Free Library access to Magazines and Newspapers

[AY Mod]

6 minutes ago, Jim Martin said:

the publishers, who are free to do as they wish with their copyrighted material, have chosen to make it available through Pressreader. This is NOT some sort of dodgy file-sharing operation.

 

Pressreader is perfectly legitimate and is normally a paid-for service. Libraries have obviously paid for access to it. All fair. What irked with the OP was the position of using that route so he didn't have to pay for magazines. If the libraries wish to market the benefits to their members then that's fine too.

 

What I do know is that some less honest websites gain access (through whatever means) and take copies of the pdf files, upload to their own server and use SEO to get users to their sites (often with advertising or even malware on the sites so that they secure financial benefit from ripping sources off, including Pressreader and similar) and that's definitely not fair enough but I hear of people using them thinking they're clever. They're not, they're selfish cheapskates who may leave their personal security vulnerable.

[SHMD]

5 minutes ago, Jim Martin said:

 

Just to be clear about a couple of things:

 

Firstly, I don't think that copyright infraction is a victimless crime. In fact I've vigorously defended copyright in online arenas where that's a much harder sell than it is on RMWeb.

 

Secondly, however, in this case it is NOT A CRIME AT ALL because the publishers, who are free to do as they wish with their copyrighted material, have chosen to make it available through Pressreader. This is NOT some sort of dodgy file-sharing operation. As had also been explained in this thread, Pressreader works with some seriously big media companies. Do you really think that the New York Times would just let some scammers repackage their journalism and sell it on?

 

 

I agree with you Jim.

My (poorly worded) example was a generic reference to people who do not want to (or are incapable of) thinking of the consequences of the theft of intellectual property.

 

I was not in any way referring to pressreader or anybody else.

I am sure Pressreader are victims too, having accrued agreements and business deals with various publishers AND having to pay/service them only for some individuals to gain/give access for free.

 

 

Kev.

[Phil Parker]

8 hours ago, Chris M said:

I recently joined the Readly subscription service at £7.99 per month. I assumed this was like Spotify and the magazine owners would get a small payment every time someone reads their magazine. Indeed I hope that's what happens. I rather like being able to dip into the odd article that catches my attention across a large number of magazines. Its very much a low level read as there is nothing more than a PDF like file for each magazine. So great for dipping in while on the PC/tablet but not so great if you like to be able to relax in a chair and read at leisure. My Readly subscription won't stop me buying magazines but it does add to my knowledge by being able to see articles I wouldn't normally see. I don't blame magazine owners for not joining in as each company will have it's own business model and has to make a profit somehow.

 

There are some great magazines on there including Model Rail, Hornby Magazine, Railways Illustrated, Steam days and Steam Railway. There is no RM or BRM and I guess this is because physical sales and their own subscription sales are strong enough without Readly and that's a good thing. It seems that Key Publishing and Bauer are very much into Readly. Warners Group do partake in Readly as Garden Rail is there, which is nice for me. 

 

So while this is not a free service like the library one it is a useful one and I trust it is an ethical one. I have used the library service to look up articles in Which magazine which is useful once in a blue moon. I have often wondered how the libraries can provide this service for free.

 

Readly pay a small amount to the publisher  based on the number of pages read in each issue. However, if you split that £7.99 up between the number of pages and then knock out a chuck that goes to Readly themselves, the small amount is very, very, very small indeed!

 

BRM isn't on there because we like to put out a really impressive digi edition with bells and whistles, which Readly can't support. Economically, it makes more sense to sell direct, but then that's why we go to town on the digi extras.

 

GR is a bit of an experiment at the moment. We only have 3 editions at a time on there, so you don't get the full set of backnumbers. The digi version is still being developed as well - the current edition being the first to have "extras" on it. Eventually, the experiment will be looked at and decisions taken about the future.

[caradoc]

22 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

When I was an impoverished teenage skoolboy, I did indeed nip into the local library on the way home, and read Railway Magazine. It enabled me to keep up with some of what was going on in the industry I already knew I wanted to join.......

 

When I left skool and became a salaried employee, buying magazines, lots of them, was a new way of life. I recall a colleague saying he wouldn't mind being my newsagent!

 

I also went to the library, in my case to read Modern Railways and get the latest TOPS renumberings, simply not being able to afford to buy it. And I also started buying magazines when I started work, and still do, also preferring the print editions; The information and pleasure I get are well worth the money, as well of course as helping in a small way to keep the publishers going.

 

[dibber25]

1 hour ago, Jim Martin said:

 

Just to be clear about a couple of things:

 

Firstly, I don't think that copyright infraction is a victimless crime. In fact I've vigorously defended copyright in online arenas where that's a much harder sell than it is on RMWeb.

 

Secondly, however, in this case it is NOT A CRIME AT ALL because the publishers, who are free to do as they wish with their copyrighted material, have chosen to make it available through Pressreader. This is NOT some sort of dodgy file-sharing operation. As had also been explained in this thread, Pressreader works with some seriously big media companies. Do you really think that the New York Times would just let some scammers repackage their journalism and sell it on?

 

 

Chris, as the editor of a magazine that is available through Pressreader, it would be interesting to know how the decision-making process works and what, in general terms, the economics of it are. I defend Warner's decision not to deal with digital operations like Pressreader 100% - that's their prerogative - but it's interesting that Bauer has reached a different decision.

 

Jim

I'm not the Editor of a magazine. I haven't been since 2008 when Model Rail was still under the EMAP banner. I'm not privy to decision-making at Bauer but I assume that when any large publisher deals with an outfit such as Pressreader it is on a mass deal, not a title by title basis. I'm not suggesting that I object to my work being available on Pressreader, as I'm paid for it by my employer, so it is Bauer's not mine anyway. Copyright infringement is a different matter altogether and certainly does damage to both businesses and individuals. (CJL)

[Jim Martin]

22 minutes ago, dibber25 said:

I'm not the Editor of a magazine. I haven't been since 2008 when Model Rail was still under the EMAP banner. I'm not privy to decision-making at Bauer but I assume that when any large publisher deals with an outfit such as Pressreader it is on a mass deal, not a title by title basis. I'm not suggesting that I object to my work being available on Pressreader, as I'm paid for it by my employer, so it is Bauer's not mine anyway. Copyright infringement is a different matter altogether and certainly does damage to both businesses and individuals. (CJL)

 

Apologies to you and Richard Foster both. I was looking at the current issue of MR last night (ironic, because I don't often buy it but I did this month) and I noticed your photo on the "According to Chris" page. When I was writing my earlier comment, I simply assumed that it must have been there because you were the editor! That's what being an elder statesman of the hobby'll get you 

 

Jim

[Jim Martin]

2 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

 

Readly pay a small amount to the publisher  based on the number of pages read in each issue. However, if you split that £7.99 up between the number of pages and then knock out a chuck that goes to Readly themselves, the small amount is very, very, very small indeed!

 

 

Pressreader do, too, although your point about the per-page payment is well made. This article (https://flashesandflames.com/2019/05/24/who-wants-all-you-can-read/ - which, ironically, renders for me with an advert for Readly at the top) includes some figures for revenue and royalties paid out. To be honest, both numbers seem pretty low for a company that claims millions of users per month. That said, they do apparently make a profit, which is more than a lot of sexy new media companies can say. I wonder if "It claims some 12m monthly users either pay for single issues, or $29.95 for a monthly all-you-can-eat subscription, or are gifted access by sponsoring airlines, hotels, public libraries and corporations" means that they count, for example, every passenger using an airline they've signed a deal with as a potential user. I downloaded their app last night to see what it was like: I logged in with my library card and when I start it up, it tells me that my access is sponsored by my local council.

 

Jim