
Authors destroy legal e-book lending site thanks to Authors Guild, publisher FUD - evo_9
http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/134388-authors-destroy-legal-e-book-lending-site-thanks-to-authors-guild-publisher-fud
======
atourgates
Authors subsist increasingly on goodwill as pirating their products becomes
easier and easier. I buy every book I read entirely because I want to support
the author, not because there's any sort of barrier between me and pirating
the book.

Of course, I'm likely more technologically capable than the average reader,
but for how long? It's not hard to imagine a future where piracy is an easy
and attainable option for the vast majority of readers. A future where authors
subsist almost entirely on the goodwill of their readers.

And as a reader, this move seems like a straight up fuck you.

When I buy a physical book (often at a price near that of an ebook) I can lend
it to friends and family an infinite number of times, resell it for a good
portion of the original price, or give it away to whomever I please. I have no
such "rights" with a DRM protected ebook. But I do have the right with some
DRM protected ebooks to temporarily lend it to someone else. And these authors
just tried to make that more difficult.

And really, what have they accomplished? They've shut down a single tool that
let some readers use a publisher-sanctioned tool to lend DRM-protected ebooks.

They haven't stopped anyone with the power of Google from learning how to
remove the DRM from their ebooks or audiobooks and sharing them with however
many friends, family members and strangers they want. They haven't stopped
anyone with the power of Google from finding torrents of their ebooks or
audiobooks.

They did however manage to piss off a chunk of their customers. The ones who
actually pay $12 for an ebook.

If you subsist in part or in whole on the goodwill of your customers, it seems
like a good idea to try and maintain that goodwill.

~~~
alexqgb
Being reduced to pure dependence on goodwill when every other player in the
economic system can also depend on the force of law (e.g. shopkeepers and
shoplifting) reduces the victims - and I do mean victims - to the state of
fourth class citizens.

I agree, fully, that the technical reasons for this shift are irreversible. I
agree, too, that the analog copyright based models dating back to the 18th
century have become unsuitable in the 21st. And that's why we need to think
long and hard about artists rights as such, and what we're going to do to
assure that they have the same level of commercial respect and dignity that
accrues to those who provide goods and services with marginal costs greater
than zero - especially when artist's fixed costs remain non-trivial.

That starts with taking a critical look at remarks like yours. "Look at me!
I'm so supportive! Aren't you grateful? You better be fucking grateful." I'm
sorry, that's not respect. That's just you being a conceited prick. Moreover,
your willingness to stop paying "if you're displeased" (while presumably
continuing to read) indicates that it was never respect for the law or fair
exchange that motivated you.

If your heart were truly in the right place you'd pay because you made a copy,
and for no other reason. And if you didn't want to pay - for whatever reason -
then you wouldn't make the copy. I recognize that we have no way to implement
an exchange that enforces this norm at the present time. And I recognize that
goodwill is the only thing artists can depend on for the foreseeable future.
But let's stop pretending that this isn't a very one-sided arrangement. And
lets stop pretending that people can take advantage of a one-sided situation
and keep their hands clean. I'm sorry, but they just can't. And unless you're
actively looking for a system that both sides view as fair, you're not the
mensch you think you are.

Also, if you're not willing to pay for what's provided because you MUST pay,
then stop calling yourself a customer. Customers pay. They pay every time. And
they pay to get what they want because that's how they get what they want.
They don't make payment a secondary, incidental exchange based on some
extraneous factor, like whether or not the provider expressed enough
slobbering gratitude for the "customer's" generosity. Unless we're discussing
gifts, generosity shouldn't enter the picture. I know that when I pay for
groceries, generosity isn't what motivates me.

I'll clue you in. If generosity and "a desire to support artists" is what
motivates you, then what you're describing is no longer a commercial
transaction. It's an act of patronage. I'm not saying that patronage is
necessarily bad, but be honest enough to admit that's what's happening, and
stop pretending you're a customer when, in reality, you're no such thing. Like
everyone else, you take what you want. Unlike most, you make a donation.
That's appreciated. But it would be appreciated even more if you were honest
about what it is, and what it means for people to be in a situation that is
entirely dependent on goodwill.

If you're _really_ concerned with the status and well-being of artists, stop
saying "your reduced status is just the way it is and you should be grateful
for what little you've got left" and start asking "what would restore a
measure of genuine equality to this situation?"

~~~
swift
You say "we" as if you were speaking for all artists, but you do not speak for
me.

In my view, the current model of selling a copy of a work to a customer as if
it were a scarce good was dubious in the past and is downright unsupportable
now. It simply doesn't map very well onto the underlying reality of
effortless, unlimited digital copies.

What makes more sense is a patronage model - that is, have the customers fund
the production of the work, rather than buy copies of it. (Think something
along the lines of Kickstarter.) Once the work is produced, it is free for all
to use at no further charge. (Though of course premium products could still be
made - for example, signed, numbered, or customized editions.) This has a
number of advantages: it eliminates the whole mess of DRM and copyright, it
democratizes the process of allocating funding for artistic works, and it
diffuses the risk of producing a large work among a potentially large number
of people.

There are, of course, downsides to this model. It will generally be necessary
to produce some initial portfolio of work unpaid so that the customers can
trust that you'll be able to deliver. (Though really, an analogous situation
exists in the current model.) And there are legal questions to iron out over
what happens when a work doesn't get completed.

Still, I think that over the long term this will prove to be the right
approach. It suits the reality of the products that artists are selling, and
it is fair to everyone involved. It also makes it possible to cut out a whole
gaggle of intermediaries and bureaucracy that stand between the artist or
artists producing a work and the public. Not to mention eliminating the
conflicts of interest that can make an artist the enemy of their own fans.

edit: Heh, you keep editing your comment, and I see that you too have noticed
that artists have patrons now rather than customers in the traditional sense.
The difference is that I see it as an opportunity and a good thing, and you
see it as exploitive. And indeed, it certainly can be exploitive if one
doesn't use a business model that suits this reality.

~~~
alexqgb
Sorry about the edits. And yes, I was trying to underscore the difference
between patrons and customers. There is a profound distinction between them,
just as there is a profound difference between a commercial business and an
organized charity, and they relationships they have to the people who give
them money.

What bothered me so much about the original comment is that the poster was so
sloppy about this distinction. He'd treat the exchange like it was charity
when that suited him, turn around and demand the very different regard that
accrues to a customer when that became preferable, only to switch the frame
back to a charity when that was most beneficial to him. It had a slipperiness
that is transparently self-serving and one-sided. The guy, quite frankly,
comes across like a weasel.

I'm not saying that people don't make money in the current environment, or
that many people who would never have had opportunities in a more closed
system aren't finding ways to do really great work now, or that ultimately,
things can't work out for the best for artists and audiences alike. I'm just
saying that this guy, in particular, has a problem with his ethics.

If you recognize that you're a patron, be sensitive to the serious inequality
that comes with that status, and aware of the special deference to artists
that is required to maintain a modicum of balance. And if you see yourself as
a mere customer, then have the decency to behave like one, and actually pay.
Every time. Not just if and when you happen to feel like it. But don't cherry
pick the best of both - the status of one and the detachment of the other -
while dodging the kind of clear definition that leves you with anything less
than the upper hand at all times, because that's just being a dick.

~~~
ktizo
You seem pretty angry and are arguing from an interpretation of the OP's post
that I personally don't think really matches either the tone or the content of
that post.

You also seem to forget that in many countries that support a strong book
market, there has never been any requirement to buy books for a long time
before the internet got going, due to the network of public libraries. I have
been using the interlibrary loans scheme in the UK since I was 10 to order
pretty much any books I wanted to read. Yet I still buy a lot of books. Which
I then often give away to people and buy again. Given that everyone in the UK
who reads knows that they never need to pay for books beyond the cost of a
library card, why do they buy so many books?

------
objclxt
I'm afraid the author of this article doesn't really know much about the
subject matter here:

>"Does the Authors Guild care about writers? Absolutely — just as much as the
RIAA cares about musicians."

This really isn't true. The RIAA represents the recording industry - _not_
musicians. The Authors Guild, along with the Writers Guild and other
organisations, _do_ represent authors, and they do care about them. The
presidents of both the Authors Guild and the Writers Guild _are writers_. Both
frequently go up against the studios themselves. There have been many, many
conflicts between the guilds and publishers/studios.

You can argue that what the Authors Guild is doing here is misguided, but to
say the guild doesn't care about authors is just plain wrong. I speak from
experience.

~~~
tolos
I read a small amount of sarcasm in that statement -- but maybe that's just
me.

------
bennesvig
Fear obscurity, not lending. I'm happy to see my book on BookLending or other
lending sites.

Paulo Coelho has interesting thoughts on piracy helping book sales.
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/feb/01/paulo-coelho-
rea...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/feb/01/paulo-coelho-readers-
pirate-books)

~~~
graeme
I'm releasing a book, and considering pirating a similar work to help gain
awareness.

------
yock
This type of reaction isn't uncommon these days. No matter what the outlet, be
it a lobbying organization like the Authors Guild or a tech news site like
TechCrunch, people read looking to have an emotional response. This was
demonstrated, and measured, recently in a carefully designed hoax about
fictitious screws from an iDevice[0]. People are more likely to believe what
is told to them by family and friends than most any other source, and the
power of the social network is that the bar for who counts as a friend has
never been lower.

This is the beginning, a shadow of what it will look like when the worst
actors among us in society really learn how to yoke the social network herd.

[0] [http://day4.se/how-we-screwed-almost-the-whole-apple-
communi...](http://day4.se/how-we-screwed-almost-the-whole-apple-community/)

~~~
majormajor
And that's the type of reaction extremetech is going for as well with their
headline, photo, and all. I wonder if the author was actually as angry as he
wants his readers to be.

~~~
yock
I considered that, and I normally ignore ExtremeTech articles because I think
they're usually blogspam. This article actualy seemed to backup its own point.
Sure, sensation makes for a good read and no one (most especially myself) is
immune to it, but it's hard to ignore the quotations and Twitter screenshots
that backup the author's point.

~~~
majormajor
I don't think the article's wrong, exactly (though I'm more sympathetic to the
authors than the, er, author is), but it's definitely written in a decidedly
editorialized way.

I guess another way to say what I'm trying to say is: he didn't need to add
any spin of his own (like the RIAA line) considering the quotes and
screenshots.

------
res0nat0r
The authors who were clued in to what this site was actually about were upset
that it allowed their works to be lent to anyone in the world and not just
"friends and family" which is what they believe the spirit of the Kindle
Lending program via Amazon is about.

If their works were able to be lent to anyone and everyone in the world they
wanted higher prices for their books to be charged, just like what libraries
have to pay since they can also lend to anyone off of the street.

~~~
ender7
Sure, but they signed the contract to specifically allow this behavior. If
they don't like it, then they should complain to Amazon, or perhaps should
read the terms a little more carefully.

Either way, it's hard to see how any of this was LendInk's fault.

~~~
forensic
There's that word again.. "fault"

The only truth is power. Legally the site was in the clear, and yet the
authors had enough power to shut it down.

Many of the authors understood that it was legal but still did not like it
because it skirted the spirit of the contract which that lending is for family
and friends.

The strangest part of this story is that some outraged people were able to
close a website they didn't have any claim to.

~~~
tedunangst
Did they shut it down? I have yet to find a source that explains the mechanism
of the shutdown. Everybody keeps repeating the fact that it's been killed, but
how?

~~~
sp332
The ISP got cease and desist orders, plus some hatemail including threats of
violence. So they took the site offline.
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4360626>

~~~
Turing_Machine
Also hundreds of DMCA complaints.

------
adrr
The authors really need to go after libraries, these hubs of piracy really
need to be shutdown. Libraries distribute books to complete strangers with no
compensation to the authors.

~~~
dorward
Authors get compensated when I borrow books from my local library.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Lending_Right>

~~~
Avenger42
Authors get compensated when their books are lent out through the Kindle
Direct Publishing system too:

2.3 KDP Select Fund. We will establish a fund on a monthly basis and you will
earn a share of that fund for each of your Digital Books included in the
Kindle Owners’ Lending Library Program.

[https://kdp.amazon.com/self-
publishing/help?ie=UTF8&topi...](https://kdp.amazon.com/self-
publishing/help?ie=UTF8&topicId=APILE934L348N#Select)

~~~
alanfalcon
LendInk wasn't about the Kindle Lending Library though: those are books that
can be borrowed without ever being purchased first. These LendInk borrows were
between a book buyer and a third party, fascilitated by, say, Amazon, but
without additional financial compensation for authors. As an author I still
think they're a good idea to allow, but then I understand technology unlike
too many other authors.

------
ColinWright
For those who are interested, there are other substantial discussions of this
here on HN:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4360626>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4361889>

------
tedunangst
Can someone explain _how_ they destroyed LendInk? All the website says is
"Currently offline Not due to DMCA complaints." So _why_ is it offline?

Shouldn't an article like this have a quote from the site operator?

~~~
sp332
The site author decided to keep it down, even though his ISP gave him a
(somewhat work-intensive) way to clear the DMCA trouble and get the site back
online.

~~~
tedunangst
It's 2012. Are there really no ISPs willing to host a site like this?

~~~
sp332
The site not only got hundreds of DMCA and cease & desist orders, there was
also a huge amount of harassment including threats of violence.
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4360626> I don't blame any ordinary ISP
for pulling a site under those conditions.

~~~
tedunangst
OK, but you just said the ISP would put him back online if he dealt with the
DMCA, indicating the threats of violence didn't take the site offline. So
violent threats took the site down, except they didn't, except they did?

~~~
sp332
They said they would put the site back online if he sent a reply to every
cease and desist order. He decided to keep the site offline, having lost faith
in the community.

~~~
tedunangst
Looks like he's changed his mind.
[http://www.digitalmediamachine.com/2012/08/lendink-starts-
cr...](http://www.digitalmediamachine.com/2012/08/lendink-starts-crowdfunding-
campaign.html) Faith can be restored for the low, low price of $10000. :)

------
mherdeg
There were some great insights in the prior discussion at
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4360626>.

Something I was hoping to hear more discussion about: is there any evidence
that anyone in the e-book community knowingly filed an incorrect DMCA takedown
notice?

~~~
nicholassmith
You'd probably need to wade through the takedown notices, but given they were
claiming it was acting in a manner to enable piracy rather than lending the
assumption is the majority will have been filed incorrectly.

~~~
rmc
So the question is then, are any of them going to be prosecuted for perjury
and lying under oath? I believe you must swear under penalty of perjury to
send a DMCA notice.

~~~
drivingmenuts
Probably not, thought they certainly deserve it. My guess is that the owner of
LendInk has neither the time, nor the resources, to pursue all of the authors
that filed false/ignorant DMCA notices, and more likely wants to wash his/her
hands of the whole thing.

It's just one of those tragedies that will never see any kind of justice.
Welcome to the world. It's another day.

------
dougmccune
The author argues against the quick-to-blame mob, and yet tries to make it
sound like publishers were partly responsible for this ("thanks to ...
publisher FUD") and yet nowhere is there any mention of a single publisher
involved in this whole debacle (other than Amazon). Something happened to
e-books! It must be the publishers! Get your pitchforks!

~~~
camiller
Since the host was getting hundreds of take down notices I suspect that
somewhere on the not disclosed list were in fact publishers. I'm willing to
take that assumption on faith unless you have a copy of the list and there are
no publishers on it?

------
squarecat
TIL Many authors don't like to read.

------
jeremyarussell
A big question to everyone that says Lendink was violating the spirit of the
lending feature. Does it say anywhere in the terms over at amazon that I
wouldn't be allowed to lend to people online?

Case and point, I use facebook like just about everyone else does. More or
less for keeping in touch with family and actual friends. What's to stop me
from posting my lending links in a status update? And how is that any
different than lendink? Would starting a facebook group for reading lovers and
posting a link there be out of question?

~~~
PotatoEngineer
Of course it doesn't say it in black and white. That's why people use the
phrase "in the spirit". The trouble with LendInk is in how the metaphor of a
book changes once it's online.

With a physical book, you have to learn that your friend has it, either by
seeing it on their bookshelf or hearing them talk about it. Then you ask for
the book. So it will happen every once-in-a-while; depending on how many
reading friends you have, you might lend out a particular book 0-5 times
before the book falls apart.

But LendInk is _advertising_ what books are available, and it only needs to
find one owner, somewhere, anywhere, who's willing to lend it to you. You
don't even have to know them, because there will be some owners who will
gleefully lend anything to anyone. So instead of having to individually learn
about the 100 books your friend owns, or the 1000 books that your ten friends
own, you just need to show up on LendInk, ask for a book, and get it sooner or
later. The books on LendInk are _too_ available.

------
rmc
The copyright companies lost the moral argument or high ground long ago.

------
j_s
Did LendInk provide financial benefit to any author? My understanding is that
it only acted as a clearinghouse for one-time loans.

~~~
falcolas
No, but Amazon did. Per one of the linked articles:

"Just as with any other lend, the author gets her commission[...]"

[http://www.publetariat.com/think/congratulations-you-
killed-...](http://www.publetariat.com/think/congratulations-you-killed-
lendink-and-denied-your-fellow-authors-their-lend-royalties)

So, yeah. By killing LendInk, they deprived authors of potential royalty
income.

EDIT: Per Amazon's terms and conditions, not linked from any of the articles,
this isn't as clear cut. Some authors (members of the KDP program) can get
money from lending out their books, but the 1x per purchase lend does not, as
pointed out by j_s.

~~~
j_s
What I'm asking is for documentation that authors get a commission on a one-
time lend between Kindle users (the type of lend facilitated by LendInk). I
have learned that KDP Select authors get a commission per lend but that may be
limited to lends from Amazon to Amazon Prime members.

Edit: Specifically, it sounds like LendInk facilitated "Lending for Kindle"
loans [https://kdp.amazon.com/self-
publishing/help?topicId=A2JGI9S4...](https://kdp.amazon.com/self-
publishing/help?topicId=A2JGI9S4FDM39Q)

    
    
      > Will I receive royalties when customers choose to lend my book? 
      > 
      > Loans of digital books through the Kindle Book Lending program 
      > are not purchases and thus are not eligible to receive royalty payments.

------
ricardonunez
I discovered a lot of good authors thanks to friends that lend me their books.
A good author wants to put their books in more readers. If they wrote good
book one of those free readers will become a fan and buy other books from the
author. It happens to me when I read a good book. They will loose more than
win with this move.

------
anigbrowl
After reading the article twice, I'm unable to see _how_ the authors 'took the
site down,' other than by griping about it.

------
smackfu
I'm just shocked there were enough books with lending enabled to make this
possible. I think about 5% of my library has that.

~~~
bhousel
Believe it or not, most Kindle books are lendable.

I have a database of Kindle books that I built last year, but I know that now
there are over a million titles. So, year old data:

    
    
       > db.books.find({'lendable': true}).count();
       543519
       > db.books.count();
       846456

~~~
smackfu
It would be interesting to compare that to the sales list. See if popular
books are lendable.

