[Web4lib] Kindle Lending

[Brian Gray]

It terms of the privacy issue I think the difference between government
trying to get library records versus library's promoting personal purchase
of e-book readers is that the personal level of privacy decision remains
with the individual. In the first case, libraries said to the patrons we
will not share, and in most cases, we do not keep your reading history or
other information, and than later on outside player came along to try to
change that without consumers being able to make the decision for themselves
to participate. In e-reader purchases, the consumer know what they are
getting into up front and are making that personal decision to participate.
The argument is no different than the personal decision one must make when
signing up for a website, a social network, a credit card, etc. in which
information is collected and in some cases shared about the consumer. The
individual makes the decision how much information and/or to actually
participate.

Brian Gray
mindspiral at gmail.com
bcg8 at case.edu


On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Tim Spalding <tim at librarything.com> wrote:

> Look, strictly speaking, this doesn't affect libraries whatsoever.
> Non-personal use of Kindles is expressly prohibited under their terms.
> Some libraries are playing with Kindle lending, ignoring the
> prohibition and hoping nobody notices. Eventually publishers and
> Amazon will take action, much as British Publishers did recently in
> cracking down on distance lending of ebooks.
>
> The situation is simple. Publishers want to restrict library lending
> of ebooks, unless they can recoup retail-like money for each rental.
> They The first sale doctrine allowed libraries to buy books on the
> same terms as anyone else, and lend them out like nobody else
> did--extracting significantly higher value from them. Publishers and
> authors never really liked that arrangement, and now that they have a
> licensed good to sell, they can stop it. People who think publishers
> will allow libraries to buy and lend ebooks as before are kidding
> themselves.
>
> As far as users go, the full details aren't available, but it is said
> to resemble the B&N "lending" which:
>
> * Only applies to some titles, at the publisher's discretion (which is
> constrained by author rights agreements).
> * Can only be done once per title, for two weeks.
>
> This isn't "exponentially more valuable," even to a solitary consumer.
> It's marginally more valuable than previous ebook licenses, and
> exponentially less free than non-digital book rights.
>
> Lastly, and with respect, I want to express profound confusion why
> librarians would promote a device that cuts libraries out, and that
> incorporates monitoring and censorship mechanisms profoundly counter
> to often-expressed ethical standards. That ebook cut libraries out is
> clear to me, but I acknowledge some don't agree. But look at the
> privacy issue. A few years ago many librarians went mad over the
> prospect that the federal government might make requests for check-out
> records for individual patrons suspected of terrorism. I have seen no
> outrage as over promoting devices that continually monitor and record
> everything you read, when you read it, who you shared it with, and
> every annotation you make, and put it in a cloud-based service—which
> triggers a lower standard of legal protection—under control of a
> company in no way responsive to library ethics.
>
> Sincerely,
> Tim
>