In the 14 October 2009 New York Times article Libraries and Readers Wade Into Digital Lending, which looked at library patrons looking to borrow digital books, Macmillan CEO John Sargent made the following statements:
“I don’t have to get in my car, go to the library, look at the book, check it out,” said John Sargent, chief executive of Macmillan, which publishes authors like Janet Evanovich, Augusten Burroughs and Jeffrey Eugenides. “Instead, I’m sitting in the comfort of my living room and can say, ‘Oh, that looks interesting’ and download it.”
As digital collections grow, Mr. Sargent said he feared a world in which “pretty soon you’re not paying for anything.” Partly because of such concerns, Macmillan does not allow its e-books to be offered in public libraries.
In response, and with the assistance of Jane Litte and Robin from Dear Author, I composed a letter to Mr. Sargent, asking that he rethink Macmillan’s policy on allowing its digital catalog to be accessed by libraries offering digital lending to patrons in the United States. (Next up, I think, shall be an equally long letter to the New York Public Library asking what it was smoking when it decided to disallow non-resident library cards.)
Below the fold, if you’re curious, is the text of my letter which should have arrived in Mr. Sargent’s office earlier this week. I hope the policy is reconsidered, and soon, as digital lending is about the best thing to hit my computer and Sony since, well, electricity and a rechargeable battery. Decisions like these that penalize digital readers for no valid reason make me ineffably sad. And really cranky.
Dear Mr. Sargent:
My name is Sarah Wendell, and I am the co-founder of the romance novel review website Smart Bitches Trashy Books. Our community is a very active one comprised of readers, writers, published romance authors, and publishing folks all discussing romance fiction and the publishing industry.
I’m not sure if you are aware, but one of the most active groups to embrace digital reading and digital books is romance readers, in large part because the portability and convenience of digital books fit so easily into the diversely engaged lifestyle of contemporary women. Which is why I was struck so strongly by your comments in the 14 October 2009 New York Times article about digital books and libraries:
“I don’t have to get in my car, go to the library, look at the book, check it out,” said John Sargent, chief executive of Macmillan, which publishes authors like Janet Evanovich, Augusten Burroughs and Jeffrey Eugenides. “Instead, I’m sitting in the comfort of my living room and can say, ‘Oh, that looks interesting’ and download it.”
As digital collections grow, Mr. Sargent said he feared a world in which “pretty soon you’re not paying for anything.” Partly because of such concerns, Macmillan does not allow its e-books to be offered in public libraries.
While I well understand the space limitations of newspaper interviews, and am certain you said a lot more than just those words, your comments as related seem to equate downloading and online commerce with piracy and theft—that if something is downloaded, the recipient is not paying for it. Moreover, your comments seem to indicate that you are not in favor of library lending, particularly the lending of digital media, particularly since Macmillan does not allow its books to be lent digitally in American libraries. I’m writing to ask that you please rethink that decision.
It seems to me from your comments that you may be equating library loans of digital books with free, pirated books; however, those two things are fundamentally different. Digital books are a format, like large print or mass market paperback. Readers have a preference for one over the other, and not because of reasons related to potential theft. In the same way that readers who prefer a paper format rely on being able to check out free paper books from the library, so do readers who prefer electronic books want the ability to check out free digital books from their local library. The free lending principle of public libraries applied to digital media is not at all the same as stealing or pirating a copy of a book.
Books digitally lent from public libraries, like paper books, are a gateway to a potential legitimate revenue stream. Libraries influence book buying, particularly among romance readers, who are high volume book buyers. Readers like me, who regularly read 3-4 books per week, use library books to try new authors. Books that I’ve borrowed from the library can and do become purchases from my local bookstore. Moreover, library lending can enable greater buying potential for digital books. Once a user becomes comfortable with the process of borrowing and downloading a library ebook, purchasing that same digital book is easier. So not only does traditional library lending incentivize book buying among avid readers, but electronic library lending can incentivize digital book buying, which, as you pointed out, is even more convenient than traditional book buying, because it can be accomplished anywhere the reader has access to both an Internet connection and an electronic device ranging from a laptop computer to an iPhone.
Digital library lending also meets a need unique to women readers, one of which you may not be aware. For many women, the most preferred commerce method is digital. I queried my Web site’s readers as to what types of products they buy online, and the response was a digital avalanche. Among the things purchased online by the women who responded to my query: movies, music, shoes, clothing, jewelry, groceries, craft supplies, toys, party supplies, garden supplies, office supplies, gifts, computer equipment, travel tickets, and, in more than one case, automobiles.
And the most common item mentioned by the women who responded to my request? Books. Books from online e-bookstores, books from print bookstores, and books from their public library, either ordered and placed on hold, or downloaded and read on a digital reader. I regularly read digital books from the New York Public Library.
Why are you excluding your books from being downloaded by these eager library patrons? Readers like me buy many books, and as my casual survey of my many readers can attest, women readers prefer digital commerce, particularly for books and digital media. So if library lending represents a gateway to eventual purchases, refusing to allow your company’s books to be digitally available to library patrons effectively excludes Macmillan from untold future revenue. According to the Romance Writers of America, the romance reader buys over $1.7 billion in romance fiction annually, and digital readers already tolerate many frustrations in order to read our favorite books electronically. Making things easier for us will not induce piracy; on the contrary, it will build loyalty in a readership that is already amazingly loyal in our book buying habits. Show us you understand our needs and wants and we will buy more, not fewer, Macmillan books. We would also appreciate competitive pricing and simultaneous digital release, but those are subjects for future conversations.
I hope that you will reconsider your decision to exclude Macmillan digital books from public libraries. Whether the book is paper or digital, romance fans are eager to find your books in their nearest public library. I am sure you would never announce that you have made the decision to exclude Macmillan’s mass-market paperbacks or hardcover large print editions from public libraries. Excluding digital books is tantamount to doing exactly that: eliminating access to a desired format for a population eager to read, and ideally purchase, your books. I will hope that I will find Macmillan books in the New York Public Library’s e-catalog soon.
Until that time, your decision to disallow digital book borrowing through public libraries is, in the opinion of this avid reader and book purchaser, bad business that does nothing to serve anti-piracy efforts.
Digitally yours,
Sarah Wendell
Managing Partner
Smart Bitches, Trashy Books LLC
Just to throw out another variation on who can be a borrower from a given public library: in Ohio, all Ohio residents can get cards for free from any public library. The libraries with which I’m familiar also have clauses to allow students attending local colleges whose permanent addresses are out of state to get cards, though I don’t know if that’s part of the rules or just something most libraries do. Now that I think of it, this may have something to do with the fact that they all get some funding from the state, and in the case of some small libraries all their funding may come from the state level. (Although after what our governor did to our budget last summer, lots of libraries that never had local levies before have one on the ballot for next week.) Non-residents of the state can be charged for a card.
I have a hard time imagining not being allowed to go to any library I’d be willing to drive to often enough for it to be worth it and get a card, especially if I weren’t even allowed the priviledge of paying for one. I’m managing with three plus the alumni association card for my alma mater’s university library for now, but I’ve got my eye on a fourth if there’s ever something I want that can only be found there by the release date. What with the agreements that the biggest system has with some neighboring systems, any public library that won’t accept one of those four is probably far enough away that I’d rather just ILL it.
I think libraries should be able to lend e-books. No different to the paper books. I spend a lot of money on books each year but, like others have said here, I also use the library to try books out by new authors etc. If I like them, I’ll buy that book and/or I’ll buy backlist and/or new releases. And, just as importantly, I’ll tell people about them. And those people may buy too.
And in Marianne’s example above, if the book in question was an author I knew and wanted, I’d definitely choose buying myself versus getting the library book for free. Either in paper or e format. Because I know I’ll want to re-read it. If it were a new author, I might choose to wait for a library book (and there likely would be a wait) but depending on who had recommended to it and how keen I was, I might not.
I want to be published one day and I’ll want my books in libraries because I want people to read them. Some people can’t afford to buy many or any new books but I still rather they were reading my books and (hopefully) telling people about them, blogging about them, etc which may translate into sales for me even if the initial borrower doesn’t buy a book. I agree with what Sarah said that you can’t punish someone for not being enough of a sale, because that person might be pushing you to all and sundry after loving your book even if he/she can’t afford it personally.
Piracy is a big concern but I tend to think that the sort of people who pirate consistently aren’t likely to buy the book under any circumstances. Most people will pay and respect the rights if they can do so in an easily accessible, non DRM nightmare, I own what I buy, fair priced way.
I believe piracy is directly linked to availability: if I can have a book within the next month or so, even if I have to wait a bit for it, I’ll do it because I believe the authors and everyone involved with the book should get a reward for their job. But if I have to wait so long I forget the title or why I wanted to read the book in the first place, because at my library there is only 1 paperback copy of the book which becomes AWOL after the 3-4 lending; and I find on the internet a copy, I’ll probably take it. (I know it’s wrong wrong wrong, sorry). If they allow my library to purchase ebooks, waiting lists reduce, and I’m sure my turn will eventually come, I wait and read their copy, which I’m sure would contain no mistakes, or bad translations, etc. You can’t really fight technology, just use it so piracy will not be needed/profitable.
You don’t borrow files, cds, or dvds, you borrow books, music or movies. The format doesn’t change the “lost sale”. IMO, this publisher would rather do away with library lending, but can’t say that, especially to national selling newspaper
At this point, I can only conclude, publishers will be fighting e-publishing with everything they’ve got. Eventually they will have to accept the new technology, just as the music industry has had to. Best way to save a company, cut the executive salary, bonuses, And the 8 million dollar advance(s) for a single title(referring to Ted Kennedy’s book here) .
It’s been a banner week for Mr. Sargent over at Macmillan-
http://www.ereads.com/richard_curtis/2009/10/macmillan-issues-new-contract.html
. This new, “updated” contract for Macmillan group does a couple of things:
1) REQUIRES digital rights from the author (I don’t know why an author would refuse to allow digital rights but some do, most notably JK Rowling)
2) Standardizes the royalties on e-books at 20% to the author. Current floor on e-book royalties is 25% and frequently they are higher.
On DTC (direct to consumer) sales, Macmillan is pushing the royalties a bit higher than previously- 10% rather than the previous 5%.
The e-book thing really bugs me. While Amazon maintains they are losing money at $9.99 ebooks, many exclusive e-pubs offer books their books for lower. I can only assume they turn a profit as most of us are unwilling to pay someone to go to work. There is no print or shipping cost and no book returns to count against royalties. It’s easy to track the sale. Much lower labor cost and the market is growing.
I hope the agent pushback is tremendous on this. Or authors go union.
I’ve read just about every digital romance novel my library has to lend and hope your letter sinks in to the powers that be. Why are so many publishers hung up on the medium? Through the ages people recited stories, then they were written on paper, now they are digital. Stories have always been shared, the medium has changed. Not moving to digital is tantamount to saying that he doesn’t want to share the stories anymore.
When DA had the OMGFucklong! comment thread attached to their Readers’ Rights post, I thought, Wow! There’s some pretty strong feelings here! I’m a newish e-book reader, and I didn’t really get why there was such outrage.
Now here we are today, and once again, four comments into the discussion on e-books, piracy is mentioned, and I’m feeling the outrage. Why does the fact that it’s an e-book automatically mean there’s a bigger chance of piracy? WHY would an e-book reader have to pay a charge that a p-book reader would not? WHY would a library patron have to rent an e-book when she can borrow a p-book? WHY are e-book readers less trustworthy than p-book readers?
Especially since, according to Maili on the DA post, most pirated books electronically available were scanned from print books. Having e-books available to borrow does NOT mean they will immediately be pirated by the cheap, thieving e-book borrowers.
Some people have admitted to pirating books, only because they couldn’t get them any other way. The pirates all seemed to be agreeing that, if there weren’t so many obstacles in the way of a reader giving a publishing company their money, they wouldn’t be pirating. They would prefer to buy a legal e-book.
Having books available in more formats means more readers, and more sales. I have discovered authors in libraries, and gone out and bought their entire backlists, often in multiple copies. Hello, Lois McMaster Bujold! How do I love thee? Let me count your books, and buy them, give them to my friends, and buy some more!
I’m now an e-book reader because of space issues. I cannot buy more physical books. I don’t have anywhere to put them, unless I become a hoarder. Having become an e-book reader, I really like reading books on my reader. It’s infinitely more comfortable to read from than a p-book, especially a hardcover p-book. And I LOVE that I can carry several books around with me at any given time, without throwing my back out.
And now I’m getting incoherent, so I’ll stop. I wish the people who are afraid that e-books are going to cause the end of the publishing world as they know it would get over their Ragnarok! We’re All Going to Die! thinking, and start looking for ways to make the inevitable changes work for everybody.
Thank you to all the other librarians who commented and I concur. Libraries pay for the books, they aren’t free. Circulation of ebooks whether via Overdrive or Netlibrary do force a return. I just wish they’d figure out how I could return it early and a good pricing model for unlimited, simultaneous checkouts – I mean it is an electronic file afterall. Fines to use ebooks is annoying, minimally, and simply wrong. Oops, I meant fees not fines, but effectively, the same thing in this case.
Taxes – do pay for the library, typically, and usually part of property taxes. What frustrates me is that a mileage will pass to fund the library and then the county/state/bleeping government will redirect the funds to something else.
Ann Arbor, only an hour away. I’m so thankful for MelCat (Michigan’s electronic library catalog and inter-library loan system) or else I’d never be able to find what I want at my little library in DeWitt. I just hope the gov. doesn’t trash it. And stopping my political rant here.
Finally, as a reader, if I’m going to try out a new author, I want 2 things. First to try him/her for free, that way if I didn’t like the book, nothing lost. If I love it, then I’ll try to get my hands on all their books. Second, if the author writes in a series, I want to read the first book first. Libraries are MUCH better at having book one in their collection than a bookstore. Ex. I was given book 6 in Eloisa James’ Duchess series. Well, I want to read book 1, so I use interlibrary loan to obtain it. I LOVE IT!! So, much so, I now own every one of James’ books except the 2 about to be re-released, which I’m thinking will be great Christmas gifts. I also had a book given to my written by Debbie MacComber that is in a series. Same scenario, except I didn’t care for it. So, I’m not going to buy all her stuff. So, maybe the publisher lost the sale of one book because of the library, but another scored big. Anyway, same thing for me whether it be paper or electronic. I currently prefer paper as I spend all day on the computer and I like to share my favorite books with others.
Good heaven, this aversion to sharing books makes me wonder if we even would HAVE libraries if they’d been invented under our modern understanding of intellectual “property.”
Like many here, I check out books in the library to see if I would like to buy them. Those I’d read again, I buy. Those whose authors I like, I buy more books from also.
And loaning library e-books will the same limited system it is right now; you loan one of your three e-books by that author, someone reads it and returns the file. The next person gets the file. That’s always been the weirdly (wonderfully) communist way libraries create knowledge in the middle of a market in which knowledge is a product people sell. And yet this sharing activity drives people to buy books! Handy.
I’ve also wondered—if you had more Harry Potter readers than ebook copies in a library, whether a small revenue stream could be set up—pay a smaller-than-purchase price to get a “rent” copy right now that you would otherwise wait in a long “free” line for, which would expire at the end of your reading term but also offer to let you purchase the book at a reduced price (since you’ve already partially “bought” the book by “renting” it).
If publishing bigwigs would do their jobs and set up some sensible monetizing strategies for e-books, they might even make MORE money from them. Sheesh.
I’m assuming you’re both talking about PLR, and ouch. The library itself doesn’t pay PLR. The library patron doesn’t pay PLR. The goverment does (at least in the UK).
There’s a cap of £6600 per author in the UK, and you have to apply for it. From the website, I get the impression it actually bypasses the publisher altogether and goes straight to the author, but I’m not sure about that.
There are several mutual international agreements which means if you’re from a country with PLR and your book is in a library in another country with PLR you can claim it there, too. I believe it also counts towards certain sales figures, too.
(The PLR website is unexpectedly interesting: Did you know Nora Roberts was the second highest loaned adult author in the UK 07/08?)
If you were talking about a fee per ebook for a patron, I have no idea since I’ve yet to encounter a library that will loan me eBooks here! There is a fee for things like Audio Books, CDs and DVDs, so it wouldn’t be unusual. It’s normally a couple of quid, depending on how recent an item is, for a loan length similar to a book (as opposed to a video rental store or iTunes, which only let you have something for a few days).
@Windowshoppist
Our library system has something like this (or at least they did I haven’t paid much attention lately) with hardcover bestsellers. We have a free waiting list and a read now list. I think it’s a dollar a book. Also on recent releases that have a long waiting list the library loan period is shortened from 3 weeks down to 10 days on the free list books.
The Ann Arbor library offers this type of “rental” now for popular print books & DVDs. They offer many under normal lending terms and buy extra copies that impatient patrons can pay $1/week for. I don’t see why such a system couldn’t be developed for ebooks, but if it requires considerable additional work for library staff, they may not have the staff/budget.
I’m all in favor of ebooks, but I’m still afraid this applies much, much more to readers who would reply to a post on a site like this or Dear Author, which I think covers a small percent of people. I think that more easily available ebooks means a lot of people would buy books instead of stealing them, and it means that more people would steal them. I have no idea where the balance would end up.
Still, as with so many other areas of life, I think we should not use that logic to punish those who abide by the rules.
~Moreover, LIBRARIES are paying for the book. Libraries BUY their books. They aren’t free from the publisher. And often, the library pays more for the digital copy than we do as consumers because it’s not as discounted.~
So exactly on the point. The book is purchased—author and publisher are paid. The library provides a service to those who want—or need—to borrow a book rather than purchase it. It’s already been purchased.
At the end of the allowed time, the book is returned—if paper—or erased (would that be the right term) from the borrow’s device.
Everybody wins.
One thing that seems to be missing from this discussion is whether we have the right to do with eBooks as we please. With a print book, I can purchase it and share it with my friends. If I don’t feel the need to own it forever, I can donate it to the library.
With an eBook this is extremely restricted. I can buy it and sometimes can get it licensed for x number of devices. But I can’t give my license to anyone else if I don’t need to own it forever. I can’t give my used eBook license to the library to supplement their few copies.
This model of digital ownership makes me very wary. Right now, a library can go to a bookstore and to Amazon and purchase any print title or music CD or DVD and add it to the library’s collection. This is not possible with any eContent that I am aware of. Sure, we can purchase a Kindle and load it up and loan the kindle with the books on it, but that would not work in many libraries.
I hesitate to say that this new model of content ownership is devious and anti-library, but it sure feels like this could get really bad for libraries if it isn’t nipped in the bud soon.
I have this quote hanging on my desk at work:
Jen – I don’t know if it’s true in all libraries, but my local library cannot go to the bookstore or Amazon to buy books. They have a catalog (or perhaps multiple catalogs, I’m not sure), and ever item they purchase comes from the catalog. Not all items are available there, even if they are available in bookstores.
And the local library doesn’t generally buy ebooks/e-audio directly. They work through a company like overdrive to manage that aspect of lending. So they can’t just go onto a website like Samhain’s and buy an ebook that they like either.
In addition, books donated to our library almost never end up in circulation. They’re sold by the Friends of the Library, and proceeds from those sales go back to the library.
Isn’t it amazing how many different models there are in the US for libraries? We fund them any old way we can and it differs wildly from state to state, county to county and town to town. And how great it is to have access to so many books all in one place to be able to read. Reading some of the stuff publishers of journals and books are saying now, we’d never be able to set up any type of library—pool our money, buy some books and share…it must be communists! Certainly its a violation of my rights to make as much money off of writers and readers as I, the middleman, can.
All of us commenting here at least have access to a computer, maybe at your public library again but probably your own computer so we have some money to spare. Libraries were “invented” when books were expensive and salaries were low so owning more than a copy of the Bible and maybe a book with Shakespeare was beyond the means of most people. Libraries still allow us all to stretch our budget. They allow folks with no money, out of work, students, to read what they absolutely can’t afford to buy. They allow us to learn and allow us to enjoy. We read romances but libraries have stock reports, books on the Artic and on the Amazon, encyclopedias, novels no longer in print, books 1, 2, and 3 in a series where I can only buy book 4. And libraries are the main buyers of some kinds of nonfiction.
As was pointed out their funds are being cut in hard times when people need them even more. Its nice to see fiction writers here stick up for libraries. Lets all make a point of saying good things about this wonderful institution and letting whatever funding bodies support them know that cutting some thousands out of a resource used by so many if NOT they way they should go in these hard times. Cut their secretaries or landscaping or whatever, not the library book budget.
Random, take or leave it though thought:
It seem to me your letter was way too long to be effective. Heck, I was interested in your point of view and I stopped on paragraph 3. The people at the other end aren’t actually interested in your POV or doing a whole lot of reading (ironically).
A couple of short paragraphs like those below might be more effective, at least from a word count POV.
The shorter version:
Your position on libraries and digital works seems to be self defeating. Libraries offer a legal, regulated, and revenue generating method for people to sample your books. I’ve bought books that I wouldn’t have ordinarily thanks to borrowing in an e-format. And what’s worse, if people aren’t given easily, legal ways to use content digitally, they start to pirate it, aka music and movies.
You’re losing out on profits and control by saying no to libraries on e-formats. Good luck with forcing people to buy your books in hard copy in if they don’t want it that way and can’t preview it either: I suspect you’ll need it in the end.
Again, just a thought. You’ll probably get a response anyway because you’ve got a great blog going on. 😉
way to go Sarah.
Nicely put Sarah.