Classic It's official -- You can only loan a book out once.

[pjssilva]

Originally Posted by Madam Broshkina

Well I am kind of disappointed by this revelation but I do not think it is stupid. From a business stand point it would not make sense to allow unlimited lending of books. One could probably get a group together of about 26 people and decide what book each one would buy and organize a lending schedule where each would share their books. Conceivably one could read for a whole year with only buying one book from Barnes and Noble (assuming one reads one book every 14 days.)

Just to be clear: you are aware that you can do that with physical books, right?

It looks like publishers are trying to use the e-book bandwagon to restrict rights we already have with physical books (and hence increase the profits), instead of trying to use the advantages of the digital era (easier delivery, no dead trees and hence no printing costs, etc.)

[kezza]

Originally Posted by jupstin

My concern about putting pressure on B&N is that their hands will be tied by agreements with the publishers. Will they be able to change a policy that affects the contracts that they likely already have? I can't imagine a major publisher would accept a change to something like this, and I feel pretty confident that this policy is the result of compromises with the publishers (though, of course, I could be wrong.)

B&N has the customers, and if they have enough customers they can throw their weight around a bit with the publishers. Perhaps there's a period of time they have to keep the system as-is, but I suspect these things are always up for negotiation.
I do also think that right now this is a case of the tech being crippled by the publishers. B&N doesn't hold a ton of power since they aren't selling the device yet. When they do, if it's a hit, they'll have more sway.

[mrscoach]

brecklundin, I don't buy or drink coffee, just making fun of Starbucks and how high everyone says they are. I don't even like the SMELL of coffee, so going in SB is not something I want to do. Plus, the point was more dramatic than 'that and a buck eighty-five will get you a coffee'. LOL

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by Madam Broshkina

Well I am kind of disappointed by this revelation but I do not think it is stupid. From a business stand point it would not make sense to allow unlimited lending of books. [...] Now if publishers severely restrict the books that can be shared it is a different story altogether.

From a business standpoint lending libraries don't seem to make sense-but their existence seems to have greatly expanded the market for books, both in terms of the number of readers & also in terms of the number of authors. And that makes good business sense-so whoever made the decision not to allow the unlimited lending of books didn't think it thru. More likely, IMO, is that they don't trust the technology that limits it to one 'readable' copy of the book at a time. (I.e. it locks the owner out until the time limit expires and locks the borrower out afterwards. A couple of questions: can a book be returned early? Can you own two copies of the same book? If so, can you lend them both out or is the lockout 'by title'?)

Personally, I'm not too sure but what whoever didn't trust the technology (if that's the reason behind this) wasn't right-except that I don't see the need for technology to enforce things that people *should* do simply to respect the rights of others. (The problem is what to do with the vast number of people who don't respect the rights of others. One solution is to shoot them, but I'm not really in favor of depopulating the earth. Nor of a 'solution' from which you can't recover if you find you've made a mistake.)

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by scveteran

They are not being dishonest. They tell you that a feature of the system is that you can lend your books. I really think it is silly to not realize that there will be limits on that.

Limits, sure-the question is which limits can be reasonably guessed. I'd say the limits that you can't read your book until it's returned can be reasonably guessed, and also that there is a time limit on the lending (especially since part of their advertising is that you 'always get it back'-only way that makes sense, knowing people as I think we all do, is if there's a time limit on it). But I, personally, don't think a limit on the number of times you can lend it would be reasonably guessed. Nor do I think B&N is helping themselves by the way they're answering questions about this.

Comparing their answers to those I've received in other situations, I'd say that they realize a straight, honest, answer ("You're limited to lending each book one time, for the life of the book.") would present them in a bad light-so they provide 'weasel' answers that can be read two ways, and refuse to clarify them. IMO, that makes them dishonest. Period.

Reminds me of what I tell my kids: If you'd be ashamed (or scared) to honestly tell your parents what you did, then you can be pretty sure it's wrong & you shouldn't be doing it.

Think about it, B&N.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

... One solution is to shoot them, but I'm not really in favor of depopulating the earth. Nor of a 'solution' from which you can't recover if you find you've made a mistake.)

I am. Overpopulation is at the root of most of our world's problems.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

From a business standpoint lending libraries don't seem to make sense-but their existence seems to have greatly expanded the market for books, both in terms of the number of readers & also in terms of the number of authors. And that makes good business sense-so whoever made the decision not to allow the unlimited lending of books didn't think it thru. More likely, IMO, is that they don't trust the technology that limits it to one 'readable' copy of the book at a time. (I.e. it locks the owner out until the time limit expires and locks the borrower out afterwards. A couple of questions: can a book be returned early? Can you own two copies of the same book? If so, can you lend them both out or is the lockout 'by title'?)

Personally, I'm not too sure but what whoever didn't trust the technology (if that's the reason behind this) wasn't right-except that I don't see the need for technology to enforce things that people *should* do simply to respect the rights of others. (The problem is what to do with the vast number of people who don't respect the rights of others. One solution is to shoot them, but I'm not really in favor of depopulating the earth. Nor of a 'solution' from which you can't recover if you find you've made a mistake.)

Comparing the advance of the industry that occured due to public libraries and this doesn't make sense to me. In this case, it would be more accurate to claim that the library can print off as many copies as they want after buying just one copy. I am sure that the person who came up with their policy thought this through more than you did. Not trying to be mean, but your idea there did not make any sense to me.

Also, why would a person buy multiple copies of the same book so they could lend more of them out?

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Limits, sure-the question is which limits can be reasonably guessed. I'd say the limits that you can't read your book until it's returned can be reasonably guessed, and also that there is a time limit on the lending (especially since part of their advertising is that you 'always get it back'-only way that makes sense, knowing people as I think we all do, is if there's a time limit on it). But I, personally, don't think a limit on the number of times you can lend it would be reasonably guessed. Nor do I think B&N is helping themselves by the way they're answering questions about this.

Comparing their answers to those I've received in other situations, I'd say that they realize a straight, honest, answer ("You're limited to lending each book one time, for the life of the book.") would present them in a bad light-so they provide 'weasel' answers that can be read two ways, and refuse to clarify them. IMO, that makes them dishonest. Period.

Reminds me of what I tell my kids: If you'd be ashamed (or scared) to honestly tell your parents what you did, then you can be pretty sure it's wrong & you shouldn't be doing it.

Think about it, B&N.

I disagree with you. Lending one time per book seems sufficient to me. Anything else smacks of trying to illegally distribute copyrighted material to me. I am not going to say that is what you or any other specific person here wants to do that, but I am 100% certain that some of the flak here is because of this desire.

I agree with you about what you tell your kids. The difference is that I think that there are some adults here ashamed to say honestly why they want to have the ability to loan out more ebooks.

I would also like to point out things before anyone gets mad about what I just said. First, I have not accused anyone specifically of doing something wrong. I honestly feel that some of you may just disagree with me, even though I am certain that some are looking to abuse things. Second, you and others are making allegations against people with no proof what so ever.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I am. Overpopulation is at the root of most of our world's problems.

I think overpopulation is not the problem. Stupidity is. We have enough resources for far more people than are alive today if the resources were properly used.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by scveteran

I think overpopulation is not the problem. Stupidity is. We have enough resources for far more people than are alive today if the resources were properly used.

combine overpopulation, abuse of religion (note I didn't say "religion") insane thirst for power, corruption at the highest levels of every country.......

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

The inability to lend drm'd books has been a thorn since day one.

Their phrasing was unfortunate.

At the very least, BN should have said "limited ability to lend books". That might have made people a little more receptive.

I think you are kidding yourself if you really believe that would have made the people here a little more receptive. You have people on here who want the ability to give out the ebook to as many people as they want with no restrictions. It really is no different than the people who post copyrighted books, music, and videos on the Internet.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by scveteran

I think you are kidding yourself if you really believe that would have made the people here a little more receptive. You have people on here who want the ability to give out the ebook to as many people as they want with no restrictions. It really is no different than the people who post copyrighted books, music, and videos on the Internet.

Perhaps some do want unlimited loaning access.

Still, the word "limited" at the beginning would have made a huge difference.

Personally, I don't care.......I love my K1 and have no interest in a Nook. However, the wording fooled me, and until I read differently, I was under the impression you could lend books...like a library. Its a huge selling feature, and needed to be clearly stated from the gitgo.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by kennyc

They would not, yes, and yes.

I have to disagree with you on each and everyone of your points. While an adult might not realize that the limit is one time, they are going to realize that there has to be a limit. Look at every single piece of electronic media. There are limits to how you can share them. Expecting that there would not be limits on this is not reasonable.

Second, all electronic media have different rules than printed media. This is because a printed media that is lent or sold is unlikely to be duplicated and given to others in violiation of the copy right. That is not the case with electronic media. That is why no form of electronic media has unlimited rights to do what you wish with it.

Third, you are wrong that they have no legal rights. The license that you accept grants them the rights to limit what you can do with it. Those licenses have been upheld in the courts.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

combine overpopulation, abuse of religion (note I didn't say "religion") insane thirst for power, corruption at the highest levels of every country.......

Overpopulation doesn't have anything to do with the others that I can see. I will agree that the other things are a very big problem.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Perhaps some do want unlimited loaning access.

Still, the word "limited" at the beginning would have made a huge difference.

Personally, I don't care.......I love my K1 and have no interest in a Nook. However, the wording fooled me, and until I read differently, I was under the impression you could lend books...like a library. Its a huge selling feature, and needed to be clearly stated from the gitgo.

I have one question for you. What would there be it in for the authorss and publishers to allow unlimited lending of their works? Keep in mind that even if you agree to only lend the ebook out to one person at a time there is greatly increased risk of the books then being hacked and spread to everyone. Just because you might not do that, doesn't mean that the 32nd person you lent it to won't.

Also keep in mind that many books that you or the library lend are degraded to the point of being unusable after just a few loans. The ebook that you lend out repeatedly could be done hundreds of times with no degradation in quality. That would cut sales and profits.

If we want to keep having good books to read, then we need to make sure that authors and publishers continue to make money.