If you load up a Kindle and loan it, though I have heard of libraries doing just that, you are violating the terms of service. You are only allowed to loan a kindle that has no books on it which, of course, makes no sense. I’m not sure which is more confusing: Amazon’s refusal to take advantage of libraries’ early adopter position (I mean, sheesh, we’re great promoters of new technologies, even when they aren’t particularly consumer-friendly) or libraries eagerness to deliver us to a vertical monopoly that is designed to disable sharing.

I do see a connection between the current economic climate and our renting access versus building collections we own and can share as we like, though this may be just my own take on it. We seem quite willing to spend a larger and larger share of our budgets on temporary access to a wide range of stuff that isn’t chosen for our local communities – but is limited to them in terms of access. It’s a bundle, and we figure the bigger the better, even if most of it isn’t ever used. Yay, we have a lot of stuff – though next year we have to pay all over again to keep it. And since we have to pay more each year, we have less money to buy things we can own – but that’s okay because some other library will buy the book we don’t buy and we’ll just ILL it.

This, to me, is the same short-term thinking that got us into silly derivatives that were too good to last, sack-and-pillage management of industries for short-term profits, and a cavalier attitude promoted among consumers toward debt. We buy one book for a whole bunch of libraries to share, and the publisher can no longer afford to publish books. Whoops! Oh well. We rent access to databases and the contents change without our having any control over it. Oops! Darn. We turn to Kindle for cheaper books, our local bookseller folds, and pretty soon those low, low prices will trend up. Trust me on this: there’s no way publishers will go for the kind of discount Amazon is imposing for the long term, and Amazon won’t sustain it any longer than they have to in order to build a captive customer base. Here the idea that “it should be almost free, because they don’t have to print it” falls apart – printing is a relatively small part of the costs incurred, and Amazon takes 65% of the publisher’s cover price – and the publisher usually has to pay to convert the files to the non-standard mobi format.

I don’t know whether information wants to be free – it hasn’t told me one way or another what it wants – but I do know that once I pay for something on behalf of my users I want their use of it to be free (as in speech, not as in beer, but dammit, I already paid for their drinks).

The analogy I’ve used before – probably as confusing as pudding – is “building walled gardens.” Formerly, a library was free to whoever we determined were our community. Now we’re paying over and over for information and it has restrictions on who can use it that are set by vendors rather than by us. And, ironically, those limits are set precisely because many people can use it at once and vendors realize they can’t keep selling it if it’s too freely available. So they lock it down more firmly than ever (as with video – now only available in five incompatible and totally artificial regional flavors!)

Thanks for your detailed reply. I’m sorry if I mischaracterized your points. You do closely ally yourself with the CSM article, and you only criticize it to take the argument even further about access versus ownership.

I still think you slip too quickly between information as non-rival to books as non-rival, and I’m still not sure myself why non-rival really matters. Also it’s interesting to note that information in many fields does in fact deteriorate or become outdated.

However I do agree with your general point that DRM systems have to be looked at closely, and it is interesting to consider what impacts a DRM systems like Kindle’s will mean if it they completely replace our current print based book culture.

Perhaps one hopeful sign is that our culture survived the demise of 8 track tapes.

I hope you will continue to read and contribute to ACRLog.

1) Your post structurally conflates my arguments with those of the CS Monitor article on the same topic, which, though similar, are not, in fact, mine. Indeed, my non-rival point was made as a criticism of a point in that article.

2) My points are not about the Kindle specifically, as you imply, but about its DRM system and others like it. I do not know whether the Kindle itself will help or harm intellectual freedom. As you say, it may well be a boon to readership, and thus, a gain for intellectual freedom in some cases – at least in the short term. However, over the long run, the kind of technological controls systems like this put in place are unsustainable. Think about it – how many technological systems have libraries seen come and go? What use are 8-track tapes today, or floppy disks? Of course books don’t last forever – but if well-curated, their obsolescence period is measured in decades or centuries, rather than single-digit numbers of years. And further, that point is not tied to the fate of an external entity like Amazon, necessary for sending updates, etc. to their e-book systems in a way that is not necessary for paper media. But this is not about the relative merits of the Kindle; it is about how we as a society (as societies?) hope to be able to use and re-use information, and what systems enable those goals – an issue that goes well beyond discussion of any one e-book reader.

3) “Physical books are not, as Jones claims, bottomless cups of pudding. Eventually they wear out, especially if the first owner treats them roughly or writes in them. The more they are used, the more they are used up. As far as I know there is nothing stopping someone from loading up a Kindle and selling it or giving it away, or even lending it out, as some libraries have done.”

I have to take issue with this passage, on three levels:

a) The final sentence here is a non sequitur. Fine, perhaps libraries can lend out loaded Kindles – great! However, that does not in any way address the durability or sustainability of the Kindle technology.
b) It is true that physical books wear out. However, the technology of the book allows for a host of preservation options that current e-books do not – in particular, books can be copied, and even digitized (ideally into an open, sustainable format), because there are no restrictions on the book technology that disallows such uses. This is not the case with most e-book systems, particularly after they pass into the early obsolescence of digital technologies.
c) Relatedly, it is of course possible to “use up” a book. But the information inside it – generally not trade secrets, or the way magic tricks work – does not similarly deteriorate.

4) Finally, I think your reaction to the term “non-rival” goes too far. Not all of us who cite the non-rival character of most information believe that “information wants to be free,” etc. Personally, I have no problem with a sensible system of IP (though not necessarily the current one). The non-rivalrousness of information – and the relative sustainability of some information transmission systems over others – is simply one, highly relevant factor to consider in analyzing what systems of rights should be applied to information goods. It may be carelessly tossed about by those who would reactionarily demand the end of all IP and call particular technological systems “the devil,” but the carelessness of some users does not diminish the utility of the concept itself.

In general, I am a great fan of ACRLog; I find most of the posts here insightful and useful to the library and information science world. That is why I posted to its tip page. It saddens me that my tip was taken in the way that it was, and that my points were mis-taken in the way that they were.