too long for a tweet

If the sense of entitlement that people have regarding ebooks was somehow transported back in time, it would have our patrons calling us each time they found a word in a book they didn't understand.

Which they did, now that I think of it. But not nearly as many would have called as those who call about every tiny aspect of their ebook devices.

So what would be comparable between NOW and THEN and how would the libararian have handled it?

NOW.
"I downloaded the wrong ebook."

Oh, that's okay; it happens. I'll fix it for you.

THEN. [Possibly pre-1980 library.]
"I checked out the wrong book."

What? Are you a fucking idiot? You had the book in your hands for probably five minutes and you waited in a line to check it out and then you gave your library card to a library employee, and at no point during this time did you question whether this was the wrong book? What the fuck happened when you got home? The book didn't keep the table from wobbling? What the fuck made it the wrong book? What new information do you have when you got home that told you it was the wrong book? What an asshole. Can you understand this makes you look like an asshole? Yes? Okay, which book did you mean to borrow? Okay, let me got get it. I'll hold it here at the desk and since this is the past, gas is probably pretty cheap, so you can drive back over here and get it. Don't forget to bring the other book with you! Oh, no, you will forget. So go put it in the car now. Then go eat your lunch or whatever you need to do that will somehow cause you to forget to come and pick up this book. It's okay; I have nothing better to do than carry books back and forth to the stacks. Fuck you.

NOW.
"I downloaded the book, but I can't find where it went."

Oh, that's okay; it happens. I'll find it for you.

THEN.
"I just checked out a book, but I can't find it."

Did you call the police and file a report? Because the library will block your account if you don't return that book or if you don't give us a copy of the police report. And when we block your account, it stays blocked. Forever. Even if the library ever gets computers and you think that the records will just start all over again, they won't. Or even if you move away for ten years and then come back, you'll be blocked. We remember these things because a librarian never forgets the asshole who loses a library book.

NOW.
"I just got this ereader, but I don't know how to use it."
THEN.
"I just checked out this book, but I don't know how to use it."

[Past and Present librarians, in unison, as the time-streams merge.]

Give me that so I can beat you to death with it. Asshole.

FASTER patron-driven acquisitions (PDA): a library model

OUR LIBRARY has pioneered what we believe is the first program of its kind in patron-driven acquisitions.

One of the problems with most library collections is that although they may be extensive, they can never be complete.  And when the patron requests books on a topic, for example, "theoretical experimental particle physics," although the library may pride itself on its exhaustive collection, with current on-demand and online publishing it can't ever call its collection complete.  So when the patron is given ten current books on "theoretical experimental particle physics," it is still a common occurrence whereby the patron will respond with infantile disappointment.

So the current model of collection development is broken.  Libraries can't ever hope to meet every need. We buy and buy, but it's never enough for some people.  So our library has adopted a new model that reduces our inability to fulfill our patrons' requests down to nearly zero.  If the material exists, we can get it.

Here is a typical PDA transaction at our library:

The patron has expressed a need for some online content and the librarian assesses the system requirements of the content and the system configuration held by the patron  to verify a match. When a match is found, for example, an iPad, the librarian will initiate the purchase by locating the item in the app and downloading it to the patron's device.

"Enter your password."

"But..."

"This is how it works. Just do it."

"Okay..."

"Now tap that."

"But.."

"And it's downloading to your iPad.  And you can read it right now.  Pretty cool, huh."

"But I didn't want to spend *my* money!  That book was four *hundred* dollars!"

"But the library already spends your money through the taxes you pay.  This is faster."

"You DICK!"

As you can see from the model, the patron gets what they want, when they want it, but the cost to the library has also been reduced to nearly zero.

The uniqueness of this model is that the library does not spend any money, at all, for the item.  The content is delivered to the patron utilizing her own funds.

Patrons get their content when they want it and the library doesn't need to waste staff time creating payment systems for the various e-content retail outlets because the patrons already has those accounts configured on their own devices.

The previous model of collection building by purchasing (leasing) large expensive online products proved over the years to create a WIN-LOSE situation for libraries where patrons WIN by having access to vast online materials, but libraries LOSE by paying yearly maintenance fees to keep the content access current. This model creates a LOSE-WIN situation for the library.

The LOSE-WIN model, where patrons PAY money for their content when they want it is a BIG WIN for our library.  

Libraries can never anticipate demand for any book or magazine.  And other PDA models still suffered from the universal weakness of using library money for something that only one person wants.  Giving patrons the power to buy what they want when they want it with someone else's money was turning them into assholes and we believe this model corrects that behavior.

We believe that the patron-driven/patron-payment (PDPP) model satisfies many libraries' needs for faster delivery of content to their users.  Maybe you will, too.

They made me a criminal

So I'm guessing that you're looking forward to the day when the only use you'll have for paper is that you wipe your ass with it.  That you'll do and read everything on your iPad or Kindle or Galaxy or Nexus something something.

And before you shout out, "Wipe your, WHAT?" and earn yourself the nickname Skidmarks McGee, let me explain that in most places in the USA, people use paper to wipe their asses after they poop.  You can see cartoon bears give lessons on TV every day.

But if you prefer not to wipe, I can tell you that if you spray your ass with WD-40, you won't have to wipe at all because nothing sticks. And if you spray a generous coating of"butter-flavor" PAM cooking spray, people will smell you and think you just baked cookies.

Here are your differences between paper books and electronic books, in case you forgot, since that's what this post about, and not ass-wiping:

PAPER BOOK
tear it: no penalty
sell it: no penalty (unless it was intended for foreign markets - see below)
lend it: no penalty
wipe your ass with it: the respect of your peers

ELECTRONIC BOOK
reverse engineer it: sued, fined, prosecuted
copy it: sued, fined, prosecuted
share it: sued, fined, prosecuted
modify it: sued, fined, prosecuted

But my asshole friends in the library world tell me that they can get around any protections the industry builds into the format.  Well, fuckety-do to you, Mr, Wizard.  What you're doing is illegal or actionable in a court of law.  And considering the desperation within the publishing industry, I'm guessing that someone is getting fucked by them pretty soon.  Probably not you, but maybe that student you showed how to do all your wizardy stuff.  And if you show someone how to do illegal stuff, they might come looking for you, too.
All this shit is illegal.  Everything we've come to expect from paper is now illegal to do with electronic.  They did the same thing with analog and digital music: copy one and you're fine; share the other and you're fined.

But this is the BIG QUESTION:
Why create a system where the only way I can benefit from it makes me a criminal?

And even bigger, WHY don't you care?

In just a few short years, we went from a country of people who value privacy to a group who just doesn't give a fuck.

Well, GIVE A FUCK! 

This country was founded on giving a fuck.  But I see that lately we feel it's not our place.  We just do what we're told.  Because we're just glad to have a job or be out of jail or have a place to shit.

I don't know what happened to us, but I don't like it.  And like many of you, I barely have two fucks to rub together.  But that means I have one fuck, so I'm giving it.

And if that's not bad enough that we get fucked by technology, we're starting to get fucked by geography.  As an example, if Apple releases a limited edition red iPad in China, but you want one so bad, you know, because you're stupid, that you buy one online or have a friend bring you one or whatever, you WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO HAVE YOUR IPAD SERVICED BY APPLE LOCALLY without the very real threat that will confiscate it because it wasn't meant to be sold here.  Unless you can show you currently live in China.

For years, we've had Regions for DVDs.  We live in Region 1.  And if you try to play a DVD from a different Region, the odds are pretty good that your DVD player will reject it and not play it.  But if you can play those DVDs with a "region-free" player, you might have a collection of Korean or wherever DVDs that you got because they were cheaper or of versions of movies never released in the US, and not on Netflix.  So if these were never intended for the US market, can I ever resell them?

So this isn't just about books or music or movies.  This is about corporations publicly encouraging global commerce, while lobbying for legislation to restrict local commerce.  They want the benefits of cheap labor and and economic growth in emerging markets while still controlling prices and supplies in existing markets.

The message to me seems to be: Buy our Product! Now, Go Fuck Yourself.

Why do we put up with that?

why your ebook is not a book

People mistake ebooks for books. In reality, an ebook is a data collection tool dressed up in a moderately entertaining narrative.

This is why used ebooks don't work: How do you reset this data collection tool when it's resold to another user? 

The original purchaser of the ebook most likely used a credit card to buy it.  And an email address.  And possibly an iTunes, Facebook or Twitter or other online social media account that allowed the purchaser to share quotes, thoughts and critiques from the reading of the data collection tool dressed up in a moderately entertaining narrative..

Kobo is just starting conversations with publishers about sharing its data. "Publishers are asking, 'What are people engaging with, and how are they engaging?'" - source

"We do have people tell us that what they love about Kobo is that they can sit on the subway and no one knows what they're reading – it does provide some element of privacy." 

I guess. Until the publisher decides to promote the title to all the other readers through the reader or an app on an interactive billboard: "Someone is being naughty and lingering on p. 142 of Fifty Shades of Grey. Quick, everyone, download the book now and see what's got someone on the train with you all hot and bothered."

"Gathered data is aggregated and anonymous." Right. If you say so.  But like any device that can deliver content, an ereader is just another tracking device for computers to monitor our every movements: 
Where were you when you read that book for 90 minutes?  At the airport?  2,000 miles from the address we have on file for you?  [At this point, the computer is programmed to go, Hmm.]  How many other devices were near this one?  Can we assume these people know each other?  Let's see if we can find other locations where these devices have been in proximity to each other. [The computer makes yummy sounds.]

So if publishers begin to allow users to sell pre-owned ebooks, then what will happen when all this data get dirty with other users?  Users whose credit cards are not known because the transaction was done through a third party? Now all those reading patterns and locations become worthless.

So enjoy your tracking device. And know that when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.  And tells you what to read next.

ebooks as a commodity. yes, like pork bellies.

For those of you who walk everywhere and get their nutrition from sunlight and are naked, you may not be aware of what Commodities are and how they affect EVERY FUCKING INFINITESIMAL ASPECT OF YOUR LIVES, here is a brief explanation: Rich People Suck.

If you're unfamiliar with the Commodities market, it covers all the items one needs to live. What occurs in the market is that if you want to live a long, healthy, productive life, then prices for these commodities will go up. If you want to suffer and die in pain and horror, then prices also go up.

Commodities cover your basic resources such as iron ore, crude oil, coal, salt, sugar, coffee beans, soybeans, aluminum, copper, rice, wheat, gold, silver, palladium, platinum, cotton, orange juice, cocoa, sugar, wheat, corn, barley, pork bellies, milk, feedstuffs, fruits, vegetables, other grains, other beans, hay, other livestock, meats, poultry, and eggs.

Commodities are basically a way for the rich to profit from consumer demand. Unlike getting a Nickelback tee-shirt on clearance because nobody wanted to buy it at regular price, the price of cotton goes up simply because the shirt was produced. Damn you, Nickelback! (I don't know anything about Nickelback; I've just heard that you, the internet, don't like them. -- Okay, I just did a search and I have heard of them.. I've heard the song Never Again.)

So long as the population on the planet grows, demand will increase, and prices will rise. You don't really need to understand more than that.

So is it any surprise that Random House is attempting to also make ebooks into a commodity?

Read this:
"We believe that pricing to libraries must account for the higher value... Therefore, Random House believes it has greater value, and should be priced accordingly."

And this, "We are requesting data that libraries can share about their patrons’ borrowing patterns that over time will better enable us to establish mutually workable pricing levels that will best serve the overall e-book ecosystem.”
(click for source)

That sounds to me like Random House wants to price ebooks according to demand and not based on the average price of an ebook or what it costs to produce it. In fact, in every other instance of retail sales, increased demand sparks greater discounts. The latest bestsellers get up to 40% off, DVDs are on sale the week they come out, etc.

Ebooks are not Gold, but Random House seems to think they should be.

And they expect libraries to tell them which books we want them to charge us the most for... They're pretty much saying that they know that $100 for an ebook is too much, and they want libraries to turn over all the lending data so they can reduce the price to $79.99. And thus, make libraries a partner in our anal savaging when we should just tell them to go fuck themselves with their own unabridged dictionary. Sideways.

You can argue about library relevance and how ebooks are the New Messiah, and how we'll all be saved if we just accept ebooks into our hearts, but you're a crazy person, anyway, and nobody likes you. We still live in a world where most of the people are illiterate, or functionally literate. And if you thought about it for more than five seconds, you'd understand what the real purpose of the library should be. And it ain't about getting a copy of Fifty Shades of Grey for those thirty horny women who just asked for it because think they might like some S&M, but would scream out loud if you were making out and accidentally leaned on their hair.

Oh, God, have you read any of this book? Fifty Shades of Grey? Read this and tell me it wasn't written by a sixteen-year-old girl:

“Does this mean you’re going to make love to me tonight, Christian?”
“No, Anastasia it doesn’t. Firstly, I don’t make love. I fuck… hard."

Well, duh. Does anyone fuck soft? We all fuck hard. But seriously, even librarians fuck hard. Just look on the internets for fuck videos. Everyone is banging away like they're trying to frighten the dog. If I were Anastasia, I wouldn't be so impressed by how hard Christian fucks, but for how long. "Anastasia, I fuck hard... for eight seconds. Then I grunt, fart and fall asleep."

Shit. Where was I? Oh, right. Fuck you, Random House.

FREEDOM shouldn't be a CRIME.

FILE STRIPPING is not PORN.

But DRM STRIPPING is going to become the biggest thing on the internet. Not as big as porn, but still. BIG. Why is it BIG? Because file stripping equals freedom. The freedom to lend an ebook to your friend.

This is because as the growth in ebook demand continues to increase, access to legitimately free ebooks is decreasing. The reason is that the Big Six publishers are fucking stupid. If you want to borrow an ebook from one of the Big Six, your ability to get it from the library is down to almost zero.

Of the B6:

1. Random House reportedly just raised their ebook prices to libraries by a million per cent. Or it might as well be, since we ain't gonna fucking pay it.
2. Penguin cut sales to libraries altogether.
3. HarperCollins limits how many times an ebook can circulate before the library needs to buy another copy, so we don't shop there, either.
4. Macmillan doesn't sell to libraries.
5. Simon & Schuster doesn't.
6. Hachette don't neither.

If you don't know what means, the current NYT bestseller for fiction is Private Games by James Patterson and Mark Sullivan which is published by Hachette. So libraries won't get it. Kill Shot by Vince Flynn from Simon & Schuster is #2. And The Wolf Gift by Anne Rice is from Random House. Do I need to go on? We won't be getting any of these books for our patrons to borrow to for their ereaders or mobile devices.

Now, what happens when you take all the ereader and tablet and laptop users who have been behaving like good citizens by borrowing their ebooks from the library and you cut off their legal supply? They're going to get their fixes from the Dark Side of the internet. Or from each other.

Hey, Marge, Carol says, I just got Blah, blah blah, on my reader, do you want a copy?

Oh, I get my books from the library, Carol replies.

Not any more, Marge declares. The library can't buy any new books. The only way you're getting a copy is to buy one. Or not buy one.

Fuckity fuck! Carol curses because she's a regular library user. And then she says with a wink, Can I not buy one from you?

Ebook lending between individuals is going to explode when the legitimate supply dries up. When publishers remove the library from the supply channel, this flow of goods will just find a new route. And it ain't gonna mean more money for publishers.

Yes, I know all these people are going to steal the books, anyway. Libraries can't possibly satisfy the reading wants for 25 million people even when we are able to buy all the ebooks we want.

So why don't the B6 publishers care? Dunno.

Maybe they have a backup plan. Maybe they plan to sue Carol and Marge for $500,000 for each ebook they lend to each other. But how would they know?

Maybe the ereader knows? I mean, can an ereader tell which book you're reading by comparing the screen displays from a legal copy of a book and an illegal, stripped one? Even if you removed all the identifying markers from an ebook, the text is still the same; page 20 is page 20. Can an ereader detect which pixel configuration belongs to each book just by scanning the layout of page 20? And then determining that your copy was stolen? Again, dunno.

But what are library users to do when publishers make them criminals by removing this important legal access channel? Vive la libération!

and yes, I understand you can lend some ebooks to your friends, within limits, which can change, without notice... and if you've used it, how does Booklending work? it just uses the Amazon rules to allow you to lend a book to a stranger?

Each and every ebook costs $99.

I hadn't read the recent Cracked article on ebooks, but I just did and now I understand that every ebook you buy costs you $99. Or $79. Or whatever it was you paid for your ereader.

And this is what told me: #7. You Need Physical Books for Physical Tasks

One of the reasons they say that physical books are better than ebooks is for when you need a physical object. And this is the key. A book is a physical object. And an ereader is a physical object. It doesn't matter that it holds 3,000 ebooks; it's still one object.

If you have a portable ereader or an iPad or a smart phone or even a laptop, then each and every ebook you put on that device costs as much as the device.

There is no way to average out the cost of all your books when you drop your reader in the toilet. You don't pay 3 cents to Amazon or Barnes & Noble each time you open a book. You pay $79 or $99 or $199 up front and it's up to you to find the most cost-effective way to use the thing.

You can get print books and each one of those costs exactly what you pay for it, ten cents or two-hundred dollars. And you make decisions on how and where and to whom to lend or when to read those books. And each individual physical book has its own worth.

But if you get mad and throw your ebook at someone: $99.
If you use your ebook to shelter your new haircut from the rain: $99.
If you use your ebook to keep the table from wobbling: $99.
If you repurpose your ebook as a Christmas tree ornament: $99.
If you hollow out your ebook to use as a bong: $99.
If Neil Gaiman scribbles his autograph across your ebook screen in Sharpie: $99.
If you write your phone number on the corner of your ebook and tear it off: $99.

Because you still have to replace the device no matter how many books it held.

So don't try to trick yourself into thinking that the device gets cheaper with each book you load on it. It doesn't. You're just bad at math.

... and other BAD IDEAS libraries have had

These are some BAD IDEAS that librarians have had. And I'll start with ebooks. Because I know you love them.

Fact: ebooks are a bad idea. For everyone.

ebooks are bad because of our 21st Century sense of entitlement. The internet has changed how we feel about everything. Meaning that we've become thieves and any legitimate deal that doesn't support our criminal nature is a bad one. Have you ever downloaded a song that you should have paid for? Ripped a CD? DVD? Stripped DRM? Then I'm speaking to you, hoodlum.

We, meaning you, are a generation who feels that if we can do something, we should do it. And computers make much of this really easy. It used to be that only the rich had the power to exploit the labors of others, but thanks to the internet, we can all do it.

But we don't have that control with ebooks.

So let's compare an ebook to a (printed/paper) pbook:

ebooks

1. leased, never owned
2. some publishers won't sell to libraries
   
3. online storage and access is expensive
4. must lease new copy when the original reaches its lending limit
5. patrons can’t donate used copies to library
6. can’t trade or sell excess copies
7. no free prepubs
8. seemingly no staff time required for reshelving, repairing, labeling
9. lots of staff time spent on instruction
   
10. no Dewey
11. no need to dispose of anything since you don't own anything to begin with
12. TSA will stop you and check your ereader to make sure it's not a bomb

pbooks

1. purchased outright, but often leased
2. we buy what we want
   
3. brick and mortar storage and access is expensive
   
4. must purchase new copy when the original reaches its maximum damage limit
5. can accept some donations for collection and most donations for “book sale” shelf
6. can do whatever the hell we want with excess copies
7. boxes of prepubs no one will ever read
8. lots of staff time for shelving
   
9. all reading levels are welcome
   
10. some Dewey required
11. endless used book sales
12. a hollowed-out dictionary is a great place to hide a gun

Hmm. There's no clear winner, there, is there? Not a winner based on this simple comparison, but probably a winner if you gave each answer a point value. And that's the key; librarians give 1,000 points to Ownership and Control and then give maybe 5 points to Ability to sell unneeded copies.

We want electronic books to behave exactly like print books. We want the control we have over print, but without all the hassle of print. So ebooks are bad for librarians because we really don't know how to make them work for us in the library. Even though there are many other things we pay for but down own. Here other things we lease that most librarians don’t think of as bad ideas: buildings. online resources. computer hardware. software licenses. copiers. internet access.

So it really just comes down to convenience. ebooks are a convenient format for some people, but a pretty big pain in the ass for libraries to manage. Yet you love them. You must be a cat person.

And now here is a mix of BAD and GOOD ideas about ebooks:

How eBooks can help or hurt libraries.
I don't know which, yet, because I don't think anyone is doing this stuff.

What ebooks can do for libraries is solve demand problems. What we need is to negotiate short-term, high-use contracts. We need 200 copies of each bestseller for 5 weeks. But I don't know any way to figure out what would be a fair cost for this.

And we should also find a way to negotiate directly with publishers so we can have more control of our ebooks. What if we told a publisher, "We'll give you access to our circulation statistics so you can figure out what to charge for your back catalog. Why? you ask. Did you know that Agatha Christie's The Murder at the Vicarage circulated 12x more than The Murder of Roger Ackroyd? Libraries have that information; you don't. If you try to price everything the same, it's not going to move nearly as well as if you price it according to demand. But with this data, you can price according to demand." Is this a GOOD or BAD idea? I have no idea.

We'll let you put ads in our ebooks. In the past, you've put ads in our print books. We, we didn't let you do it, but we didn't complain.

And to keep my promise, here are some other really BAD IDEAS that librarians have:

Hiring someone who's still in library school for a position that doesn't require a degree. Because you know that person isn't going to stay in that position for long and you're just going to have to hire and train a whole new person. I hate being put in a position where the most qualified person for the job is currently in school so she can get a better job 5-6 months down the road. Frankly, I don't want to hire her because I know I'm going to need to fill her spot so soon.

I always think it's a BAD idea to sell your the naming of your library to some rich person. Unless, as I've said before, you get $50 million for the privilege. But anything less and you're ripping off your taxpayers. Basically, you've sold out everyone in your community who pays to support the library. They're now supporting some rich dude's legacy.

And then how can you reward your local hero? You can save 100 children from a burning building and you won't get your name on that library. You could single-handledly stop an alien invasion, and no library. You could kick Donald Trump in the balls and still, no library. Although I think you might be able to negotiate a Turnpike service plaza: "Hey, ma, the Kicked Donald Trump in the Balls service plaza is coming up; can we stop and get some chicken?" (but for legal reasons, please don't kick Donald Trump in the balls.)

When there is nothing left to digitize.

I remember when we used to lease our home telephone. It was on the wall in the kitchen.

SPOILER ALERT.
SIT DOWN.
TAKE A DEEP BREATH.
THINK HAPPY THOUGHTS.
THE NEXT LINE OF COMMUNICATION MIGHT ALARM YOU.

It was our only phone.

Way back in the dark ages of communications history, you didn't own your own telephone, BellSouth or one of the other companies leased it to you for a couple of bucks a month. That's why everyone remembers having an olive green or lemon yellow or fire orange wall phone or pink "princess" phone or black or clay desk phone because everyone got one of six phone colors. So over time, you ended up paying about $600 for that 5-pound hunk of metal and plastic. And if you ever moved and forgot to return it to the phone company, they would hunt you down and take your first-born son. If you don't follow the rules, someone comes to take it away.

But that was my first experience with owning something without owning it. We'd never "rented to own" our furniture or TV. Our piece of shit car was ours for the $50 my dad paid for it.

But now that I'm out in the business world, I see so much more that our business owns but doesn't own. We lease everything.

So why do I feel a sudden outrage over our leasing of ebooks that I don't feel over, say, some Dun & Bradstreet business directory that we've leased for years? Why do I suddenly feel like I need to have total ownership of that copy of Franzen's Freedom that I don't feel when I box up the D&B and send it back to the publisher?

And what about electronic journals? Why didn't I get upset when the New York Times pulled some of its content from one of our subscriptions? Or why don't I post petitions online to complain when other magazines and econtent become licensed to a single distributor and we get locked out unless we want to break existing contracts, or simply pay more for something we used to offer under the old contracts? As a librarian, it would seem that I should be more upset by all the restrictions and terms of service I need to agree to follow than I am now. How pissed off are you?

The answer is simple: It's because we lend books. Libraries should always have the freedom to lend materials to anyone. I was going to say 'without restrictions,' but that would be stupid: libraries make plenty of rules about lending that we expect our borrowers to follow.

But we lend. And we don't want to be told how to do it.

We can also see the daily use of ebooks and the impact not having a proper supply means to the borrowers. When something is popular, we miss it when it's gone. We also look for ways to exploit the supply: we might shorten the lending period for popular materials. But the decision is ours. We don't being locked into someone else's restrictions.

So that's the real problem with ebooks. Because we lend them like printed books, we feel we should retain that same freedom to which we've grown accustomed.

But as you can see, the problems with leases have been around for many years. Libraries simply don't own all the materials we pay to use. We can't afford to own it all. So we lease. But it's with ebooks that many librarians have suddenly become aware of the problems associated with leasing. And they don't like them.

So. What to do?

Some people are saying to own them, anyway. To claim that each ebook is a purchase and to apply Fair Use to them and lend them with the same freedoms we expect from printed works. But that seems like a lot of work. You'd need to host your titles, break DRM, set up a secure distribution channel, avoid copyright violations, manage lending periods and dodge the cops.

Which is all good if we can prove ownership. But if we don't own it to start, then where can Fair Use help? Simple: If you own it, digitize it. If you don't own it, don't.

Some librarians say to digitize what we can and distribute what we can. These are the things we're not good at since we've been relying on other parties for these services for so long, the digitizing and hosting and distributing. So, we'll see what happens next. Although there's a slim chance there won't be anything left to digitize if we wait too long.

The What Ifs? are these: what if publishers continue to move all content to digital? And what if we, in order to save space, discard all of our print? And what if we just lease and no longer own any of the resources we have in our libraries? And what if some corporation digitizes everything first? And what if Copyright extends to grant greater protections to orphaned works so that no one could be sure what was in the public domain and what wasn't? What if there was nothing left that we could digitize, legally?

Libraries could make other arrangements. There are thousands, tens of thousands, of people who would gladly make their works available to libraries freely if they had some assurances that they would retain their copyrights and that they could retain some control over their works in the rare case that something they created became valuable. Hell, I would let libraries distribute my books so long as they didn't print out pages just to wipe their patrons' asses with them. So yes, there are real digital issues worth fighting for right now.

But as far as what we should do with ebooks now? I'd like to see a total boycott. Now that publishers can see how much $$$ we have to spend, we should boycott all ebooks. Stop all orders until we get terms we want.

Yeah, I know you won't do that. Because you're afraid. Or maybe you're a pussy. Or because it's unrealistic for me to try to simplify the issues of fair use and ownership down to a Yes / No decision.

But this is the truth: we need to stop "buying" ebooks right now. And we need to use that money to attract agreements that are compatible with our print lending policies.

We need ebook leasing, but in a way that benefits us: we need to be able to pay a fee for unlimited lending for ebooks for a fixed period.

We also need ebook ownership for the copies we purchase.

But we're not going to get it.

I don't have any manifesto for this. Except for you to spend your money wisely: Don't get ripped off.

Amazon's Big Ass Library

News: Amazon copies the Public Library business model. And adds fees. The story is that Amazon is going to lend ebooks. And everyone says this is bad for libraries.

I don't know why Amazon didn't do this sooner. Here's what could have happened at any time: Let's say Amazon creates the Amazon Lending division and the Lending division buys ebooks from the Amazon Bookseller division. Amazon could lend those ebooks for $2 a week and make... $2 a week minus $10 cost per ebook, is $94 a year. Or given the short lifespan of a book, $47 for six months. So Amazon can make $47 dollars on each ebook it buys from itself.

And since Amazon the Bookseller creates the demand for the books in the first place by pushing them to the front page, it can target the most profitable books to purchase for its Lending division and not waste money on dogs. But given how the web page works, it can buy and rent pretty much anything at any time. "Buy Now for $9.99 or Rent Now for $2.00 a week." I don't think publishers would even be able to keep track of the bookkeeping.

Publishers could have complained. But since Amazon sells more of their books than any other outlet, they wouldn't complain for too long after Amazon gently, but purposefully, squeezed their balls.

What's funny is that libraries have been doing this for years. But without the $2 a week. The only thing Amazon adds to the Library plan is the rental fee. And Amazon's massive global presence. And the ball-squeezing thing.

Amazon's Subscription-based Lending Library vs. the Public Library.

Amazon: Thems that can join is thems that can pay.

Library: All are welcome. Even you.

Amazon: As quickly as possible, regardless of cost.

Library: As cheaply as possible, no matter the delay.

Amazon: We track every word you read. And we can tell which ones you don't understand. Don't you know what spurious means by now? God, my kid knows that.

Library: We couldn't give two fucks whether you borrow Catcher in the Rye. Or if you read, What's Up with Down There? (a guide to your lady parts) and it's companion, What's Wrong with my Dong? (a guide to dude stuff).

Well, actually that last two have wifi keyloggers that gather your Facebook profile if you keep the anywhere near a computer or smartphone. But that's just something I did. For research, not for spying. But I won't tell anyone that you checked them out. Except in my library school thesis. You know, for research.

Whenever our library would bring up charging for services in the past, the plan would always get shot down. The purpose of the library is to provide free services, was always the reason. It didn't matter that ALL real world examples had a cost. Book and movie rentals, computer use, instructional programs, research, all incur some cost in the real world.

So in the middle of a fucking recession, with this Amazon new, libraries are being told that people would rather pay than wait.

So watching TV, I see that most people still have $70/mo for a phone. And $8/mo for Netflix. And $6/mo. for Amazon Prime. But no one seems to have fucking dime for libraries.

Everyone says that libraries have become obsolete because people only want to pay for the things they want; there is no longer a common good. And I've also heard that people shouldn't be forced to pay for something that a private company could supply. Like private roads? Private armies? Because I'm sure you could find some company willing to keep the road in front of your house in good shape if you cough up $5 a day. And if you don't cough loud enough, I'm sure a good ball-squeeze is on the menu.

So you have librarians all shouting how library lending is dead because Amazon is willing to sell the same product that libraries could provide for free if only everyone would shut the fuck up and just pay their $8/mo. in library fees so that we can continue providing books to everyone. Oh, wait, and for that same $8 you get children's programs and online newspapers and computer classes and yoga and reading clubs and meeting space and internet access and music and SO MUCH OTHER SHIT it's not possible to calculate it all. If only you fuckers would just pay your fucking taxes.

But what these librarians are saying is that the book lending model for libraries is dead. Much like how the VHS and DVD lending model perished years ago when Blockbuster and then Netflix and then Redbox appeared. What? That part of library lending is stronger than ever? In fact, Redbox is only $1 and Blockbuster has repeatedly lowered prices AND Netflix users are quitting the service because prices increased?

So what is it about Amazon's model that will kill libraries? Is it the Kindle? So a business model that requires members to spend $114 upfront (for the cheapest Kindle) and then keep a valid credit card on record AND continue to pay $8 to $30 a month is going to beat out a FREE service?

What it will most likely do is allow libraries to get the same deal as Amazon and allow us to lease ebooks from publishers. So then the library will be able to lease 200 ebook copies of Stieg Larsson's ghost-written but based on his notes, second series of novels to fill demand. And then six months later, return them all and buy something else. And when libraries get the power to lease ebooks for one-fifth the cost of purchasing them, then we'll have the power to deliver content to our patrons and near-Kindle immediacy but without the added cost.

I'll say this again; if libraries could only manage to pool all the money, would could get publishers to give us what we want. Because this is tens of millions of dollars. Or even hundreds of millions. I don't have a calculator, but it's a lot. We could offer any book or movie or song to anyone at any time in any format.

Amazon isn't big because they're better. They're big because of that name: Amazon. It's a big damn river. It's the biggest river on Earth. So we'll need to come up with a bigger name for our combined national library. How about Library Planet? Or The Big Fucking Library? I'll leave the naming up to you.

But The Big Fucking Library would look great on borrower cards.

Quotes 50¢

The digitized book or periodical is opening the door to all new potential revenue streams. Because digitization means info mining becomes easier; I can find any fact or word or phrase in any published work in only a few seconds.

Previously, a publisher or author could quote a source and give credit within the work to create payment: I cite you and give credit and you have no legal right to complain.

You published your book and maybe it made some money, but mostly, it didn't. And the source felt no bitterness at losing a piece of a pie that was never made.

But now, each and every word can be isolated and tracked and highlighted and aggregated and analyzed and valued. So then, if each and every word can have value, where does "fair use" end? The threat of an accusation of plagiarism is no longer enough. Is there now a point where compensation is required?

Let's say I quote you in my book. And you make the argument that there is a greater need for creators to know how much of their work is being shared or read or highlighted or critiqued than there is for the reader to retain her privacy, then a site like Amazon would be required to turn over statistics for which of your words are increasing in value.

I quote you. And my book becomes popular. And you find out that people are quoting you from the quote they found in my book. You could go back to my publisher and demand payment for what has now increased in value. Fair Use ends when it's no longer Fair. And you might take me to court to prove that it's no longer fair. And then others would let the courts decide where fairness ends and payment begins.

The point is, that when bits and pieces of longer works leave the pack to stand on their own, then there could be a reason to side with the creator and rule that money needs to change hands.

Can you imagine reading an ebook and suddenly finding that one of you favorite quotes has disappeared because the author didn't pay?

WTF is this?

What would I think of a book when I grow up in a world where all reading is done on an electronic device? I'm trying to imagine how I might perceive the book if I've never experienced one, if every book I ever read was on a dedicated reader or a tablet or other device. I mean, I would be able to read. I'd know what words are, but I've just never seen a story printed on paper and bound into a book.

(I think it might go a little something like this...)

I tap the cover of The Grouchy Ladybug, but nothing happens. Tap. Tap. Tap. Poke. Poke. Poke Poke PokePokePokePokePoke. I pinch and spread, pinch and spread. The ladybug doesn't talk or move or offer me a discount coupon for Doritos or say my name. The colors are bright, but I like my screen brighter. But I don't see any settings to change to increase the brightness. The picture throws off some glare and isn't as easy to read as my reader with the latest electronic ink firmware.

The text on the back doesn't resize not matter what I try. I slide my finger across the front over and over and over, but the picture never advances to a new screen. This sucks.

I pull open the front board and tear the thin covering and it goes "Shhhrrrrtt" as it rips. The covering has the same picture on it as the hard board underneath. What the hell is that about?

I finally get the board up by lifting it. It's hinged and it swings open like door which is pretty simple.

Now the sliding works. I can slide across a picture to advance the screen. But there's no control and I seem to jump ahead too far. Did you ever play Poker? With real cards like in Las Vegas? That's what you have to do to get these things to move. Like fanning a deck of cards, you have to use your index finger and thumb to separate the sheets to move them one at a time.

Again, nothing works. No tapping, spreading, swiping.

And holy crap! What is this? There are sheets that aren't even the same size. The sheets get bigger and bigger in sequence and they have tiny analog clocks up on top like that retro clock app that everyone has. There is stuff on both sides of the sheets. Some full-colored artwork on one side and text on the other.

And as I advance the pages, the text is now getting really big. How the hell did that happen? There's a picture of an elephant and the text is really big, and then next to a picture of a whale, the text is really, really huge. Like the text adjusts itself to match the art. That seems really cool. I wonder how they did that.

Okay, I finally figured this out. Flip. Flip. Forward. Reverse. The pages change as fast as I can flip with no lag between images. I'm not sure what the processor is, but it's fast.

This thing's pretty interesting, but I don't see any way to turn it off. It will probably turn itself off when the battery gets low.

The ebook impasse?

If you're a librarian, you don't need me to explain the current uproar within the library lending ebook community now that one publisher has drawn a line in the lending-model sand.

Some library folks have rightly declared shenanigans. And someone from the other side has responded. And the general view in libraryland toward this new pricing model is Fuck You. And the publishers seem to be saying, "Right back at 'cha."

And this is all our fault. We gave money for a shitty product. We always buy shitty products. As consumers, we don't have many choices. We often have to pick from elephant shit or cow shit or pig shit. And the conversations within the committess sound like this:

"This elephant shit is very dense which could make it more durable."
"But this pig shit is so spreadable."

But ultimately we're always left with shit.

Regarding ebooks, some say that accepting DRM limitations from the start was a bad move and that we should have demanded unlimited access and open formats.

And others refer back to even the dawn of ILS software, automation, cataloging, MARC records, etc., where libraries became dependent on outside vendors to provide content and services, pointing out that this dependence forced libraries into a weakened bargaining position and limited future choices.

And again, this is because librarians are weak negotiators. Many of us work for the public sector where salary negotions are often nonexistent. We take what we are offered.

But on the purchasing end, librarians sometimes manage huge piles of cash, the purse strings, major ducats. And if we suck at negotiations, we need to remember that money talks.

People are very good at spending other people's money. And so the question arises as to whether libraries even need to be spending it on ebooks. We buy them because our patrons want them. But other than that, what is the reason that we purchase shit that we don't own?

Our library leases a lot of material. We lease building space; we lease books. We lease financial products; we lease databases. And hopefully, someone with some expertise did the cost analysis to determine whether these leases are affordable. But I doubt it. Even with other products, I think we take what we can get without weilding any of the power one would think would come with all the money we spend.

So what should we do? Is ebook lending one-sided, benefiting the publisher much more than the customer? In some ways, yes. But when you look at the pricing for libraries compared to the basic consumer model, then no.

The basic consumer downloads an ebook for $10 and reads it and maybe gets to lend it to six more people. But libraries pay that same $10 and get to lend that ebook to 26 people. To a simple-minded person, that looks like a good deal.

And that's because the basic consumer created this situation. The individual consumer told publishers that this pricing is fair. So, should be pissed off at publishers who are just taking their cues from the idiot consumer? And then we invite those same consumers into our libraries so they can demand that we accept the same lousy purchasing agreements?

But libraries have historical been allowed to lend materials as often as we want, virtually without limits. Unless the borrower drops the book in the toilet and we have to get a new one. But tell me, should we required to accept what amounts to a digital toilet dunking with our ebooks?