Books for everyone?
October 16, 2010 7:25 AM Subscribe
Calling all library science, publishing, and education folks! Help me use my e-reader in an ethical manner by assisting me with the following question - does using an e-reader threaten the accessibility of the written word?
I really like my e-reader (the older Sony PRS-600 touch screen model). I use it to read novels as well as PDFs of articles that relate to my PhD research. I like it because it's handy, light, fun, and cuts down on the use of paper. But I worry - does my use of an e-reader make it less likely that others will have access to books? In the future, will those who can't afford/don't want an e-reader be denied the experience of reading? Will the use of e-readers threaten the existence of libraries and book stores?
I really like my e-reader (the older Sony PRS-600 touch screen model). I use it to read novels as well as PDFs of articles that relate to my PhD research. I like it because it's handy, light, fun, and cuts down on the use of paper. But I worry - does my use of an e-reader make it less likely that others will have access to books? In the future, will those who can't afford/don't want an e-reader be denied the experience of reading? Will the use of e-readers threaten the existence of libraries and book stores?
Response by poster: Thanks for your input, eccnineten - as for my exaggerated sense of my impact on the future, that is very possible, but in this instance I guess I meant the 'me' in 'we,' as in how society as a whole is heading.
posted by analog at 7:43 AM on October 16, 2010
posted by analog at 7:43 AM on October 16, 2010
My guess is that e-readers are going to make more material available at a lower cost and thus the "damage" will be financial at the writer, publishing end of things. The upshot though is that a number of people I know with e-readers say they are now reading much more than they used to.
posted by Postroad at 7:51 AM on October 16, 2010
posted by Postroad at 7:51 AM on October 16, 2010
One of the big drawbacks I've found with my e-reader is that I can't easily share books I love with other people once I'm done with them. This is a personal version of the problem you're describing.
posted by thirteenkiller at 8:00 AM on October 16, 2010
posted by thirteenkiller at 8:00 AM on October 16, 2010
Best answer: Given that your question is more concerned with the morality of your choices, rather than the likelihood of future trends, here's my answer: if you are worried about the future accessibility of books to the underprivileged, it probably would be better to make donations to libraries and schools, rather than give up your ebook reader.
I mean, even if the rise in ebooks undermines the production of paper books, so long as libraries have money, books will be available.
posted by meese at 8:29 AM on October 16, 2010
I mean, even if the rise in ebooks undermines the production of paper books, so long as libraries have money, books will be available.
posted by meese at 8:29 AM on October 16, 2010
As far as threatening the existence of libraries, I get ebooks for the Nook AT the library. Libraries and ereaders are not mutually exclusive; in fact my prediction is that it won't be long before the proprietary ebook formats will die in favor of open, sharable formats.
posted by CheeseLouise at 8:41 AM on October 16, 2010
posted by CheeseLouise at 8:41 AM on October 16, 2010
Best answer: But I worry - does my use of an e-reader make it less likely that others will have access to books? In the future, will those who can't afford/don't want an e-reader be denied the experience of reading? Will the use of e-readers threaten the existence of libraries and book stores?
Most mainstream ereaders move the world of reading from an ownership model to a rental model controlled by very few large companies. Libraries have a hard time working in our sharing models to the ereader future. Ereaders are part of the future no matter what you personally do. Printed books are likewise going to be around in various formats in the future as well, we're talking decades, not years. Libraries will still be lending print and digital books into the future and helping people manage what is now a glut bot a paucity of informaiton. The shift in licensing and ownership and the lack of the first sale doctrine for ereaders means that they're a really different thing from print materials. Then again so are books on CD, or DVDs or whatever.
The best thing that library students can do is be mindful of the shift that is happening in ownsership, of the very different business model of ebooks and ereaders and look at who is making what decisions and at what cost [most price of content and social costs] and move forward with your eyes open. The world needs more librarians who understand digital content and who can aggressively lobby for the rights of their patrons and employees. We are the largest purchaser of many books in the country, it's time we recognized the amount of power we actually DO have.
posted by jessamyn at 9:03 AM on October 16, 2010 [4 favorites]
Most mainstream ereaders move the world of reading from an ownership model to a rental model controlled by very few large companies. Libraries have a hard time working in our sharing models to the ereader future. Ereaders are part of the future no matter what you personally do. Printed books are likewise going to be around in various formats in the future as well, we're talking decades, not years. Libraries will still be lending print and digital books into the future and helping people manage what is now a glut bot a paucity of informaiton. The shift in licensing and ownership and the lack of the first sale doctrine for ereaders means that they're a really different thing from print materials. Then again so are books on CD, or DVDs or whatever.
The best thing that library students can do is be mindful of the shift that is happening in ownsership, of the very different business model of ebooks and ereaders and look at who is making what decisions and at what cost [most price of content and social costs] and move forward with your eyes open. The world needs more librarians who understand digital content and who can aggressively lobby for the rights of their patrons and employees. We are the largest purchaser of many books in the country, it's time we recognized the amount of power we actually DO have.
posted by jessamyn at 9:03 AM on October 16, 2010 [4 favorites]
Aside from issues of corporate control, I see the problem as two-fold. First, entry into the e-reader world is prohibitively expensive -- and what you get for your hundred-some dollars is a gadget that you will have to replace within five years for another hundred-or-so bucks if you want to keep using e-readers. It's very costly, and the costs come up over and over again. Until e-readers are supplied free of charge, public libraries that go electronic will be excluding a large percentage of their patrons. Setting such high financial barriers for entry into the community of readers is a very, very bad idea.
Second seems to be the issue of obsolescence. In my field, there are a number of recent reference works that would be GREAT if we could access them, but they were made 15 years ago, and funding to keep updating the technology ran out. So now we have these great electronic text collections and other tools, which we spent thousands of dollars on at the time, and which are now basically garbage. If these were books, or even microfiche, we would still be able to use them... On a more practical level, I'd never buy an e-cookbook.
I often work with books that are 800 years old. That's not a typo. There is NO WAY that you'll be able to access a kindle file in 800 years; in fact, it will probably be totally unusable in less than a decade. For pulp fiction this isn't really a problem, and I love the convenience of e-readers for commuting, etc. But I think it is unwise to trust a civilization's literary heritage to electronic media. So if I were you, I'd enjoy the e-reader, but for things you might want to look at again in a few years, buy a book, and insist that your local libraries do the same.
posted by philokalia at 9:39 AM on October 16, 2010
Second seems to be the issue of obsolescence. In my field, there are a number of recent reference works that would be GREAT if we could access them, but they were made 15 years ago, and funding to keep updating the technology ran out. So now we have these great electronic text collections and other tools, which we spent thousands of dollars on at the time, and which are now basically garbage. If these were books, or even microfiche, we would still be able to use them... On a more practical level, I'd never buy an e-cookbook.
I often work with books that are 800 years old. That's not a typo. There is NO WAY that you'll be able to access a kindle file in 800 years; in fact, it will probably be totally unusable in less than a decade. For pulp fiction this isn't really a problem, and I love the convenience of e-readers for commuting, etc. But I think it is unwise to trust a civilization's literary heritage to electronic media. So if I were you, I'd enjoy the e-reader, but for things you might want to look at again in a few years, buy a book, and insist that your local libraries do the same.
posted by philokalia at 9:39 AM on October 16, 2010
Best answer: I agree with Jessamyn that current ebook platforms and models are trending publishing into a content rental business. And I worry that the price of those transactions are going to go up, and that soon rental or subscription will cost what we are currently paying for ownership. At least that's my concern in the corner of publishing that I'm most familiar with, scholarly monographs.
I'll unfortunately have to disagree with her about the impact that library buying decisions will have on the future of this debate. Yes, they do buy a lot. But their budgets are shrinking. And for a lot of university presses, we're seeing one particular online retailer as much more influential. Sales into the channels that serve libraries like Yankee and Blackwell are shrinking and sales to Amazon are increasing. And we are watching closely their early lead on ebook marketshare. Though there are a lot of questions about if librarians are actually acquiring through Amazon, and if so, how much and what kind of titles. I think we're about to see a winnowing of libraries, or at least collections. Libraries are likely to become gateways to access, and are likely to feel less of a responsibility for being an archive. I do hope librarians and their traditional values help shape that debate, but I'm also concerned that they are becoming less and less empowered to do so.
I'm very concerned about what ebooks could do to collection building. I think we're witnessing a shift in how people value content, and how or if they build personal collections or libraries. I also think some librarians are looking at things like Google's book project and they are beginning to wonder about the value of their own collections. These developments are bound (heh) to have an impact on the physical book market.
All that said, should you buy a device? Sure, why not. This isn't an issue to boycott. It's like taking a stand against efficiency. But yes, with or without you publishing is changing, and ebooks are fueling that change.
posted by Toekneesan at 10:07 AM on October 16, 2010
I'll unfortunately have to disagree with her about the impact that library buying decisions will have on the future of this debate. Yes, they do buy a lot. But their budgets are shrinking. And for a lot of university presses, we're seeing one particular online retailer as much more influential. Sales into the channels that serve libraries like Yankee and Blackwell are shrinking and sales to Amazon are increasing. And we are watching closely their early lead on ebook marketshare. Though there are a lot of questions about if librarians are actually acquiring through Amazon, and if so, how much and what kind of titles. I think we're about to see a winnowing of libraries, or at least collections. Libraries are likely to become gateways to access, and are likely to feel less of a responsibility for being an archive. I do hope librarians and their traditional values help shape that debate, but I'm also concerned that they are becoming less and less empowered to do so.
I'm very concerned about what ebooks could do to collection building. I think we're witnessing a shift in how people value content, and how or if they build personal collections or libraries. I also think some librarians are looking at things like Google's book project and they are beginning to wonder about the value of their own collections. These developments are bound (heh) to have an impact on the physical book market.
All that said, should you buy a device? Sure, why not. This isn't an issue to boycott. It's like taking a stand against efficiency. But yes, with or without you publishing is changing, and ebooks are fueling that change.
posted by Toekneesan at 10:07 AM on October 16, 2010
Best answer: I plan to buy an e-reader at some point, if not for me, for my partner, who does more reading on his Kindle for Mac app than he does inside the covers of a printed book (I also do more reading online than I do between the covers of a book myself, and have for some time). I'm a librarian and I buy books and I always have and always will read and love books, but I don't think that resisting technological transformations that may or may not involve fewer books in the world is a useful way for me to operate as a person or as a professional going forward.
As Douglas Coupland noted recently, "The next sets of triumphing technologies are going to happen, no matter who invents them or where or how. Not that technology alone dictates the future, but in the end it always leaves its mark. The only unknown factor is the pace at which new technologies will appear."
It's better to lobby and encourage support for your local public libraries (especially) in this time of scarcity (and in the face of active efforts on the parts of city councils and legislatures to de-fund libraries everywhere) and to donate as much time and money to them as possible than it is to worry about whether buying an e-reader is going to threaten libraries' existence. I don't think that Kindles threaten libraries. I think that politicians who listen to angry voters who think that libraries are a waste of money do.
posted by blucevalo at 10:45 AM on October 16, 2010
As Douglas Coupland noted recently, "The next sets of triumphing technologies are going to happen, no matter who invents them or where or how. Not that technology alone dictates the future, but in the end it always leaves its mark. The only unknown factor is the pace at which new technologies will appear."
It's better to lobby and encourage support for your local public libraries (especially) in this time of scarcity (and in the face of active efforts on the parts of city councils and legislatures to de-fund libraries everywhere) and to donate as much time and money to them as possible than it is to worry about whether buying an e-reader is going to threaten libraries' existence. I don't think that Kindles threaten libraries. I think that politicians who listen to angry voters who think that libraries are a waste of money do.
posted by blucevalo at 10:45 AM on October 16, 2010
I have mulled over this moral dilemma as well, and the compromise I reached was this: I own a Kindle but exclusively for public domain books. I will never pay for a Kindle book. I understand that the longevity of a Kindle book is brief compared to an actual print book, so if I have to pay for it, I'm going to go with the thing that won't be obsolete in 2 years (and 2 years is probably a realistic figure considering how frequently Amazon has been releasing new versions of the Kindle). I am going to keep buying paper books in cases where I want to hold on to a book for a long time.
posted by Lobster Garden at 1:40 PM on October 16, 2010
posted by Lobster Garden at 1:40 PM on October 16, 2010
I would use a reader if I owned the content I bought as well as the hardware/software I use to read it.
I don't think "use of an e-reader make it less likely that others will have access to books".
I do think it's worth lobbying for funding for libraries, but also for the accessibility of e-readers in the broadest sense of the word. Do you own the content and the hardware you buy? Is the hardware/software accessible, in the universal design/WCAG sense?
posted by radiocontrolled at 2:45 PM on October 16, 2010
I don't think "use of an e-reader make it less likely that others will have access to books".
I do think it's worth lobbying for funding for libraries, but also for the accessibility of e-readers in the broadest sense of the word. Do you own the content and the hardware you buy? Is the hardware/software accessible, in the universal design/WCAG sense?
posted by radiocontrolled at 2:45 PM on October 16, 2010
It's perfectly OK to use an ebook reader, so long a you don't pay for DRMed content. Then perhaps we will end up with a commercial market for non DRMed titles, which is what finally happened in the music market.
As to those insisting that a Kindle file will be obsolete and unreadable in a decade, I question your assumptions. Is there any reason to think a Kindle will not hold up as well as something as prone to decomposition, combustion and insect digestion as a paper book?
posted by Good Brain at 9:09 PM on October 16, 2010
As to those insisting that a Kindle file will be obsolete and unreadable in a decade, I question your assumptions. Is there any reason to think a Kindle will not hold up as well as something as prone to decomposition, combustion and insect digestion as a paper book?
posted by Good Brain at 9:09 PM on October 16, 2010
« Older How to get rid of the backyard rats without... | howdy partners, cowboy songs anyone? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by eccnineten at 7:36 AM on October 16, 2010 [3 favorites]