budget to adjust their purchases
the length of a waiting list
how long they think this book will be this highly sought after
But if there’s no, or a short, waiting list, they’re not going to buy more copies based on the frequency of loans, or if that’s their current system they’ll change it once they realize the are getting a similar number of loans in the long run, they just happen earlier.
My advice is always to purchase or borrow DRM-free editions. This is really the best practice, and all the bizarre issues never come up.
It is not categorically unethical to crack DRM in order to read a book on a different device or to save a list of references or whatever, but it is entirely possible to sidestep that rabbit hole.
It’s a somewhat self limiting concept as users can’t get any sort of update, new book, or any new content when doing this, and they do not glean any personal benefit from it whatsoever.
I did this one time when I was partway through a book and my loan was ending. My loan ended on time, and I was able to finish reading my book instead of having to wait for a new chance to borrow it.
The impact is indirect and minimal, it’s no more unethical than not putting coins in the parking meter when there’s still 15min left from the last person to park there.
There are no late penalties. Electronic books are automatically returned at their due date. At least, that’s how it works with the two libraries I can get e-books from. I never proactively return an e-book, I always just wait for the library to take it back.
I can be very slow to get around the reading stuff. I routinely check out library books on my kindle and then just keep them there until I get around to reading them, often weeks after they were “due”. It means I can’t load anything new onto the kindle, because as soon as I connect to wifi, the library book will go away. But that’s okay, I have books in my queue to read.
I have checked, and the book is definitely available to be checked out again when my term expires.
For purchases, I agree, and I rarely buy an e-book unless it comes DRM-free, or I can crack the DRM. If I wanted to buy a book at all, I don’t want it to go away when the DRM breaks or gets corrupted over time. But for library books… meh, nothing is going to break in the month I might use the book, and I planned to give it back anyway.
If everyone immediately returned their ebook loans it would actually hurt publishers and authors. It would be a hurt that added up with each “offense”. And doing so would be against the agreements the patrons made when they signed up for a library card. (I assume, if not it’s a loophole they really should fix so that this ethics discussion becomes easier.)
Are there parking spots that have Terms of Use, rather than “register your license plate and pay”-systems, demanding you be the one who paid the parking fee? If not, it’s not the same at all.
Yes, if everyone decided to neuter their electronic device so that someone they don’t know can read a book a week earlier, then this would be a problem.