<story><title>Libraries struggle to afford e-books, seek new laws in fight with publishers</title><url>https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/libraries-struggle-afford-demand-books-seek-new-state-108035200</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ses1984</author><text>&amp;gt;Cut copyright to a less stupid number like what it was originally 14 years. Make maintaining a copyright for those years contingent on having X % of sales available for free in libraries&lt;p&gt;I’m nitpicking but this isn’t less regulation, it’s different regulation. Some would even say it’s more. You’re reducing a number but adding complexity with the percent sales requirement.</text></item><item><author>snapplebobapple</author><text>Its actually an argument for less regulation. Its the regulation causing the market failure. Cut copyright to a less stupid number like what it was originally 14 years. Make maintaining a copyright for those years contingent on having X % of sales available for free in libraries. We are asking the fundamentally wrong question with copyright, we should not be maximizing monopoly for copyright owners, we should be minimizing market disruption to get a chosen amount of extra creative production</text></item><item><author>bluish29</author><text>The argument in publishing industry (about papers and textbooks) is that if you cannot afford to buy&amp;#x2F;rent at the current market value then you still can use a public&amp;#x2F;university library to get it. This became actually more of a cliché than an argument over time.&lt;p&gt;Now with a significant portion of textbooks (and books in general) become mainly E-books, the industry limited library capabilities and required pay per lend and restrict number of simultaneous lends. For papers, many universities canceled access contracts because it became too costly. Not to mention that smaller universities couldn&amp;#x27;t afford most of these subscriptions anyway.&lt;p&gt;Publishing industry really needs more regulation. Free market hardly work there.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>ghaff</author><text>And if we&amp;#x27;re talking textbooks, I&amp;#x27;m not sure what cutting copyright to 14 years actually accomplishes. I&amp;#x27;m also not sure how you dole out X% of sales to libraries that might be interested. Especially given libraries are often ill-defined.</text></comment>
<story><title>Libraries struggle to afford e-books, seek new laws in fight with publishers</title><url>https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/libraries-struggle-afford-demand-books-seek-new-state-108035200</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ses1984</author><text>&amp;gt;Cut copyright to a less stupid number like what it was originally 14 years. Make maintaining a copyright for those years contingent on having X % of sales available for free in libraries&lt;p&gt;I’m nitpicking but this isn’t less regulation, it’s different regulation. Some would even say it’s more. You’re reducing a number but adding complexity with the percent sales requirement.</text></item><item><author>snapplebobapple</author><text>Its actually an argument for less regulation. Its the regulation causing the market failure. Cut copyright to a less stupid number like what it was originally 14 years. Make maintaining a copyright for those years contingent on having X % of sales available for free in libraries. We are asking the fundamentally wrong question with copyright, we should not be maximizing monopoly for copyright owners, we should be minimizing market disruption to get a chosen amount of extra creative production</text></item><item><author>bluish29</author><text>The argument in publishing industry (about papers and textbooks) is that if you cannot afford to buy&amp;#x2F;rent at the current market value then you still can use a public&amp;#x2F;university library to get it. This became actually more of a cliché than an argument over time.&lt;p&gt;Now with a significant portion of textbooks (and books in general) become mainly E-books, the industry limited library capabilities and required pay per lend and restrict number of simultaneous lends. For papers, many universities canceled access contracts because it became too costly. Not to mention that smaller universities couldn&amp;#x27;t afford most of these subscriptions anyway.&lt;p&gt;Publishing industry really needs more regulation. Free market hardly work there.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>ryandrake</author><text>Plus, if you got rid of or reduced copyright, publishers would just find other ways to engage in cartel-like behavior and continue to screw everyone.&lt;p&gt;I can’t think of any case where regulation&amp;#x2F;government was &lt;i&gt;reduced&lt;/i&gt; and companies responded with something less profitable for the company.</text></comment>