It's also putting Harper Collins authors into a tough place. I passed this on to a friend who's published through them and she is *not* happy.

They don't need to win the argument. They can do as they like. And they probably will.

Sure, there is a way for them to win the argument. They are a content provider in a closed ecosystem.

So the library shouldn't lease any e-books from Harper Collins.
Problem solved.

@2, @3: Um. No. See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/u…

Harper Collins can go to court and argue it, but libraries are specifically exempted from much of copyright law. This is not a case of "a private business can take their ball and go home."

Well, the decision isn't stupid. It's actually quite calculated. You may not like it, but they own the digital content rights on the product, therefore they get to decide what's done with it. And if you don't like that, try and change the copyright laws. Complaining about how these companies function under the law is about as useless as your petty 'truther' jabs.

You remind me of a child who's just learned how to insult someone. 'Stupid! Stupid!' But all you can do is hope to get a pat on the back from those who agree with you. Pointless.

If you don't like the system, do what everyone else does. Don't read it, or just fucking pirate it.

@6: A pretty superior tone for someone who apparently doesn't realize that libraries already have a special place in copyright law. The specifics can be haggled over but "they own the digital content rights on the product, therefore they get to decide what's done with it" is demonstrably incorrect in this case. Google "fair use" to see a number of interesting exceptions to the "mine, all mine" copyright mentality you apparently believe.

I can't believe the number of Americans who blithely accept the copyright industry's claim to complete exclusivity and control over all rights in all circumstances. It's not true, and it shouldn't be true, and *existing* laws make it not true.

maybe the print should slowly fade with each use, with an occasional highlight or note added. a occastional page missing after a number of reads would be a nice touch. can it be coded so that the corners of the display occasionally bend the words off screen, so that the user has to press a button to fold the dog-ear back?

also @5: Thanks for that link! That's interesting stuff.

Don't tell Paul Constant about digital movies; he'll blow a gasket. As long as you have electricity and the necessary technology, copies of Avatar will exist forever, and you can play them over and over indefinitely. Yet these film industry fiends want to be paid for every showing!

The humanity!

Re: "I can't think of one historical instance of a book being destroyed where the destroyers were in the right."

I was going to make some joke about begging to differ and the Necronomicon, but @6 pissed me off too much to bother.

If all the library is doing is managing licenses, then could HarperCollins sell a 26 copy license for, say, paperback rates and a lifetime copy license for, say, a first edition hardback price?

@9: Glad it was interesting. Also see http://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/l-diglib… for a discussion of how the change to digital is / might be moving this stuff from copyright law to contract law, which is what this Harper Collins trial balloon is all about.

Well, I'm assuming at some point a book falls apart from repeated use and has to be replaced, so in that case a library would be destroying a book.

I doubt such deterioration occurs in 26 readings, though. Is that the basis of this number?

@16: What, a bookshelf?