Indian giver*

It seems that Amazon is getting itself in trouble with various publishers as a result of its announcement last week of a lending library for Kindle owners. The publishing houses claim that works are included in the library that are not included in any deal with Amazon, and that in fact there is no deal with Amazon for any works from their houses.

The argument is based is part on the type of model used in publishing to sell books (or rights to books, in the case of electronic delivery), and how the publisher, author and others in the food chain are to be compensated.

In other words, what's in it for me?

Yesterday afternoon I downloaded my first book from the lending library. I can keep it for a month, though once I start reading it, I'll be done in a few hours. The loans are limited to one title per month - not much at all for a voracious reader. What it will do for me, however, is provide an opportunity for me to try out authors and genres I wouldn't normally peruse if I needed to pay for the book. Like most readers, if I discover a new author, I'm likely to go back and read everything they have written to date. In other words, I buy more books. That sounds like a win-win for Amazon and the publishing houses.

We're in the midst of a change in publishing that rivals the upheaval when Gutenberg invented moveable type. We'll see how it all shakes out.

*Before you get your undies in a wad about the un-PC nature of the title, consider the definitions/etymologies offered by Urban Dictionary. The insulting, un-PC definition fits the situation with Amazon, as Amazon has the ability to pull back any of the questioned titles that have been downloaded, without any action on the part of the Kindle owner. The kinder, more PC definition also fits, as the publishing houses most definitely expect some sort of return "gift" (cash) for the use of their titles. I mean no disrespect in using the term; it simply fits the situation perfectly.