Bitchin' Blog Posts
HarperCollins Seeks to Limit Digital Lending, Access Patron Data, Generally Piss Off Readers
by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | February 25, 2011 | Friday at 8:57 pm | 124 Comments
Publishers are looking to limit how libraries do digital lending. It’s infuriating. I’m going to have to go wear my unsexy mouthguard, I’m clenching my jaw to steel-bending proportions the more I read.
Start here: Bobbi L. Newman explained the great crapful news from OverDrive about digital lending:
Digital book sales are now a significant percentage of all publisher and author revenue. As a result several trade publishers are re-evaluating eBook licensing terms for library lending services. Publishers are expressing concern and debating their digital future where a single eBook license to a library may never expire, never wear out, and never need replacement….
Under this publisher’s requirement, for every new eBook licensed, the library (and the OverDrive platform) will make the eBook available to one customer at a time until the total number of permitted checkouts is reached.
In other words, the publisher sets a limit to the number of times a digital book can be lent, then when that limit is reached, that library must purchase another copy.
But wait! There’s more! That mysterious “publishers” referred to in the OverDrive email also says they want access to patron information. From the original OverDrive Update (available as a PDF on LibrarianByDay):
our publishing partners have expressed concerns regarding the card issuance policies and qualification of patrons who have access to OverDrive supplied digital content. Addressing these concerns will require OverDrive and our library partners to cooperate to honor geographic and territorial rights for digital book lending, as well as to review and audit policies regarding an eBook borrower’s relationship to the library (i.e. customer lives, works, attends school in service area, etc.).
Let’s not let libraries do their own jobs. That would be a terrible thing.
But Library Journal’s Josh Hadro has the megascoop: guess which publisher it was?
HarperCollins.
HarperCollins Caps Loans on Ebook Circulations.
In the first significant revision to lending terms for ebook circulation, HarperCollins has announced that new titles licensed from library ebook vendors will be able to circulate only 26 times before the license expires.
Mention of the new terms was first made in a letter from OverDrive CEO Steve Potash to customers yesterday. He wrote:“[W]e have been required to accept and accommodate new terms for eBook lending as established by certain publishers. Next week, OverDrive will communicate a licensing change from a publisher that, while still operating under the one-copy/one-user model, will include a checkout limit for each eBook licensed. Under this publisher’s requirement, for every new eBook licensed, the library (and the OverDrive platform) will make the eBook available to one customer at a time until the total number of permitted checkouts is reached.”
Though the letter leaves the publisher unnamed, HarperCollins confirmed today to LJ that it is the publisher referred to.The publisher also issued a short statement: “HarperCollins is committed to the library channel. We believe this change balances the value libraries get from our titles with the need to protect our authors and ensure a presence in public libraries and the communities they serve for years to come.”
Josh Marwell, President, Sales for HarperCollins, told LJ that the 26 circulation limit was arrived at after considering a number of factors, including the average lifespan of a print book, and wear and tear on circulating copies.
Cue me saying, “Oh, Harper. What are you thinking?!”
After library digital lending was a very big topic at Tools of Change and at DBW, it seems we’d taken two symbolic steps forward in using dialogue to bridge the huge gulf between libraries/their patrons and publishers, but while our readerly backs were turned, Harper leaped backwards.
Lip service to the reader, we has some.
With libraries serving as gateways to reading addictions, and an opportunity to try books that readers might not otherwise afford, this decision seems greedy at best and dumbfounding at worst. I understand their desire to equate a paper copy’s disintegration at the hands of multiple readers with the digital copy being lent the same number of times, but the upshot of that policy is to say to libraries, “We want you, with your shrinking budgets and your closing branches, to buy more books. KThxbye!” This is not a business model that works. It’s a business model that insults readers and libraries.
What do you think? Do you think HarperCollins is taking a step toward preserving its bottom line, or is this a step toward bottoming out their own progress?
ETA: Eric Hellman has a wider-angle examination of the situation, saying, “While I don’t think it’s tenable over the long term for libraries to specialize in inconvenience, I still think it’s very important for libraries to be offering ebooks through services such as Overdrive. Even if the lending models of today turn out to be transitional, they help everyone involved become comfortable with library ebooks. Once the library ebook experience becomes embedded in our everyday lives, readers, publishers, authors and librarians will be able to recognize the novel digital distribution models that benefit everyone.”
ETA: Courtney Milan examines the news from her own reader’s perspective, saying, “Libraries are the future of reading. When the economy is down, we need to make it easier for people to buy and read books for free, not harder. It is stupid to sacrifice tomorrow’s book buyers for today’s dollars, especially when it’s obvious that the source in question doesn’t have any more dollars to give you
ETA: Literary Sluts have an excellent point: “At the end of the day, the only reason I ever recommended the Nook, Sony, or Kobo readers over the Kindle was access to eBooks through your library. I believe today’s announcement is a sign of things to come for Overdrive and that soon there will be no advantage at all to those eReaders.”
ETA: Peter Brantley has a savory idea: “I would love to see ALA and libraries do a hall of shame. For a day: pull off Harper frontlist books from shelves with PR.”
ETA: I found this amazing link: Lendle, a librarian-coordinated network of lending Kindle books to people who want to borrow them. Found via this thought-provoking blog post.
Filed: General Bitching, Ranty McRant
Tagged: wtfery, make the burning stop, harper collins, avon
SonomaLass said on 02.25.11 at 09:10 PM • [link]
I could not agree more, except that I don’t have a sexy mouthguard. I may wear my retainer in solidarity, however.
Kicking libraries and patrons when they are down, financially speaking, is bad publisher PR. While I know a lot of readers don’t pay attention to publisher brands, this may be an exception (and not a beneficial one). Stooopid.
Michael H said on 02.25.11 at 09:15 PM • [link]
I wonder if Overdrive is applying these restrictions to ebooks from all publishers or just those from Harper-Collins. There are bound to be publishers with fewer restrictions on ebook lending.
Alley said on 02.25.11 at 09:16 PM • [link]
26 seems like a strange number considering I’m still number (*checks*) 22 in queue for a new book at my library and I think started out at #45 or so. Clearly books are being read by more than 26 library patrons before being replaced. I’d think a policy of licenses being good for two years or something would make more sense, but what do I know?
I just see this resulting in libraries simply not carrying very much in the way of digital books.
Mireya said on 02.25.11 at 09:17 PM • [link]
Let’s imagine that other publishers follow suit, let’s say, the same 5 that developed what we know as the Agency model for pricing ... I “see” a lot more author rants about ebook piracy in our futures that’s fer sure.
SB Sarah said on 02.25.11 at 09:19 PM • [link]
@mireya: oh please no. I hope you are not right. Those author rants make me cringe like cringing has never been cringed before.
Keira Soleore said on 02.25.11 at 09:20 PM • [link]
Libraries will simply opt not to carry HC’s eBooks. Why bother paying extortionist rates when you carry the veto power? Readers will be the losers in this tussle. Problem for the libraries is that readers will blame the libraries for not carrying e-versions of the books they want. If libraries then proceed to explain to irritated readers who’s to blame for the lack of eBooks, the pub will have potential future paying customers ticked off thereby ensuring that it will lose money in the long term. Short term gain long term pain for the pub; blame for the libraries; nada, zip, nyet for the reader.
Neveth said on 02.25.11 at 09:21 PM • [link]
it was infuriating enough until I got to the 26 limit. Oh please. Even paperbacks make it 26 times before they get so damaged they have to be scrapped. Here’s a newsflash for those people : half the work the back-end of a library does is repair the books. Fix torn covers, glue pages back in, the only breaking point is if a portion of a page with text on it has been torn out.
oh man. I have such rage for Harper right now.
whiteoak said on 02.25.11 at 09:22 PM • [link]
How can they equate digital copies with hard copies? And when will they stop trying to sell even more? I am not putting that correctly but I used to buy paperbacks, I read them, I gave them to my mother, she read them, she gave them to my sister who read them and then the books were given to the local library, either for their shelves or for their sales. With my NookColor I can’t hardly lend the books out to someone else to read so more copies do need to be bought. At some point this greediness will need to be tempered with intelligence.
darlynne said on 02.25.11 at 09:22 PM • [link]
Honest to God, could Harper Collins issue a bigger “fuck you” to all of us than this? To the libraries that are barely staying open, to the growing numbers who rely on those struggling libraries?
You can’t tell me (well, they can try, but my fingers are in my ears) that physical books are only lent 26 times over the course of their lifetime, that libraries replace a book before patron 27 gets to read it? I don’t think so. Protecting their authors? I wish.
THIS makes me angrier than the douche-bag price-fixing-by-any-other-name agency model. THIS one I’m going to the mat for.
Keira Soleore said on 02.25.11 at 09:22 PM • [link]
BTW, I’m curious how HC came up with the 26 loans figure. Any librarian will tell you that even mmpbs have a much longer loan life; trades and hcs much much more.
library addict said on 02.25.11 at 09:23 PM • [link]
26 times? Print books, unless they are totally abused by a library patron, are check-out-able more than 26 times.
I imagine the geo restrictions thing is mostly aimed at the Free Library of Philadelphia which allows non-US residents to join for an annual fee. My library also allows out of state membership for a fee, but I think you have to be a US citizen. Of course, my library doesn’t have ebook lending, but they do use the digital audio book system.
Totally NOT cool, Harper Collins.
Emily said on 02.25.11 at 09:27 PM • [link]
Josh Marwell, President, Sales for HarperCollins, told LJ that the 26 circulation limit was arrived at after considering a number of factors, including the average lifespan of a print book, and wear and tear on circulating copies.
This stood out to me. I borrow books regularly from the library. It is laughable to think that my library would replace a book after 26 lendings (in a popular release that would be over the span of one-two years). Many of the books in my county library system are donated. The books are worn. They are (sometimes) torn. They are rarely replaced, and especially not after only such a short period of time. This is even more the case for the books that do not come from a donor.
I don’t have an eReader and I think my library placed their eLending on hold because of issues so right now this doesn’t affect me. I just had to say how laughable I find the comparison of the lifespan of a library book to this new 26 lending policy. It bothers me because decisions like this make me feel like the publishers don’t see the value in the library system. If only they knew how many authors are discovered in the library which then leads to purchases. And that’s their goal, right, to make money?
Amanda said on 02.25.11 at 09:30 PM • [link]
I’m on my local library board. I’m treasurer. I know how much $$$ we spend on books and such. I’m ready to call the publisher with a WTF??? Yeah, they just pretty much shot themselves in the foot. But, I think there are going to be a lot of growing pains as we move away from print to e formats. This is just perhaps one of them.
Protecting authors? What about garage sales? Many of my book-addicted friends only come out when there are books at a garage sale and nose through all the titles. No one gets any royalties from the 25 cent box. The person having the garage sale just gets more of an un-cluttered house and more room to buy new books. What about all the trading of titles that goes on? I have several friends that I used to trade books with before we all got addicted to our e-readers. There’s no more “Dude! You have to read this one. I’ll drop it off tomorrow!” Now, it is all “Here is the link!”
I don’t have the right answers. I just know that the library’s book budget has taken a beating in the financial crisis. Now, only 26 licenses per title seems ridiculous.
Ken Houghton said on 02.25.11 at 09:36 PM • [link]
I was thinking more of what a sexy mouthguard looks like, but SonomaLass beat me to it, so to the subject at hand.
The closest branch I have of the NYPL is Columbus. Before then, most of my non-Main/SIBL/PA browsing was done at that branch between the subway and 560 Lex (a great branch, btw).
Both branches have LARGE collections of paperbacks that are—let us be nice—well-read. If the NYPL were still tracking books with individual cards, I would give odds that many of the Belva Plains and Nora Robertses and Judith Tarrs and Barbara Cartlands have been checked out much more than 26 times.
So we have another advantage (besides the exercise one) to traditional books—HarperCollins doesn’t believe they expire so soon.
Nicole said on 02.25.11 at 09:40 PM • [link]
This makes no sense. Trying to gouge under-funded libraries to buy extra licences is not the way to make a profit. Libraries make a one and done purchase even with print (barring a book being mishandled and requiring total replacement). This sounds like the bright idea of greedy executive who has no idea of library budgets. The real area to increase profits is in lowering the price point and thus encouraging e-readers who buy their books to make more impulse buys. I don’t even have an MBA and I can figure this out.
sadiegrrrl said on 02.25.11 at 09:42 PM • [link]
wow, this is a slap in the face to libraries that are struggling just to maintain basic services at this point!
i completely second library addict’s statement and i would also add that harpercollins should factor in that ebooks are already a difficult sell for a lot of libraries, not all e-readers are compatible (the kindle doesn’t play well with overdrive) and if harpercollins wants to make their books relevant they shouldn’t be enforcing arbitrary limits. if i ever have a chance to buy ebooks for my collection i will have to think very hard about whether it is worth spending part of my extremely limited budget to get harpercollins’ books knowing that if they’re too popular i will have to spend more money to buy a new digital copy before i would even think to replace the print copy.
*runs off to retrieve her own super unsexy bite guard*
p.s. apologies if this comment is at all loopy, i’m all hopped up on antibiotics and over the counter meds to try and fight a sinus infection and things are a little spinny.
Laura said on 02.25.11 at 09:44 PM • [link]
/start sarcasm
Yes, here’s a truly inspired idea! Let’s make sure that no one can read our books! Let’s make sure we screw the libraries over because they don’t do anything for us! We are going to make so much money!
/end sarcasm
When there is no money to pay for something, the license does not get renewed. When the license does not get renewed, you lose readers because your books are not available. When your books are not available, patrons become upset. Librarians then explain the situation and most likely, you lose money from those library patrons for looking like greedy
hats. I will be one of them.
When you treat the libraries like diseased lepers, you lose. Period.
But you look all literary and elite and
.
Joanna Kimball said on 02.25.11 at 09:44 PM • [link]
Count me as another one who worked at a library nursing the mmpbs through FAR more than 26 lendings. Heck, we had books - and not a few! - in the stacks that were from 1880, with gummed checkout records listing patrons for a hundred years.
HC is also completely discounting how online patrons check out books. Since I can’t browse or flip through OverDrive’s books, I often check out 50 a day, ten at a time, and immediately “return” virtually all of them. It’s the digital equivalent of pulling them off the shelf and reading the back cover, then setting it back in its place. If that counts as one check-out, HC books are going to get burned through in a couple of days.
My personal opinion is that their magic number 26 has exactly zero to do with what happens to real library books and exactly everything to do with how many checkouts they see OverDrive typically recording on one of their books. I would guess they’re pushing for at least a 2x purchase over the useful circulating life of the book.
jayhjay said on 02.25.11 at 09:44 PM • [link]
Wow this pisses me off! Such greed! The poor libraries are already struggling, now we are forces these organization (who do a true public service) to reach into their already shallow pockets to cough up more funds? Argh
Sara Ramsey said on 02.25.11 at 09:52 PM • [link]
I completely disagree with HarperCollins’ decision to limit libraries to only 26 checkout - but I’m equally alarmed by their request for user data from the libraries. That seems even more onerous for libraries than the 26-checkout rule - how much paperwork would go into that, and would the library even be able to share data legally (or ethically)? That seems like a total nightmare clause that would force libraries to reconsider ebooks even more than the 26-checkout rule.
However, at least the fact that readers have no idea what the different corporations/imprints are works in HarperCollins’ favor - while there’s been a lot of talk about imprints branding themselves better, at least in this case it’s good for them that readers (outside the writing/library community) don’t have a clue. After all, it’s hard to organize a boycott of a publisher if you have to explain to the boycotters exactly who they’re supposed to be boycotting :)
Karen S. said on 02.25.11 at 09:56 PM • [link]
Okay, the idea that 26 checkouts is the “average” lifespan of a book is total bs. I work for the branches of a small-city library system and one of my recent projects was checking to see if some of the copies of fiction titles at a larger branch could be replaced with those at a smaller branch. Most of the copies that needed replacing because of actual structural deterioration of the book had gone out about 80+times (if not more—quite a few had gone out 100+times and weren’t too bad). If a book hadn’t gone out of the larger branch more than 40-50 times, I usually didn’t bother checking the condition.
They have to be including the books that have damage from something other than normal use—the ones that have been dropped in the bathtub, torn apart by the dog, etc.
I think, if anything, this will simply mean that HarperCollins’ ebooks won’t be purchased as often by libraries. I was about to say “unless it’s a very popular item” but then that’s kind of a catch-22; if they buy the really popular items, then the license will expire all the sooner.
Jennifer said on 02.25.11 at 09:59 PM • [link]
This makes me want to become a pirate, offering up all of HarperCollins ebooks that I own on the darknet. How would someone go about doing that?
Pam said on 02.25.11 at 10:03 PM • [link]
What really pisses me off is that as a child, my parents would not buy me books. Why waste money on that when there is a library full of them and the card is free!? So how many young readers are they going to be capping off when the library budget is so fucking thin they can barely buy books anyway, much less continually renew a digital license? The people in NYC with the 1979 print publishing mentality need to take that early retirement plan and let some people in who understand what the customer wants.
Jennifer Armintrout said on 02.25.11 at 10:08 PM • [link]
I cannot understand why anyone in publishing would want to make libraries mad at them.
Sarah W said on 02.25.11 at 10:15 PM • [link]
Libraries do not allow patrons to check out books if they don’t comply with residency or tax-payer requirements—-reciprocities are sanctioned, but card numbers are specific to the home library, and Overdrive already uses those numbers to verify patron eligibility. Anything more would be redundant and petty.
This aside, libraries don’t give out patron information without a warrant—and many librarians have gone to jail on obstruction and contempt charges rather than comply with those warrants. The ALA Code of Ethics forbids the disclosure of patron information. Period.
HarperCollins can suck it.
Phyl said on 02.25.11 at 10:16 PM • [link]
Overdrive released their free app just 3 or 4 days ago. After downloading it Wednesday night I started browsing my public library’s very small, but surprisingly broad, collection of digital romance. I couldn’t find anything that didn’t have a hold on it. Most books only had 1-3 holds on them. SEP’s Call Me Irresistible had over 30 holds on it. To compare, my library has 67 copies of that book in paper with over 140 holds on it. Ebooks are still a drop in the bucket and HC is not going to profit from this. I live in Ohio where (for now) we still fund libraries. But we have an idiot for governor, so I don’t expect the funding to continue.
Debbie's World of Books said on 02.25.11 at 10:19 PM • [link]
This is just wrong on so many levels. What’s up with the patron info? Come on! And where the heck did 26 come from? I can maybe see their point after thousands of check outs but 26? Seriously what other factors were they considering because I don’t know if I’ve seen any library book so trashed after 26 check outs that they had to order a new copy to replace it.
Ruth said on 02.25.11 at 10:24 PM • [link]
I’m guessing 26 came from a 2-week average lending period over 52 weeks. That’s the only number that 26 plugs into well, anyway.
So if that’s what they used to come up with this, then what they’re saying is they only expect a very popular physical library book (the kind that gets checked out/reserved constantly and is always in motion…like Twilight was) to last a year. And that’s ridiculous. While well-read bestsellers do get beat up faster, none of the public libraries I worked at had a problem with constantly having to replace them.
John Crutcher said on 02.25.11 at 10:25 PM • [link]
I think it may be premature to say that Harper is requiring access to patron information. I can think of several scenarios where Harper’s concerns about card issuance policies and qualification of patrons could be adressed without providing them one whit of information about specific patrons.
And, while I understand the heat about this change in their policies (and whether 26 is at all a reasonable limitation), I think we all be howling about the fact that neithr Simon &Schuster; or Macmillan are willing to provide ANY of their ebooks to libraries under ANY condition. Harper looks less outrageous next to them.
Limecello said on 02.25.11 at 10:25 PM • [link]
I’ve been tweeting about this with others - :X skimmed what you wrote - read the Library Journal article… 26 definitely won’t work. I utilize my library’s e-collection and have been patron number 22, or higher on a hold list, for a pre-release title. And then people put the book on hold after me. That means there’s a high probability of people not even getting the book/being part of the list before the book is even out in the open. And I can’t see the library just buying more copies over and over.
This makes me so sad, and so disappointed. As well as frustrated.
hapax said on 02.25.11 at 10:29 PM • [link]
Well, I just talked to my director, and we both agreed that we wouldn’t be ordering any more of their books for our e-collection. We’ve only offered e-books for a couple years, and many popular titles have already circulated in the 30’s and 40’s.
Which, unfortunately, is what I expect is *exactly* what the publisher wants. Some suit is surely thinking right now, “Yay! Now people who want to read the latest release from X Author will buy it from us, instead of checking it out from the library!”
And yep, the public WILL blame the library for not having what they want, not the publisher for making it too expensive for us to purchase.
Ann Marie said on 02.25.11 at 10:45 PM • [link]
Hapax, do you think a patron would buy an e-version if the library didn’t have it, or would they check out a hard copy? For myself in print, I’m not picky about hardback, paperback, large print, whatever. E-book readers have a gizmo, though, so maybe they are more wedded to format . . . once again I’m left thinking the publishers don’t know much about consumer behavior with their products.
Jane said on 02.25.11 at 10:48 PM • [link]
Part of me is so fed up that I just want to throw the towel in. Digital book adoption will march on without the big 6. If they want to institute policies that decreases their visibility and creates barriers to discovery, why should we readers really care? Ultimately they are only hurting ourselves.
I am only interested in helping my library out and make sure my fellow patrons understand that these problems are not the fault of the library.
Lizabeth S. Tucker said on 02.25.11 at 10:54 PM • [link]
My response to HarperCollins, sent in an email, was as follows:
***I recently read of your determination to limit digital library lending of books from your publishing company. Limiting was bad enough, but the chosen amount of 26 lends before a library must *rebuy* the book makes no real sense. According to what I read, you somehow determined that this is the number of times a book can be checked out before the library must replace it. This shows me just how clueless you are and the lack of anything resembling research. Perhaps a librarian could assist you with that.
Libraries are short of funds, particularly during these hard times. Their response will quite likely be to not buy any of your books at all for lending. This will have the result of not introducing new readers to some of your authors, new and old. It will also be a very bad public relations ploy. Readers are knowledgeable. We talk to each other, we are a force to be reckoned with. I expect to see a actual purchaser consider long and hard whether buying a book from you will be worth supporting a company such as you.
I know it probably means exactly nothing to you, but I will no longer be buying any books published by your company, whether in digital or physical form. I cannot in good conscience support your brainless policies. I shall miss reading new books from such wonderful writers as Elizabeth Peters, Meg Cabot, Janet Evanovich, and so many others.
Farewell, HarperCollins.***
I shall be interested to see if I receive a response from them.
gave59 ~ I’ve more than given these greedy publishers 59 chances. It is now at an end.
TracyP said on 02.25.11 at 11:10 PM • [link]
Snort. When the federal government demanded patron records via the Patriot Act, librarians said ‘go fuck yourselves.” What makes them think that publishers will get anywhere with this?
It’ll never happen. Libraries will simply quit purchasing e-books. The only work around might be to charge for e-books, say $1 a book? 50 cents? Some libraries have had to start charging for interlibrary loans because of the slice to their budgets. They’re certainly not going to drop any more money on e-books that will only be good for a year or so.
HarperCollins is actively pricing itself out of a very lucrative market.
Joe said on 02.25.11 at 11:21 PM • [link]
I haven’t read all of the comments so I don’t know if anyone has already got here, but here goes: A new book costs $25, sale priced at $15 - a book that must be printed, wholesaled, shipped, stocked, and then purchased. E-books cut out all of the middle men, and yet they cost almost as much as printed book. Why? If I’m going to read a book once, why should I buy a copy at full price.
Libraries will always circulate reading material as long as the prices are artificially high. If publishers want people to buy the books they read, they should make the prices reflect their costs.
(Mr. Rogers voice): Can you say greedy bastards? I knew you could.
becca said on 02.25.11 at 11:29 PM • [link]
Who publishes Nora Roberts? I’d really hate to have to quit my Nora Roberts addiction, but if it’s HC, I’ll do it.
I’m sure that asking for user data is to make sure people don’t try to get around the stupid geographical restrictions, but I can’t see any library being willing to go along with supplying them with user data.
Don’t they see that they’re only encouraging piracy? Even the music industry wasn’t this stupid. It’s enough to make me want to don eye-patch and cutlass and start singing Yo Ho.
Lisa Hendrix said on 02.25.11 at 11:34 PM • [link]
And there’s exactly what HC is trying to address, both for their own benefit and the authors’: ONE copy sold and loaned out (potentially forever) vs SIXTY-SEVEN copies sold/loaned out until they fall apart and have to be replaced.
I’m all for reader accessibility, but if popular authors like SEP or Nora suddenly get only 1/67th of the library sales right up front—not counting any replacement copies sold down the road—how long do you think they and the publishers will be able to stay in business? How about if, instead of a big bad NY publisher, it’s a self-pubbed mother from Ohio who sells 1 copy/library instead of 67 copies/library? Does that make the picture look different? If publishers succeed in establishing a standard of practice for library lending of ebooks, that standard can protect the small fry, too.
There’s already incredible pressure to devalue books toward $0, based on the premise that “information wants to be free” — a nonsensical idea that ignores the work of the creators or gatherers of that information. Compound that with the notion that just because an ebook is infinitely replicable, it should be *freely* replicable unto infinity and you’re telling authors they should be working for nothing but the honor of being read.
I’m also floored by the argument that the fact that the economy is tight justifies making books free for libraries/patrons at the expense of those who write and publish them. That’s nice. Can I use your car tomorrow. I can’t afford a new one and yours has already been paid for once, so it should be available to everyone now, right? If you’re a bookkeeper, can I get you to do my taxes for free? I can’t afford to pay, and the tax code is public domain, after all. Sew these pants for me. You own your sewing machine outright, and it’s sitting there unused. It’s just your time. No big deal. I’m entitled because the economy sucks.
The irony is that some of the folks arguing for infinite reproduction without additional pay for the creators (not necessarily the voices here…but then again, maybe so) get really, REALLY pissed when someone “steals” their blog posts, reviews, etc. and posts them as their own. Just as pissed as I get when I see a pirated copy of one of my books on 85 different torrent sites…or when I think of someone buying one copy for 300 people to read instead of, say, 50 copies. Or even 10.
This isn’t an easy problem to solve. I’m not fully in favor of the HC approach—especially not their demand for patron data. I hope all libraries refuse to supply that, just as they have refused to supply borrower information to the feds. But I totally understand and appreciate HC’s attempt to address the problem of infinite reproducibility early on. The details will no doubt be negotiated and adjusted over time, but we need to have a starting place. This is as good as any.
That said, the HC claim that 26 checkouts would be an average lifespan for a book is nonsense. I worked in libraries in the days of the little paper due date flaps. Good hardbacks went through flap after flap stamped full of hundreds of due dates. A really well-made hardback on good paper can last nearly forever—just ask the British Library. Paperbacks, otoh, failed early and spectacularly, with as few as ten checkouts (tho that was before the current plasticized protective coatings). At any rate, there should clearly be different “lifespans” assigned to paperback originals and hardback originals — although that distinction may soon disappear.
What’s needed is hard data, not a publisher guesses. Perhaps the first thing that should happen, then, is for librarians to compile accurate information on how many times paperbacks and hardback are checked out on average before they’re disposed or replaced in the real world. Then there’d be facts on the table that could genuinely inform the conversation.
LVLMLeah said on 02.25.11 at 11:41 PM • [link]
but I’m equally alarmed by their request for user data from the libraries. That seems even more onerous for libraries than the 26-checkout rule -
Yes, this is what rang out for me too. It’s none of HC’s business where I live, work I do, schools near by. NONE. OF. THEIR. BUSINESS! I mean, really, how many libraries give overseas persons access to their library? I don’t know about other places, but when you get a library card where I live, you have to show something with an address on it. But it’s just the distrust of libraries that they are being sneaky and lending out books to all and sundry around the world that bites as well. WTF?
As far as forcing a renewal after 26 lends, that’s even more ridiculous. Most new books coming out have a waiting list of at least 50 -100 people. Are they freaking serious?
Another publisher now I won’t buy from or take a book from the library to read.
lexie said on 02.25.11 at 11:46 PM • [link]
I work in a library (five branches large) that offers e-book rentals. Our budget is down almost sixty percent from what it was two years ago. I can’t see us continuing to purchase titles over and over. I update our collection. This past week, I was working on titles with over 40-50 check-outs a year….over several years. Twenty-six? Someone pulled that number from their nether regions.
Kiersten said on 02.25.11 at 11:47 PM • [link]
Been following the tweets too. I had a feeling before LJ confirmed that this was HC. Totally something they would do. The whole thing is craziness. Libraries are the vanguard of literacy in our communities. Publishers should do everything possible to support them especially in financially challenging times. And that support is reciprocated as borrowers become dedicated readers who don’t want to wait on the reserve list for their fave author and instead go out and buy on release day.
Digital lending seems to me most beneficial in those areas where physical libraries are few and far between be it b/c of lack of funding, rural locations, or any other number of contributing factors. To hamstring those readers w/out any other resource by limiting the library to such restrictions is draconian. And then to say that the publisher must see (and, presumably soon, approve) those lenders is a path to - what- lending dictatorships?
As for the 26 days - bitch, please. I like me a book w/a bit of a beat up. I like to see that’s its been well-read by many (conversely, I have massive hate for turned-down corners. Bookmarks are free people. Grab one).
I’m curious how the other big pubs will respond. Will they board their own crazy train? Or will they come out with a more reasonable plan/system? I’m stunned that HC didn’t anticipate the vitriol that this decision would send its way from librarians, readers, writers, and very smart bitches. Ill will like this doesn’t disappear easily
Chrisbookarama said on 02.25.11 at 11:48 PM • [link]
Crazy! I suspect a library wouldn’t pay for a title they’ve already purchased (unless it was popular). Therefore an unknown author with one book out there will be forgotten quickly. How is this helping authors? There is something to be said for browsing the shelves and finding a book 10 yrs or older from someone you’ve never heard of before. Those days would be over if HC has their way.
Sandir said on 02.25.11 at 11:49 PM • [link]
Pricing ebooks higher than books that cost more to produce (paperbacks and hardcovers), not bothering to properly format and edit those ebooks, not allowing ebook buyers to lend or re-sell their ebooks, and now further limiting reader’s access to library ebooks?
What a WONDERFUL business model. Surely your profits will triple or quadruple by regularly pissing off readers, booksellers, and libraries.
Publishers you’re doing a heckuva job.
Jane said on 02.25.11 at 11:50 PM • [link]
SEP’s Call Me Irresistible had over 30 holds on it. To compare, my library has 67 copies of that book in paper with over 140 holds on it.
And there’s exactly what HC is trying to address, both for their own benefit and the authors’: ONE copy sold and loaned out (potentially forever) vs SIXTY-SEVEN copies sold/loaned out until they fall apart and have to be replaced. ////
If the library only purchased one digital copy of a book, then the waiting list for that one digital copy would likely be so burdensome that the end user would either forget she actually wanted to read the title
I am sure you know that a library buys one digital copy and can lend it to only one reader at a time. Some library systems only allow one lending per lending period even if the reader returns the digital book early.
Thus, that reader isn’t a lost sale for that title because if she is willing to wait 3+ years for the title, she wasn’t really that interested in the first place.
I’m all for reader accessibility, but if popular authors like SEP or Nora suddenly get only 1/67th of the library sales right up front—not counting any replacement copies sold down the road—how long do you think they and the publishers will be able to stay in business?//
See above.
How about if, instead of a big bad NY publisher, it’s a self-pubbed mother from Ohio who sells 1 copy/library instead of 67 copies/library? Does that make the picture look different? If publishers succeed in establishing a standard of practice for library lending of ebooks, that standard can protect the small fry, too.//
Actually what will happen is that indie publishers and self published authors who don’t have restrictions will likely see an increase in library purchasing. Why hello there Amanda Hocking and friends and goodbye midlist Avon authors.
There’s already incredible pressure to devalue books toward $0, based on the premise that “information wants to be free” — a nonsensical idea that ignores the work of the creators or gatherers of that information. //
There are plenty of people buying ebooks because if buying an ebook reader suddenly meant all books are free, then digital book sales wouldn’t be increasing and the opportunity for self publishing digitally wouldn’t be attractive. I rarely hear readers say “ALL BOOKS MUST BE FREE.” Instead I hear readers saying pricing should be fair. Maybe you can point out evidence of readers saying ALL BOOKS SHOULD BE FREE.
Compound that with the notion that just because an ebook is infinitely replicable, it should be *freely* replicable unto infinity and you’re telling authors they should be working for nothing but the honor of being read.///
How is it freely replicable? Library has to purchase at least one digital copy to lend. The more popular, the longer the waiting list or the more copies a library has to purchase.
Further no digital content is replicable unto infinity. Shit, even digital shit, degrades.
I’m also floored by the argument that the fact that the economy is tight justifies making books free for libraries/patrons at the expense of those who write and publish them. That’s nice. Can I use your car tomorrow. I can’t afford a new one and yours has already been paid for once, so it should be available to everyone now, right? If you’re a bookkeeper, can I get you to do my taxes for free? I can’t afford to pay, and the tax code is public domain, after all. Sew these pants for me. You own your sewing machine outright, and it’s sitting there unused. It’s just your time. No big deal. I’m entitled because the economy sucks.//
NO, I am pretty sure the argument is that by instituting artificial caps, the libraries will reduce the number of purchases it makes which ultimately reduces profit to HC. I am sure you know that HC was so insignificant to NewsCorp that in the previous earnings call, HC didn’t get its own segment, right?
Libraries are a lot about discoverability for readers but if authors don’t want to encourage their books to be discovered, then I guess that is the authors and publishers decision. There will never be lack of content for readers to read. Heck, we could subsist on the backlist titles from used bookstores and still not run out of content if we read 20 books a month for the rest of our lives.
What HC has done along with Macmillan’s and S&S unwillingness to even play in the library market is thus:
1) Decrease visibilty of authors, particularly midlist authors as libraries won’t want to pay a one year license fee for them.
2) Decrease sales as individuals take themselves out the library system, the library loses funding, further usage determines purchases. I.e., if there are hundreds of holds, it behooves the libraries to buy additional copies to serve the needs of the patrons.
3) Give increased power to Amazon. Why buy a Sony, nook, kobo when library lending is off the table.
In sum, I don’t see an upside to this action. Oh, and the data is coming to show how libraries feed sales. But books not in libraries? Those won’t get sales.
Pam G said on 02.25.11 at 11:55 PM • [link]
News like this makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up; then I start looking for my tin foil hat. See, I really don’t think corporate gives a crap about libraries any more than they care about the individual reader. I mean libraries give away their (big publishing’s) product for FREE! Don’t you wonder whether publishers wouldn’t be secretly delighted to see libraries go belly up? The days when the publishing trade had ideals and a mission to introduce eager readers to good books are long gone, and the bottom line is just that, the bottom line. No libraries=“mwah-ha-ha-ha, they’ll have to buy all their books from us.” The fact that gutting libraries would virtually end self-education and access to information for anyone who didn’t have the requisite disposable income escapes these clowns. The fact that libraries breed readers from every level of society doesn’t seem to cross their tiny minds. To them, lending a book diminishes sales, period.
Maybe I am just paranoid, but so many of the issues that libraries struggle with seem to point in this direction especially since the advent of digital publishing. (Ask a library worker about the impact of DRM on fair use policy.) Then when you consider the low priority that libraries get from the government bean counters, the HC problem is just the other side of a very pathetic coin.
MaryK said on 02.26.11 at 12:04 AM • [link]
So how long til somebody gets the bright idea to add the expiration “feature” to the DRM on consumer ebooks?
And I thought library patron records were sacrosanct.
megalith said on 02.26.11 at 12:06 AM • [link]
I was going to make a comment about how the “library ebook experience” was already pretty well established at my local public library. But then I recalled that in fact I never borrow ebooks in the Overdrive format because it is cumbersome and not compatible with any device i own. Instead, I simply borrow books in the Adobe PDF format. Much as I loathe Adobe’s DRM, borrowing ebooks from my library is dead easy in that format.
As for the 26 loan limit, I’m with whomever posted that HC got hold of some library ebook circulation numbers and figured out what they could do to increase their ebook profits. I’ve been unemployed since 2009. I used to spend hundreds of dollars a month on books. But I hadn’t bought a book in months, even after getting a Kindle as a Christmas gift, until my local Borders announced a store closing sale this week, in fact. My point is, I’m sure others are in the same boat and like me are temporarily turning to their libraries to feed their reading addiction. It really doesn’t pay to piss off libraries when they are responsible for keeping your industry alive in this crap economy, publishers! And that includes supporting your ebook sales!
An absolutely baffling move by HC, IMO. I hope the other NY publishing lemmings don’t follow suit.
Shar said on 02.26.11 at 12:13 AM • [link]
I order kids ebooks for my public library, and this really bothers me. When I have a popular title, I buy more than one ebook. I have three copies of The Lightning Thief, for example, to go with the 15 print copies we also own. But would I buy three copies every single year? Hell no. I can’t afford that.
All this does is breed ill-will from libraries. Maybe we’re not their target market (well, with this on the table, we’re clearly not), but we are a market that is slowly but very surely growing. Why would we spend our limited funds on titles we know will disappear, rather than print ones we can doctor up and share for years?
I wonder if this will somehow get translated to personal ebook purchases. There’s already no lending allowed, but maybe you need to repurchase if you’ve read it x number of times? Owned it for one year? If they succeed here, you know they’ll try to get money somewhere else, too.
Joy (the Angry Librarian) said on 02.26.11 at 12:14 AM • [link]
OK, this caps it perfectly. Over my decades as a librarian…
I have seen publishers raise costs much beyond their costs and the rates of inflation.
I have seen publishers asserting that they have rights much beyond that granted them by copyright to try to squeeze a few more bucks from an unknowing but lawabiding public.
I have seen publishers buying up specialty science publishers like penny candy and then raising subscription rates to astronomical heights for libraries.
I have seen publishers treat their customers as if they were all thieves.
I have seen publishers more concerned with the look of their author than the words that they write in their thirst for a blockbuster hit.
With much thought I’ve come to the conviction that publishers don’t believe in public libraries. If the idea of a town pooling their money and buying books to share amongst themselves were proposed today they’d take it to the Supreme Court that it would “destroy the publishing business” was illegal, a violation of their property rights. Hey, we’ve got to be very watchful of public libraries will vanish for the sake of publishers profits.
SB Sarah said on 02.26.11 at 12:18 AM • [link]
@LisaHendrix:
“I’m also floored by the argument that the fact that the economy is tight justifies making books free for libraries/patrons at the expense of those who write and publish them.”
No one is arguing that books should be free because of the economy. Libraries do pay for books, both digital and print, then lend them out to patrons - and whether the book is digital or print, they are lent one at a time.
Library usage increases in a down economy because more people can no longer afford to indulge in the luxury of buying every book they want to read, and choose to borrow from their local library. As Courtney Milan pointed out, choosing the library as your access to a book that’s in demand is not the most fun or enjoyable way to find and read a book.
As far as your question of library borrowing at the expense of the author, unless I am misreading it, I have one for you in return: do you want profit or do you want readers? Readers visit the library and borrow books digitally and in print. They also tell other readers, perhaps ones who might be able to buy. Libraries do not steal from your pocket. They grow your readership, which one day, in a better economy, will be able to buy, not borrow, your books.
Weasel of Doom said on 02.26.11 at 12:19 AM • [link]
How depressing. Apparently it’s not enough that library budgets are getting slashed left and right, now the publishers want to punish libraries, too.
(my captcha phrase was bring53. I think it’s disagreeing with the 26 limit, too :-)
TracyP said on 02.26.11 at 12:49 AM • [link]
@MaryK
They are. This will never go through. Libraries are very protective of their patron records.
@Joy
I hear you. We had to cut a ton of subscriptions this year, some that are so basic, you’d think an environmental library like ours would have them, but alas. Plus, $400+ for a book?? Definitely making us rethink most purchases.
MaryK said on 02.26.11 at 12:52 AM • [link]
@Lisa Hendrix
What. Exactly. does “infinite reproducibility” have to do with it? I mean, What? Exactly? This is the kind of thing that pisses of halfhearted ebook buyers who are normally mild-mannered. Nobody is reproducing the ebooks. Not even HarperCollins if they’re going to price themselves out of the market. Every fricking time readers complain about publishers’ newest draconian ebooks policy, authors come out of the woodwork to accuse readers of “infinitely reproducing” ebooks.
And who is supposedly advocating “making books free for libraries/patrons at the expense of those who write and publish them?” Are you sure you even know how Overdrive works? If a library buys 1 copy of a popular book instead of 67, the wait list for that 1 copy is going to be hellaciously long and some people might even go out and buy the blasted thing instead of waiting. Neither authors nor publishers are entitled to 67 purchases so that’s a really, really poor excuse for gouging libraries.
Your argument about protecting the “small fry” doesn’t even work. You think libraries regularly buy 67 copies of “small fry” author’s book? Pretty soon we’ll be back to the old medieval systems where books are only available to the rich and are chained to shelves. How much of a living are authors going to make then?
Courtney Milan said on 02.26.11 at 12:53 AM • [link]
I’m also floored by the argument that the fact that the economy is tight justifies making books free for libraries/patrons at the expense of those who write and publish them.
You do realize that libraries buy books, right?
I’m an author. I am delighted when people tell me they get my book from the library. I am honored when people tell me I’ve moved from the “to borrow” to the “to buy” list. I’ve given away a lot of copies of my book, too, because I believe that growing my career requires people to be able to get lower-risk copies of my book.
Sarah linked to my reader hat above. But with my author hat firmly on, I believe that taking away infinite library loans would really, really hurt me, as a new author that people are just beginning to hear about.
Diva said on 02.26.11 at 01:01 AM • [link]
From a reader’s standpoint: PBBBTTTTHHTTT (that was me blowing a virtual raspberry at HC)
From a marketing standpoint, may I guess that libraries are not exactly the cash cow of the publishing industry? Don’t imprints want increased sampling of their products to entice buyers?
Um, I’m losing my ladylike shit over this one.
What the HELL? The idea is not to keep books away from readers or to drive underfunded libraries out of the running for current titles b/c too many people want to read them and the board can’t afford to keep funding the repurchase/renewal! This is self-defeating asshattery at its finest. BLAH!!!!!!
MaryK said on 02.26.11 at 01:07 AM • [link]
@Lisa Hendrix
I’m pretty sure it’s not the librarians who are clueless about the facts.
WHAT? Libraries are just as bad as pirates because they only buy 1 copy?!? I don’t even know ...
Authors and publishers are not entitled to any purchases. Buyers have no obligation to purchase even one copy. No entitlement! I’m so ticked I almost typed this whole paragraph in ALL CAPS.
MaryK said on 02.26.11 at 01:19 AM • [link]
@Pam G
WORD
Robin said on 02.26.11 at 01:22 AM • [link]
I’m still trying to decide which is more evil: this new idiocy by HC or Macmillan’s refusal to allow digital library lending at all. All I know is that neither pub is driving me to purchase new books in either digital or print; they’re both driving me right to my local UBS. Good work, guys.
Robin said on 02.26.11 at 01:26 AM • [link]
Also, it cracks me up (it’s the insane laugh of astonished, untrammeled rage, but oh, well) how these pubs underestimate the adaptability of readers. More swapping, more UBS outlets, more garage sales, more casual lending, more purchases from digital-first pubs—THAT’s what’s going to come of this. Oh, and I’m guessing it will also enable piracy. Yeah, real good work there, guys.
Lizabeth S. Tucker said on 02.26.11 at 01:38 AM • [link]
If nothing else, I know of one author who will never have me reading/buying/recommending her books ever again based on the ridiculous and inaccurate statements made in her posting.
Real authors are at heart people who wish to share their stories with others. You write because you must, not because you want to get rich. That would be a welcome byproduct if you are successful at it and can not only make some money, but a real living, but shouldn’t be the end-all.
I believe I’ve heard Nora Roberts herself state that she writes the books she would like to read. I know that the late Betty Neels began writing because there was nothing new to read in her local library.
Libraries and free books introduce me to new authors that I might not otherwise try, simply due to the ridiculously high cost of books, digital or physical. I was introduced to Naomi Novik through a free book. I discovered Anne McCaffrey as a young adult through my librarian’s recommendation. I first found Rex Stout’s Nero Wolfe through the library. Once I was hooked on these books, I began to buy them all.
I am sympathetic to an author not being pleased that one of their books are offered for free on torrent sites, but that is a legal issue best handled in a court of law.
*held93* I think I held back at least 93 filthy, offensive, and obnoxious statements while writing and rewriting this comment.
Lisa Hendrix said on 02.26.11 at 01:40 AM • [link]
Actually, I was addressing the downward creep of prices toward zero. As authors/publishers undercut each other in the effort to attract readers, a certain expectation develops in regards to price. The costs of paper/printing put a bottom on the price of paper books, but there’s no obvious physical bottom for digital - and readers seem to discount the costs of things like editing. Digital book sales are increasing, but it appears that the prices being paid per book are lower and lower.
Naturally, the idea economy of scale loses much of its meaning when it comes to digital files (altho not entirely, as evidenced by the Amazon & iTunes e-behemoths), but while initially sales will increase enough at the lower price to make up the difference, there may come a point when the price goes too low to support the author, even with higher sales.
Just last week, I saw a reader post that they will never pay more than $1.99 for a Kindle book ever again, and that they’re buying more 99¢ books and glomming onto as many free ones as possible. Several other jumped in to agree that they loved ebooks because they could get them for free. I totally understand. I grab free books myself. I’m just saying, recording artists get 99¢ per SONG, not per album. (Someone pointed out on Twitter earlier today—sorry, I couldn’t find the post to attribute it—a chapter is like a song, a book is more equivalent to an album, i.e. should be closer to $9.99 — i.e. the theoretical Amazon price)
At the online lending libraries I’ve looked into, lending periods are often shorter than usual (as short as 3 days). Books also circulate faster because libraries also don’t have to wait for returns; the file deactivates automatically. Fwiw, I was under the impression—perhaps mistaken—that some libraries are able to lend a limited number of multiples of the same file (e.g, that perhaps 3 - 5 patrons can check out the same ebook at the same time). It’s possible I misread or misinterpreted. I’ll see if I can find the article.
This is part of why I suggested that libraries compile info on how long hard copy books actually last. Then they could negotiate for more realistic. less arbitrary caps. I do think there need to be caps of some sort, but WAY higher than 26 (I’m thinking 500 or 1000 loans might be appropriate, with a significantly lower-than-new price to renew the license). Like I said, all this stuff needs to be worked out, and the only way to start the process is to stick your foot in. I suspect HC expects resistance and subsequent negotiations. I would, on an issue this important.
I totally appreciate how new authors are discovered via the library. Robyn Carr, Ellis Peters, Elizabeth Peters, Mary Stewart, and Chelsea Quinn Yarborough are all authors I first discovered in the local library in a single small town where I lived for only two years. There are hundreds more, some of whom I’ve gone on to buy and some I haven’t. I’ve had readers write me just in the last month that they discovered my books in the library and then bought all of them, and I love both the libraries and the readers for that.
Yes, the state of library financing sucks (I’m from a county that completely shut down its library system for about 7 months), but that doesn’t make the entitlement argument — that ebooks should be infinitely lendable *simply* because libraries are strapped right now — any more valid than the idea that Netflix should be able to stream movies forever without paying the studios if NF happens to get in financial trouble.
Libraries loan CDs and DVDs, too. Now, I may have missed it, but I haven’t noticed any patrons threaten to boycotting certain recording companies or movie studios because they don’t permit libraries to loan out digital copies of their products. I can’t help but wonder what it is about books that makes us love them so much that we’re willing to refuse to read them because the publisher or author insists on being paid. It’s puzzling.
Carin said on 02.26.11 at 01:55 AM • [link]
As someone who checks out ebooks from the library, I’ll say what others have said. Holy wait list! I have a hard time finding a book I’d like to borrow that I don’t have to waitlist for. And it’s not unusual at all to be #20 on the waitlist for an ebook.
To be clear, one digital copy is lent to one reader at a time. The wait list is LONG.
I don’t buy many books. But most books I do buy are ones that I’ve checked out from the library multiple times and finally thought “Fine! I’ll buy myself a copy, I read it enough.” Or there are a few authors I found through the library that I’ll buy now. So, I believe when you screw library patrons, you screw yourself.
Finally, from up near the top of comments someone mentioned that there are publishers who flat out won’t seel digital copies to libraries. I agree with that commenter! We need to howl even louder about the publishers who won’t even play!
henofthewoods said on 02.26.11 at 01:56 AM • [link]
I have often used my bookstores for browsing (like so many other people) and as the number and quality of bookstores has fallen near me - I USE MY LIBRARY TO BROWSE.
How can they not realize that they will lose readers? I won’t specifically be avoiding HC or Macmillan, I just won’t see their newest books available and I won’t fall in love with their authors. I will read books from other publishers not noticing that these two are missing and that will give me plenty of new authors to buy with my limited budget.
robinjn said on 02.26.11 at 02:16 AM • [link]
I’m not a librarian, but I use the library often, and have since I was a little girl. I went through a phase when I did not use the library. But when the economy got tight, I realized I needed to cut down on the number of titles I buy.
This news is especially ironic given that I only recently keyed into Overdrive and began downloading library books to my nook. In fact, I am at this very moment reading Kim Harrison’s Black Magic Sanction in anticipation of Pale Demon that came out this week.
Let me tell you a few ways in which HC and some authors (yes LisaHendrix, I am speaking of you) are not thinking this through clearly. Here is how I use the library.
1. I use the library to try new authors. If I like those authors, I am VERY likely to actually buy hard copy or ebooks based on my library experience. Among others, I have discovered Seanann Maguire, Rob Thurman, Dana Stabenow and many others. I have each of those authors sitting on my shelf right now, having gone to a bookstore and bought based ENTIRELY on discovering them at the library.
2. I use the library to re-read books. Take Black Magic Sanction. I actually own that book. But I have lent it to my sister 350 miles away. So I got it from Overdrive to reread. That means Kim has sold a book to a library I have read and *also* to me personally which I have read.
The more you restrict access to an author’s work, the more it will end up hurting the author in the end. If my library quits purchasing from HC, that will be fewer authors for me to discover, to share with friends, to talk about, to urge people to buy. Libraries *encourage* and *support* an author’s work. It is very shortsighted to see a library as somehow robbing the author. The library is the BEST advertising campaign EVER.
LVLMLeah said on 02.26.11 at 02:16 AM • [link]
I don’t think you can equate a song with a chapter in a book.
When I buy an ebook, I always look at work count. It’s ridiculous to pay more than $.99- $1.99 for a 5-10 K book.
And many people selling ebooks on Amazon are distributing directly through them, so they get a higher cut of the profit and can keep a lower price.
Likewise, I’m perfectly willing to pay $5-9 for a 60+K book.
Those people buying only $.99 -$1.99 books are getting just what they pay for, a very short story in most cases.
Song vs. chapter in pricing doesn’t make any sense to me. None.
becca said on 02.26.11 at 02:55 AM • [link]
@LVLMLeah - I agree songs =/= chapters. For one, except in rare situations, a song is a complete entity in itself. A chapter rarely if ever is.
Tessa Dare said on 02.26.11 at 02:57 AM • [link]
I’m a public librarian. I’m also an HC author. And I’m totally sick about this whole thing. I feel like I’m a kid, and my parents are fighting. It’s overwrought of me, I know. But damn, I get emotional about this stuff. Libraries are so, so important to me, in all my various incarnations.
Most of the points I’d make have already been made (shouldn’t have a limit; if there must be a limit, 26 is too low; libraries do way more to boost publishers’ profits than decrease them; this budget year is so *not* the time to vex librarians; etc).
I’m not sure I’ve seen this said, however, and it’s what bothers me most about the entire idea of a lending license that effectively expires…
Libraries aren’t video rental shops. And in saying that, I not only mean that we’re fundamentally different in a profit/nonprofit way. I mean that libraries serve a fundamentally different purpose in society. (and here I get lofty and stuff, but bear with me. Or skim ahead. Whatever.)
What librarians do is called “selection”. They don’t just go down to the Baker and Taylor warehouse or website and randomly throw books in the cart, then toss them on the library shelves. They read reviews. They pay close attention to their communities. They adhere to collection policies. They thoughtfully select books for the library with the intent of creating a robust, well-rounded collection that represents our shared knowledge and traditions and culture. It’s important. The loss of the Great Library of Alexandria is mourned in a way the destruction of the Mall of Sparta Barnes & Noble never could be, you know?
So when a librarian adds a book to the collection, it’s kind of a big deal. A small big deal, maybe. But it has significance, is what I’m saying. It means the librarian’s decided, “this book is important for my community to have, now and in the future.” Sure, librarians expect a certain amount of damage and loss a part of doing business, but we mend those books, if possible. Or we set them aside in a reserve collection, or deep storage or something. If we want to get real kinky, we make patrons handle them with gloves, in a climate-controlled room. And librarians think long and hard—agonize, even—before deleting the last copy of a title, even if that copy is falling apart. It’s not something we take lightly.
So to sell a book to a library with the caveat, “this will self-destruct after 26 uses…”? To me, that undermines the whole idea of a library collection. As if literature should be on loan to the libraries, instead of libraries being champions and guardians of the written word. That’s just…topsy-turvy, to me. It makes me confused and sad.
Arethusa said on 02.26.11 at 03:01 AM • [link]
You know, I am generally on the side of authors/publishers when it comes to book pricing. I am one of those buyers who avoid Amazon like the plague unless I am absolutely desperate. I do buy from chains but if I can get it at my indie I do. And I’m lucky enough to have an indie store that has a distinct identity and inventory; it is also way more of a community bookstore than the chain (Chapters) with all its author events and participating in book festivals & so on. If I love an author enough I go hardback.
I have never bought an ebook. Until I am able to buy a reader which can access books from any store and no company can delete it from my reader at will, I will never do so. My iPod plays just about anything, my iTunes converts what it doesn’t and the iTunes DRM is ridiculously easy to crack. I figure it’s an inside joke between Apple & the customers. So I’m good there. Regionless DVD players handle Region-whacked DVDs. So I’m good there.
@Lisa Hendrix
Books are not special in this sense. Musicians give away free music all the time. Music is far more pirated than books any way you take it. The idea of music being “free” these days is far more rooted than books. If anyone should be getting the weeping violin its musicians, if you want to get comparative.
It’s because we’re talking about books & libraries. Humanity’s relationship with music & film developed quite differently. It has nothing to do with readers having an inflated sense of entitlement. I hear you on the idea of much much much longer licensing agreements on par with print but let’s not disguise the fact that HC approached this issue in the most bullish & obnoxious way possible.
When you clearly & respectfully inform your audience on why you have to do things a certain way, if your point is solid, they’ll get on board. If you stonewall, bulldoze, & treat the audience like thinly veiled thieves who jus’ wanna free ride—well, you get commenters like the one above who are ready & willing to crack the DRM wide open for upload.
I would advise publishers not to take the path record companies took. Pirated music has a far deeper penetration than ebooks…for now. As publishers push forward with ebooks with the strangled business models currently in place this may soon no longer be so. The day that happens publishers are gonna wish “infinte lendability” was their biggest problem.
Lindsay said on 02.26.11 at 03:20 AM • [link]
If they spoke to an actual librarian before arriving at 26 for their arbitrary number of loans, I will be shocked. There are mass-market paperbacks in my public library that have been loaned hundreds of times and, with a bit of TLC from the staff, are still going strong. I don’t begrudge publishers their right to make money, but this is a very shoddy (and ultimately self-defeating) way to go about it.
Sandra said on 02.26.11 at 03:29 AM • [link]
@Lisa Hendrix
What downward creep? I’ve not seen any, at least not from the Big 6. Self-pubs and indie houses may undercut pricing to get their foot in the door, but that’s standard business practice in any industry. Mainstream publishers are for the most part pricing their e-books at or above the MMPB cost, WITH NO DISCOUNTS ALLOWED.
Yes, there are costs that are specific to e-books, such as formatting for the different readers, but most of the costs are created in the print production. So, if a book seller can discount a paper book with its huge cost burden, why can’t they discount an e-book with few added costs?
Publishers are still measuring their business by how much paper they can push out the door. I think within a few years, they’re going to realize that they can produce and sell more books at less cost and with higher margins by going all digital.
In regards to your claim of undercutting and reading expectations, I totally disagree. I buy $.99 books; I download freebies when they’re offered. But my expectations for those books are entirely different from the expectations I have for a book I paid $8.99 for. If my expectations for that $8.99 book aren’t met, it just means that I won’t pay that much for that author anymore. It doesn’t mean I won’t buy any books at $8.99.
Jennifer123 said on 02.26.11 at 03:35 AM • [link]
@Lisa Hendrix
Ah, but I’ll listen to an album 10, 20, 30, 40 times. There are a few books in my collection that I’ve read more than 10 times but usually 2-3 is the most. So, $10 for 30 hours of entertainment or $10 for 4-6 hours of entertainment? Which gives me more value for my money?
Oh, but wait, there’s more. The average price for a pbook purchased by me in the last few years is around $8. Please explain to me how an ebook that I can only read on certain ereaders and that I can’t sell and that is locked up with DRM should cost more money than that paperback which I can sell and can lend to my friend and can read anywhere I want.
Actually, my library has a deal with Sony which allows patrons to receive 3 songs per week for free out of their catalog. I also can watch some movies on my laptop through my library.
You keep implying quite heavily that readers don’t want authors to be paid. I do not think this means what you think it means.
I will agree, at this point, that I no longer want HarperCollins to be paid, but I will still buy books from authors not published by HarperCollins.
Olivia said on 02.26.11 at 04:08 AM • [link]
1. If my library shut down for seven months I think I would cry. I’m a new digital author of erotic historicals and my only sources of research are the internet and the local library.
2. Comparing the library system to Netflix obscures the fact that Netflix, HC, and most publishers are private, for-profit companies—while the library is publicly funded (mostly, and spottily) and widely considered a social service. (See Courtney Milan’s comment and Tessa Dare’s post above about the function of libraries.) I have a HUGE problem with HarperCollins trying to pressure a publicly funded institution into giving them a higher profit margin.
chisai said on 02.26.11 at 04:12 AM • [link]
@Lisa Hendrix
You know, while one does see people on Amazon announcing the above, those largely tend to be the more vocal “Amazon is cheating everyone” discussion posters. They are not the core of ebook readers. And as most people find out pretty quickly, the majority of said .99 and 1.99 full length books are crap, as are the bulk of freebies outside of classics and such, though there are always exceptions. You mostly get what you pay for.
I also have to say that I find the use of the word “glomming” and its pejorative tone pretty darned objectionable.
Look, I am a big fan of free market capitalism. If I find pricing objectionable, I vote with my wallet. For instance I’d never, ever, buy a book from Penguin and their various imprint houses, e or hard copy, who until now have shown themselves to be the most evil of publishing houses when it comes to pricing. I find myself regularly bitching about them on my Facebook status. The same way that I wouldn’t buy a particular author who I found objectionable. Or pay for, say, a Roman Polanski movie.
All that free market love aside, what HC is going for is pretty awful. There’s a big difference between charging a reasonable fee and what they’re trying to do. And yeah, maybe libraries really kind of are sacrosanct. And unlike physical books, I can’t just turn over my ebooks to them when I am in a donation frame of mind. Honestly, I just think the Big 5 are doing everything they possibly can to crush ebooks. They won’t, of course. And frankly, what what I can see with the people I know, if they’re going to the library to get an ebook, it’s because they don’t want to shell out the coins. If they really want it and can’t get it on e they get in physical copy. Or they’ll do without. And the number of copies is ridiculous. Fine, I get setting a limit, but 26? Really? Really? Please. I can kind of see, say, 200 or a 2 year lease or something. But 26? Come on.
On my part, I grew up in the library. When I found an author I loved, I ended up buying their books. All this is going to do is lower the profiles of authors that would end up making a good number of sales based on the author’s discovery at the local library. And I can’t imagine most of them would be happy at the prospect either.
Again, whenever possible, I find the best thing to do is vote with my wallet. And of course, to let them know. I don’t know that it necessarily does much good, but at least I know they’re not getting one thin dime off of my back.
Nadia Lee said on 02.26.11 at 04:50 AM • [link]
So the obvious conclusion is that unless I buy everything print, new and boycott libraries and UBSs, I’m a thieving lowlife out to rob honest and hard-working writers and publishers.
Got it. Thanks. / sarcasm
Susan said on 02.26.11 at 04:57 AM • [link]
BTW, there is a state law in Texas requiring librarians to keep records of books checked out private. This applies to public AND private libraries (i.e., corporate libraries, private colleges & universities, etc.) My mom, who is a retired librarian, told me about this.
If anyone already mentioned this, sorry, I didn’t read all comments.
LG said on 02.26.11 at 05:05 AM • [link]
@Lisa Hendrix
This is actually not that different from readers who only buy books used or get their books by swapping with other people. When I was a student, if I bought a book (that wasn’t a text-book), I bought it used. Now that I am not in the red each month and can actually afford to have a luxuries budget that doesn’t involve shaving money off my food budget, I still buy a lot of used, I check out library books, I pick up free books that people leave behind at my apartment’s laundry room…but I also buy a crapload of new books. There are books I want to read badly enough not to want to wait the weeks or months I’d have to wait to get it through the library. I’ve gotten interested in authors I can’t get through ILL. Most of these authors’ sale are probably e-books, but I want to read them badly enough that, since I don’t have an e-reader, I pay for the print version (3x more than the e-book price, on average). The people who are saying they’re only ever going to get dirt cheap or free stuff might be in a stage of their life where they can’t afford to go higher, or they just haven’t found a book/author yet that has made them want badly enough to pay higher prices. That can change.
And, as someone else said, you can listen to songs on their own. They can almost always stand on their own. Book chapters? Not so much. Now if you were talking short stories or novellas…
It varies WIDELY from library to library. Even libraries that all use OverDrive have different setups and limitations, from what I’ve heard. Also, if 3-5 people can check out the same ebook at the same time, then the library bought 3-5 “copies” of the ebook, even if, to you, it only looks like one.
chisai said on 02.26.11 at 05:09 AM • [link]
@TessaDare - This is totally off topic, but I’m reading one of your books right now - Goddess of the Hunt, and really enjoying it! This is SO cool. And even if I didn’t read your excellent comments, I’d still be buying another, but now it makes it sweeter.
Okay, done with the squishy fan-girling.
Joy said on 02.26.11 at 05:16 AM • [link]
26 checkouts is joke. I recently finished an e-book at my OverDrive library—after spending weeks on hold. When I returned it there were 47 people on the wait list for it.
Has said on 02.26.11 at 05:37 AM • [link]
Libraries cemented my love of reading. You can’t get that book love/social setting in a book store (which are disappearing or downsizing). I have discovered so many authors and bought their entire backlists including the books I borrowed from the library because I wanted to own my copies and support the authors. I have also bought used books & discovered authors that way and again did the same also another thing to note about used book stores is that a lot of books/authors there are out of print and it helps to keep their books alive, which a few people seem to have missed I think.
But I am saddened but not surprised by this move by Harper Collins because I think its one way for them to stem the popularity of ebooks, and a sneaky way to get marketing info about library users which is all kinds of wrong. But its not so much about restricting ebooks being lent out but the limit - why would a publisher restrict titles when you have libraries struggling with budget cuts, bricks and mortar stores dying out in droves and the increase of more people adopting readers especially those who will get epub formats to borrow ebooks from libraries. Wouldn’t this make the Kindle and therefore Amazon more attractive? Wouldn’t this stop newbie authors/books attracting new readers?
I don’t think the people who thought up this policy realises how important ebooks/libraries are and are trying to curtail this because of fear of piracy and loss of popularity of print books.
This wont stop the rise of ebooks in fact is one more nail in the coffin for publishers. The readers are the real customers for publishers and like any good and loyal customer we like to window shop and try out clothes if they fit and if we like them we will pay for it and will go back again.
About the price point of ebooks - I agree the ones I would pay for that price mark is for novellas or short stories and unless its a special promo price - most books in that range are not that good. People are willing to pay higher for ebooks but they also don’t want to overcharged for something has more limits than a print book.
Jennifer123 said on 02.26.11 at 05:37 AM • [link]
@chisai
In response to your comment, I looked on Overdrive and found that book and have it already up on my screen to read. :D It looks good.
LaurieDouglas said on 02.26.11 at 05:53 AM • [link]
Huh. Next thing you know they’ll decide to have ebooks self-destruct after so many days or so many times being read, thus forcing the reader to buy another copy. Who knows - if they keep working at it, they’ll force ebook prices right up there with hardcover prices, and readers will have to start paying subscription fees to use libraries because the libraries won’t be able to afford to keep up that service. No wonder they are pricing themselves right out of the market. Smooth move.
Amy said on 02.26.11 at 06:21 AM • [link]
This is interesting point and I’ll now bring up a what will probably be an unpopular thought about it. :(
Reading romance books is something I do for enjoyment but I don’t pretend to be on a high flautin intellectual journey because the medium happens to be reading. I’m not ashamed of reading them and I don’t if other people don’t like them, that’s their problem.
But I can no way define them as either a “right” that society at large should do for me or as something that encourages others to self-educate. We can talk about a love of reading but that is not the primary mission of a library. Reading is the tool to convey information, not an end of in and of itself.
In other words, a collection of entertainment oriented romance books are not particularly aligned with a libraries greater mission from what I’m understanding here. (I highly doubt Janet Evanovich has been carefully collected for the next generation.) If Harper Collins is looking to squeeze high profits out of what are, in fact, books primarily aimed at entertainment, I’m not sure I can be on board with a whole bunch of anger about it.
And if the mission of a library is education then Harper Collins making digital books higher priced should not be a big deal. They should, in fact, be insuring they can still buy the non-fiction books which are far more in line with that social function.
On the other hand, as a business decision, it seems totally silly and rooted in fear. Radio has induced a lot more buying of records/CDs/MP3s then individual discovery. I’d be *giving* my books to the library just for the exposure (except for maybe the last 5 chapters). ;) But that’s just me. ;)
Min said on 02.26.11 at 06:45 AM • [link]
Yeah, as a special librarian, I can testify that it’s no better for my sector. The inescapable conclusion is simply that publishers don’t want libraries in the ‘e’ space at all. Despite the fact that we all know that thwarted library borrowers do NOT all buy what they cannot borrow, the publishers can’t (or won’t) see that. And they wonder why they have ‘piracy’ issues. Poor readers, and poor authors. Pity these big coporates are so willfully stupid.
Olivia said on 02.26.11 at 06:45 AM • [link]
Maybe not. But then again, maybe Janet Evanovich is the next Jane Austen. We don’t live in the future, so we’ll never know.
I STRONGLY object to the idea that all our best learning comes from non-fiction books, or even from nonfiction and high-falutin’ intellectual novels, but that’s a whole comment thread on its own and I’m not getting into it here.
But unless I missed something really, really big, HarperCollins is doing this with ALL their ebooks, not just romance fiction. They’re putting that same number 26 on those nonfiction books that are so important for self-education. And because they’re one of the big six publishers, this might encourage other publishers to try the same maneuver. It would be terrible for readers, for libraries, for authors, and by extension for the publishing industry.
Are you an author? Can you tell us which books? Your name does not link to a website. I am just asking to satisfy my own curiosity.
LG said on 02.26.11 at 07:02 AM • [link]
@Amy
While I was in my library science program, I read an article discussing the value of entertainment-oriented materials in libraries. When you are jobless, when you are at college and away from your family for the first time, when you are a senior with no family around to talk to, etc. ... recreational reading can save your mental health. It can help stave off depression, an interest in the books can lead a person to other readers with similar reading interests (social interaction), it transports people mentally to another world that maybe doesn’t suck as much as what they’re dealing with right now.
I wish I could remember the article. It was very good. If you’re wanting quantitative evidence, though, I can’t remember if it gives that, but it did convince me that providing recreational reading really is a valuable for libraries to do.
akajill said on 02.26.11 at 07:10 AM • [link]
As a librarian who has been furiously tweeting this news all day, I was going to go into a rant here. Honestly, though, everything I would say has already been said beautifully above. The clulessness displayed by publishers…it just boggles the mind. It really does.
Here is the kicker for me in all of this. I was thinking of getting an e-reader and joining in on all the fun, buying my favorites to keep in digital. (Yes, Harper, I do in fact BUY books by authors I have discovered at the library. Shocking, I know.) Not anymore. I will check back in a few years and maybe all this DRM shit and general asshattery on the part of the publishers will be solved as in the music industry. Maybe.
LG said on 02.26.11 at 07:16 AM • [link]
And, continuing my previous comment, I just realized I got to find this out firsthand when I was jobless for a year and a half. What got me through the many, many rejections and helped me not think about my shrinking saving every single second was books. Lots and lots of books, which I would have been unable to buy but could check out for free from the public library. I think there was a period where I read a book a day. And then I discovered a book club that read science fiction and fantasy (that met at the public library and was headed by the library’s cataloger), and I finally got to start seeing people who weren’t my family members or interviewers. Yes, recreational books in libraries are a good and valuable thing.
Karen S. said on 02.26.11 at 08:12 AM • [link]
One thing to add, in response to @LisaHendrix:
I’ve seen publishers make the same kind of comparison before, but it’s not entirely accurate. It’s assuming that a substantial number of those copies will be replaced, as well as assuming that the library owns all those copies outright. Libraries need a lot of copies of popular items for the first few months to get through the period where there’s a massive hold list, but doesn’t need them sitting on the shelves after even a couple months. This is where companies like McNaughton Book Services come in, where libraries can lease the copies they need for the initial surge of requests. For my library system, we keep McNaughton books for 5 months, as that’s how long items have a “new book” status. For a lot of the really popular authors, we’ll lease about a third to a half of the number of copies we need for the initial release.
Then there’s also the copies that don’t get replaced for the same reason; we bought 6 copies when it first came out, four years later we have three copies left, and usually at least one is checked in. So for example, last year we had about eight copies of The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society because it had the hold list that would not die. Now it’s down to about five, and there are a couple copies on the shelf.
And really, the stuff that gets replaced is the most popular stuff—Grisham, Patterson, Roberts, etc. Sometimes not even that, as in that weeding project I mentioned earlier I was looking at books that were at least 4 years old, and I think for about every twenty books that the larger branch didn’t have (was lost or destroyed and not replaced), there was one book that had been replaced. Most of the collection at the tiny library that I was sending over to the big one because they didn’t have copies consisted of the really popular authors.
One factor that might affect reordering is the number of libraries in the system, though. One of the reasons why a number of books by very popular authors were never reordered was probably because there are 4 branches in our library system, and if an item is in, we can have it ready for pickup at the patron’s preferred branch the next day, so there wasn’t as much of a need to reorder if one branch’s copy had to be withdrawn. For a smaller library system or one where it can be more difficult to get items from one branch to another, there would probably be more pressure to reorder the popular stuff.
There’s also weeding, where the books that aren’t getting taken out get removed from the system to make room for the new stuff. In that case, a never-expiring ebook might be a good thing as it doesn’t take up any physical space and is unlikely to be weeded, so even if only one person every year takes it out, it’ll remain there for anyone else that finds it.
Basically, there definitely are books that get reordered, and I’m sure the amount of reorders adds up looking at all of HC’s orders, but I’m not sure it’s a large amount compared to the initial order and therefore not sure applying that model to ebooks is a very good idea.
recapcha: with 24. I have a number of hardcovers with 24 checkouts; does that mean they self-destruct at 26?
Gwynnyd said on 02.26.11 at 08:47 AM • [link]
Libraries are wonderful, wonderful resources but they aren’t free free. I know I don’t have to pay for any individual book when I check it out, but “library” is a line item on my property tax bill every year. I voted for the millage to build it and I pay every year to stock it and pay the staff. I am happy to do so and I use it for books I want to read but not own my own individual copy. But it’s NOT without any cost to patrons. Even though it’s the library putting in that order to the publisher for copies, either paper or e-format, of any book, the funding to pay the publisher isn’t magically pulled out of the ether by wand-waving librarians or coming from unspecified “government”. I am still paying for the library’s books. Any publisher who doesn’t recognize that is losing me twice as a reader.
Olivia said on 02.26.11 at 09:48 AM • [link]
Karen S., that is absolutely fascinating. Book-leasing companies? I’d always wondered where all those forty copies went on the really high-hold items. Learn something new every day.
Gwynedd, I’m reposting your entire comment becase YES. This is what I was too inarticulate to find the words to say. Thank you!
Faellie said on 02.26.11 at 12:02 PM • [link]
This is one of a number of USA-based websites I drop in on, and it’s fascinating, to this outsider, to see how they divide politically.
I can see, from an authors’ and publishers’ point of view, that a digital lending copy that is free for ever and doesn’t degrade will become a problem for them over the long term. A lot of the “26 times” is nothing comments seem to relate to popular new releases. But what about a book that has been out several years, and in hard copy would be onto a second edition, a new cover, a re-release based on an author’s increasing popularity, and so on? Publishers and authors make money on new releases, but also, for a good book, for years after its first publication - this is why copyright lasts the author’s lifetime and then more on top. Continued sales in decades to come can be an author’s pension. A free for ever lend, at a time when there is much less immediate pressure to buy, is a very significant threat to this income.
I bet that Harper Collins, and publishers who don’t allow any e-lending, are looking to this very long term issue. They have the right to do that, just as consumers who don’t like the way publishers are proposing to deal with it have the right not to read the books they publish.
Cathy B said on 02.26.11 at 12:10 PM • [link]
Wow, this is so going to generate more piracy.
The answer?
Well, here’s one for you. How about the expiry date/50 cents model?
You borrow an ebook from your library. It costs you 50 cents. Of that 50 cents, the library gets 10 cents (Yay! Self-funding!) and the publisher gets the other 40 cents, mostly to keep for their greedy asshat selves but in an ideal world, 35 cents back to the author and 5 cents for the publisher.
The ebook expires (for the consumer) in 4 weeks. You can then either: pay 50 cents to get it again or: buy it in your preferred format for - wait for it - a 50 cent discount with the special code the library gave you.
The ebook for the library - never expires.
Problem solved. Everyone gets paid - some books the publisher will net much, much more than the buy price and even the library will get their money back - and the consumer gets to read super cheap books. (It costs me 50 cents to put a book on hold at my library anyway).
How about it? Does this model annoy any authors/libarians/readers/publishers? Or could we all live with that? Surely the software would not be that hard?
Lyssa said on 02.26.11 at 02:05 PM • [link]
Three things are making me curious.
1. Recently private corporations have begun taking over libraries.
2. Digital books have begun to make up a large segment of Libraries ‘holding’.
3. Now Digital books are being ‘limited’ and libraries are being told that they will ‘expire’ after so many readings.
Anyone of these is something to make you go HUMMMMMM…
All three together and you have the making for a Micheal Moore documentary. (Just saying)
Now on a less conspiracy theory vein. I LOVE my libraries Ebooks. I LOVE the fact that I can sit at home on a Saturday morning at 5 am and check out a book to read that weekend when I am dragged, errr, taken camping and fishing. I love the convenience, and I love my Nook. Would the new policies of HC make me frustrated, angry, errr yeah. That means that the digital copy for a library will be here for a limited time. That means instead of my library getting 10 copies of a popular novel to keep the waiting time down, it will only be able to afford to get 1…or less. Libraries won’t buy more digital editions, they don’t have unlimited budgets. Their budgets are being cut by state and federal governtments because they are ‘not important’. I am not a librarian, and I KNOW these issues. I think HC (and all the publishers) should take these things into consideration.
Amy said on 02.26.11 at 04:02 PM • [link]
I told you I wasn’t going to be popular. ;p
You can strongly object if you like. And in general, I’m not particularly rigid in either learning or reading formats/methods (I encourage my kids to read graphic novels, borrowed from our local library, because they call them “fun”.) But it doesn’t change the fact I’m not going to learn much about biology or how to start a new business in either a Jane Austin *or* the latest Harlequin (Okay, maybe a little bit of biology in the latter…) ;)
And again, this isn’t dissing romance books in particular. I love them and that’s why I haunt this blog occasionally. :) My thoughts below would also cover sci-fis, mysteries, etc.
If we allow that other peoples money (some of whom *never* visit the library) is used to fund libraries, then I cannot say a library owes me to cater to my personal taste. Or that’s it’s a particular problem if those books become pricey, for whatever reason. Or that by some tortured strain of logic that it’s good for the world what I happen to like is there. ;) Even if it is a recession and people lack entertainment.
And no, I’m not an author, but I have run a freelance business for a decade. I’m a techy, too, and I understand why and when I purchase things. It’s clear to me that e-books are the future and the publishing industry Is Simply Not Coping. Just like the music industry and (coming soon) the movie industry. :(
rigmarole said on 02.26.11 at 05:59 PM • [link]
Sometimes it really does seem like the universe is telling me to go back to reading fanfic like it was my job. (My captcha is believe53, even.)
Jennifer123 said on 02.26.11 at 06:41 PM • [link]
@rigmarole
Fanfic is one of the things that publishers and authors for pay would like to pretend doesn’t exist. Every time I hear the “if authors aren’t paid enough [insert their definition of enough], nobody will write ever again” argument, I look at the growing list of novel-sized fanfics on my ereader that I haven’t yet read and just roll my eyes.
Attn publishers: It’s really not a hardship for me to avoid buying DRMed ebooks. You don’t have a monopoly. I have both authors for pay whose publishers don’t use DRM to read and an ever-growing library of fanfic. Not to mention I recently downloaded around 200 public domain books that I want to read or reread. I actually have more to read than I have time. Maybe when publishers finally stop putting DRM on everything and overcharging, I’ll come back to read your writers but you probably shouldn’t count on it. You’ve already set me up to be a non-consumer of your ebooks. I could spend the next year just reading what I already have and not adding anything and I wouldn’t run out. The thing is, even with all that I have to read, I keep adding more. I buy the no-DRM authors I love even when I know I won’t get to reading their work anytime soon simply because I do want to support them. I download more fanfic regularly. And I encourage others to do the same.
CupK8 said on 02.26.11 at 07:57 PM • [link]
Well, here’s a howdy-do..
I am another one of those voracious readers who started in the library. Just ask my mother. I would often be at work with her or my father (especially in the summertime) and walk to the library and spend a LONG time browsing, reading, chatting up the librarians for recommendations.. Those were good times. In middle school, I was at the school library on an almost daily basis. That’s where I got my introduction to romance, with the Sunfire series. But libraries go beyond just ‘interesting me in reading’ - because the reading itself is so valuable.
I’m an actor, and an acting teacher, and one of the things we talk about in class on a daily basis is our culture’s imaginative censorship. It’s not okay to imagine as adults. We learn that as we grow up, when we suddenly stop playing pretend because we’re ‘too old’ - and yet, our imaginations are incredibly important to the growth and health of our society.
What does reading fiction do? It engages the imagination. There are other ways to do it, but reading is unique because it makes your imagination actually work for it - YOU have to paint the images. The words fly by, and your subconscious provides the imagery to help suck you into the story. If we keep shutting off our imaginations, and stick to TV and film to tell us what to see, I foresee a pretty bland future.
So for me, libraries go beyond just interesting me in reading so I’ll learn something from all those non-fiction books. It helped me engage my imagination in a culture (and at an age) that told me it was no longer okay for me to do that on the playground or in the classroom.
HollyY said on 02.26.11 at 09:18 PM • [link]
Okay - libraries won’t give out patron information. Absolutely right. However, Overdrive is an intermediary here. They have a list of library card numbers for authentication purposes and that’s on their server. It ain’t goin’ nowhere! Also the verification requires that a user be valid and up-to-date so if there are problems with a card, a message comes up indicating a user is blocked and they have to “get right” with the library before check out. That information may/may not be saved to the server.
Please note…Overdrive is a business. I don’t know WHAT their policy is about turning reader information over to others. They may be fine with it, they may not. I don’ t think are names associated with those card numbers, but even if there aren’t and that information is turned over to someone - tracking readers is possible. Maybe not their personal information but their reading habits.
I don’t like this. I don’t like it at all.
Arethusa said on 02.26.11 at 09:51 PM • [link]
@Amy
This is off-topic but I find this opinion fascinating. Are you suggesting that one is only being “educated” if one is learning a trade or a science? Jane Austen is taught in schools after all or is such stuff a ruse for educators to provide beleagured kids with more clap clappy fun time? People do post-graduate degrees on Harlequinns.
Alpha Lyra said on 02.27.11 at 12:16 AM • [link]
The part of this I find hilarious is HarperCollins’s claim that the magic number 26 is based on the average lifespan of a print book. Bull crap. It’s obviously meant to be an annual licensing/subscription fee, based on one check-out every 2 weeks for a year.
Businesses love annual licensing fees. Such a nice, predictable income stream.
It’s also completely inappropriate, IMO, for library books. What asshats.
Olivia said on 02.27.11 at 02:02 AM • [link]
@Amy: It’s surprising to see a self-professed romance fan visit a romance-centered site and say, “But romance novels aren’t really that big a deal, right? It’s not like they’re real books, or important books.”
Again, HarperCollins does not only publish romance, or even only fiction. They publish business books, self-help, cookbooks, language books, history books, etc. I find it startling that you think restricting library access to such a broad range of material qualifies as ‘catering to personal taste.’
I’m with CupK8 on this:
When people talk about the social function of libraries, they bring up education and research because those are easier to articulate as public goods. The social value of fiction reading is much harder to put in quantitative terms (though other commenters on this thread have done a pretty strong job here, in my opinion). Fiction has the power to change lives and transform society—look at the relationship between science fiction and scientific innovation, for instance, or the connections between Greek literature and NASA missions. (Apollo! Icarus! Ulysses!) We use fiction to ask important questions, some of which may not be explorable through any other medium in quite the same way.
meganhwa said on 02.27.11 at 02:28 AM • [link]
this whole senario reminds me of Jasper Fforde’s Tuesday Next series. Can’t remember which one - either 3 or 4 where the evil corporate people in book world were trying to introduce this new book structure where a book could only be read by three people max. Ms. Next was able to put a stop to their dastardly plan and books were forevermore enabled to be leant and borrrowed. I laughed at the time but this is eerily like it. Which is worrying.
I get that publishers/authors want to protect their work and be paid their due but really you have the whole music and movie industry to learn from. Creating an environment where people are obliged to own an individual copy and not have the capability of lending and borrowing between users or from libraries (in the same way physical books are leant and borrowed - i.e. not mass piracy) will ultimately end in the users/readers getting annoyed and revolting in piracy. Least that is how i see it.
People are social - we like to share and lend our things so we can discuss it and share the enjoyment of it. We also like to try things - and the library really does introduce you to lots of authors to try and fall in love with. If it is an amazing thing - book, song, movie then we may be inclined to obtain our own copy. But i don’t think we should be forced into obtaining out own copy if we wish to share the experience of it.
And i know it’s been said before but 26?!?
B. Sullivan said on 02.27.11 at 06:08 AM • [link]
Just had to toss in that a few high schools out there teach literature at the same time that a history course is covering the same time period - so that Austen or Dickens or what have you means a little more when seen historically and as sociology. I’m a little partial to that approach as I attended such a school. I also got into the college of my choice because in the interview we got into a long, fun discussion about Austen and several of her books - not that Austen was on any of my paperwork, but I was a fan of her work and guess, what, so was the nice lady that interviewed me. We also discussed Austen’s relevance in today’s curriculum, I think. That was a while ago. I worked in the tech industry for a while too. The English major didn’t hurt me at all once I explained it meant that I knew how to write.
Meanwhile I’m really annoyed with publishers - I really had thought they’d use the example of the music industry to learn the right lessons about their audience (ease of use, etc.) - but instead it looks like some of them anyway are going down the “lock it up tight” route that worked so well for music. (Yeah, that was sarcasm.) So I’m putting off buying an ereader (again) - though I think I will see about visiting my local library this week.
lalien said on 02.27.11 at 06:15 AM • [link]
I posted this as a comment on the BoingBoing post about this:
I’m a librarian in a very large library with a heavily used Overdrive ebook and audiobook collection. A couple of things popped into my mind immediately when I heard about the HC craziness:
1. The average paperback (not even hardback) in my department can last upwards of 50 circs before falling apart and needing to be replaced (or just discarded). Hardcovers can have circs in the hundreds without showing significant damage. 26 circs seems ridiculously low.
2. Libraries get significant discounts on print books, but no discount on ebooks - we’re paying full price. Should we purchase the ebook for almost twice as much as the print book if we won’t get half the circulation out of it than we would for a print book? For the money we can get two extra print copies with an unlimited shelf-life (until they fall apart or get stolen).
3. When we weed a print book, there’s no guarantee that we will replace it. For the most part if a book isn’t circulating well, or if it’s out of print, once it’s gone, it’s gone. If you apply this to ebooks, once a book expires there’s a good chance it won’t be replaced - we’ll be spending our money on the new stuff. There goes depth and breadth of our ebook collection.
Also. I’m not opposed to DRM on library ebooks for the purposes of enforcing time limits on lending periods. The way the system is set up with the library purchasing “copies” that can only be checked out by one person at a time, it makes sense.
This just makes me sick to my stomach.
Rebecca said on 02.27.11 at 09:05 AM • [link]
Interesting. When I saw “Harper Collins” I automatically thought “textbook publisher” not so much trade books. As far as I can figure out in my research on this issue, the ebook model for textbooks IS to buy a subscription. (Check out the academic books section of ecampus.com or similar websites. Most of them “sell” the book to you for 180 days, or two semesters, or similar.) I’ve been troubled by this because I’m interested in the potential for using electronic forms of textbooks in public schools. BUT in the US students don’t purchase textbooks. The schools do, and they reuse them until the books fall apart, or are lost, or need to be updated to keep up with curriculum changes. Obviously updating ebooks would be lots easier than print versions, and the potential for annotating an ebook and then being able to clear the notes and present the next student with a “clean” copy makes them an attractive option for high school students, plus the weight factor, when you consider that most high school textbooks weigh more than a laptop nowadays.
But buying an entire new set every year (which is essentially what the licensing fee model forces you to do) makes etextbooks only practicable if the books are bought by STUDENTS….so, only at the college level, or only in private schools. This seems to me to perniciously reinforce the digital divide. I have been hoping that textbook publishers would realize that they were losing potential customers in public school districts by sticking to the subscription model. But it appears that they’re moving in the opposite direction. Perhaps Pearson/McGraw Hill (who I know have worked out a deal with Sony at least in their Canadian division) will be more reasonable. Sigh….
(P.S. I quietly second all of what everyone eloquently said above about the social and historical value of fiction.)
Roxie said on 02.27.11 at 11:29 AM • [link]
@Lisa Hendrix:
I’m sorry, but I have absolutely no idea where you’ve gotten this idea from. I first discovered ebooks back in 2003, and I can tell you that prices have steadily risen. I still have the emails to prove it. A few weeks ago I paid 10.99 for a book I wanted very badly. I paid 10.99 for a book with DRM, without cover art, and without ownership rights. I only found a few typos, so I won’t bitch about proofing.
I did some checking, at BooksonBoard I typically pay anywhere from 5.99 - 9.99. I actually counted myself lucky that I found a Jennifer Crusie novel for 4.49. I don’t need to mention the complete and total lack of proofing, or cover art do I? At Borders I paid 7.99 - 9.99. At Sony I paid 6.99 - 10.99. At Loose ID I pay anywhere from 5.99 - 7.99. At Samhain I pay anywhere from 3.50 - 6.50. At EC 2.50 - 6.99 (the higher prices are relatively new).
Back before the agency pricing went into effect, I could usually count on getting rewards or discounts occasionally to offset the cost of the books I bought. Now of course, I get no discounts/rewards unless I shop at the epubs or manage to pick out a non agency book (hah).
So please, with all due respect, don’t tell me the prices I’m paying are lower and lower, because they most certainly are not.
MissFancy said on 02.27.11 at 09:33 PM • [link]
Lots of Librarians here—good.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it to anyone who will listen…I have a hard time mustering up any sympathy for libraries now that they have become more like community centers rather than sanctuaries. I know it’s not the fault of the Librarians, and I thank you all for your service, but I *really* don’t like going to the Library anymore. And this is coming from a hardcore several-books-a-week-reading-since-the-age-of-three reader.
I don’t mind paying for my books as authors getting paid is of prime importance to me. Used bookstores and Amazon fill the need for my design and art reference books (the selection of which, even at large libraries in the Greater Seattle Area usually blows—what gives?)
And let’s not forget that free lending libraries are what? A 120 year old concept? One that came about way before the easy exchange of information we have here on the interwebs.
In no other area life do we bitch so hard that we are not getting something for free. Not food, shelter, clothing, movies or video games. Let’s grow up and pay for what we use, okay?
Chrisbookarama said on 02.27.11 at 09:57 PM • [link]
Yeah, except you do pay for the library- TAXES.
Noelle N said on 02.27.11 at 10:11 PM • [link]
Woohoo a discussion where I get to use my new fancy Public Administration degree. And here I thought this degree would be useless to me….
Lets face the facts libraries and publishers are two different types of organizations. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. Libraries (at least all the ones that I know of) are known as public organizations and are in the not-for-profit sector. Lets look at that again… NOT for profit also know as NON-profit. These organizations are run on funding from the PUBLIC. Whether it’s in taxes or library fees the public pays for libraries to operate. So really in if you tilt you head sideways and look at the whole purchasing issue…the library’s name may be on the invoice, but John Q Public bought the book.
Non-profit organizations came about at a reaction to citizens wanting services that the government couldn’t or wouldn’t provide. They are the band-aid, or the bridge between what citizens want and want government will provide us. Now I am not saying Uncle Sam should pay for my book addiction because heaven help this country if he did. The national debt would triple in a matter of weeks, but what I am saying is that somewhere in history the citizens said, “Hey I want access to books because books are expensive and rare and I want to read.” That’s probably not how it really went, but you get my point, right?
Really, Gwynnyd hit the nail on the head with her comment.
On the other hand publishing companies are private organizations. They are all about the dolla dolla bills y’all. Snark…couldn’t resist. Sorry. Really at the end of the day the bottom line for these organizations is profit. They have to make a profit to survive. If they don’t make some sort of a profit they will cease to exist and there will be no new books to fill library shelves. I get that, I accept that, but what I can’t accept is publishing houses saying that libraries encourage piracy.
I agree with Tessa Dare. Libraries are storehouses of a civilization’s written treasures. Libraries are the museums of the book world. What if da Vinci has said that only 26 people were allowed to look at the Mona Lisa and then it had to be destroyed? That would not fly.
I think the problem here is publishers are starting to realize that e-books are not going to go away. While they will decay eventually, it will take them a lot longer to break down than it will a paper book touched by icky, greasy fingers daily. (My other degree is museum studies…can you tell ?). This is a reaction to HC gasping about maybe loosing profits. Personally I think the asshat who came up with the 26 times limit should be knocked upside the head with a really heavy book, but that’s just me.
Stepping of the PAPA soap box… now personally I don’t read e-books. I have a problem with paying just as much for an intangible digital copy of a book as I would a physical ink and paper copy. Yes, I know there is as much work that goes into publishing e-book format as there is print. I believe authors should get paid (cough, Dorchester, cough). I am friends with many authors, I beta read for many authors. Believe me I am all about authors, but I personally don’t want to pay for digital.
I am also a huge fan of libraries. I read just as many books from the library as I do books I have purchased, and if I find an author at the library that I love more than likely I will end up purchasing an entire series or backlist. In fact I have checked out book from authors I have found on this site from the library.
@Lisa Hendrix.. I have to say I am shocked by many of your comments. “…or when I think of someone buying one copy for 300 people to read instead of, say, 50 copies. Or even 10.” I would hope that you would be flattered by a library buying your book for 300 patrons to read. If even one of those patrons falls in love with your stories or writing and decided to buy everything you have written and will ever write you would more than likely have at least one guaranteed sale of each book you write.
“Infinite reproducibility” what is that? There is nothing infinite about digital. It decays just like everything else. While its lifespan is a lot longer, eventually it will decay into nothingness.
I won’t even touch on everything else that I was offended by. I think the other Smart Bitches have discussed it enough.
I have to say that I will not be one of the 300 patrons checking out one of your books. Just like I will never check out another LKH because of rude comments she made on Twitter about an author I love. In fact, I growl at her books when I see them on the shelves and steer people away from her work.
Capcha..student46. As a student I would check out about 46 books a month from my local library. No joke. I really think I did.
Damn that thing is freaky.
Olivia said on 02.27.11 at 10:15 PM • [link]
Unless we’re, say, an eight-year-old with no income (drat those pesky child labor laws!). Or a senior citizen on a fixed income. Or a wounded veteran who has to recuperate before they can rejoin the job force (there’s lots of those around nowadays). Or a person working two jobs and still not making enough to feed their family, much less feed a reading habit.
But I guess those people don’t deserve books? I guess if you can’t afford to buy your own art and reference books—those things are spendy, which is why the Seattle Library system does not own every single one of them—you have no business being interested in art.
Noelle N said on 02.27.11 at 10:26 PM • [link]
@MissyFancy…“now that they have become more like community centers rather than sanctuaries.”
Ummm you do realize that there are laws in place that say libraries have to do so many progams for the public if they want to keep NPO status, right? That’s why you will see them putting on programs (and these are examples from my local library) for seniors on how to use computers (word, e-mail, the internet in general), kids programs (story hour, lego building, Grossology), and hell even Zumba.
“Let’s grow up and pay for what we use, okay?” and I hate to tell you but you do pay for the books you check out of the library in taxes each and every year.
Sandir said on 02.27.11 at 11:02 PM • [link]
I forgot to mention LibraryBIN - http://www.librarybin.com They sell ebooks and audiobooks and every cent over the wholesale amount goes to the library of your choice to help them buy stuff for their digital media collection.
Now more than ever libraries need our help so I plan to use them the next time I purchase an ebook.
Amy said on 02.27.11 at 11:43 PM • [link]
First, It is sad that Harper Collins has decided to also place limits on non-fiction e-books. On the other hand, much non-fiction gains alot by being in larger formats, in color, etc - ie printed. I’m not as worried about - it’s clearly the entertainment oriented paperbacks - with high circulation and short shelf lives that are best suited to e-books.
My opinion is complex…. ;)
Being educated is *not* only a science, math or trade. English and the arts are very important. On the other hand, I’m sorry to say that a post-graduate degree on Harelequins is probably a huge waste of time and money. If you love Harelquins and think they have a positive impact, there’s nothing stopping you from doing private research and publishing it on the web where it’s available to everyone. Don’t hide yourself behind academic walls and have other people ceremoniously confer pieces of paper (and chain yourself to endless student loans to boot). At some point, the academic emperor really is wearing no clothes.
On literature: I love Jane Austin. But it is what we call “literature” and teach in school is also a pure value judgment. Just because lots of English majors like to (or have to) read it over time doesn’t mean it’s going to touch every heart who reads it. That’s simply the nature of art - you have to throw it out there and let go. And as the reader they have the absolute right to their opinion. The difference between literature and what lines the bird cage are truly in the eye of the beholder. From where I sit, that seems to get forgotten alot in the book world.
To answer your question, No, other taxpayers do not “owe” me or anyone else books or entertainment. And they don’t owe it to the poor old lady down the street or the vet or the family struggling to make ends meet. (Just as taxpayers don’t owe them free or reduced cable TV or free passes to the mini-golf course because they are bored.)
If anything, libraries could currently fulfill their original social mission by being free manned or unmanned Internet kiosks. You could learn a ton about art (and probably visit practically every museum on the planet) just by firing up your web browser. No need to spend other people’s money on pricey coffee table books when the same education is to be had out there already.
And there are other alternatives to a publicly-funded library. Most libraries were originally run by private societies, who might still take up the slack to get books to the groups you mentioned. Paperbackswap is also alive and kicking, as are used bookstores who might see better days if the local library couldn’t stock entertainment books.
What started my longish train of thoughts was that some of the comments seem to take the tone of righteous indignation that their favorite genre might be less available for free in the future. All I’m saying is, that from my point of view, is that attitude seems..well..a little entitled. :(
Amy said on 02.28.11 at 12:03 AM • [link]
But you don’t pay even close to the real cost of your library in your personal taxes. That’s what MissFancy means by pay for what you use. Somewhere we got it into our heads that we have the right to read *any* books for free. Because any Book is Good because it’s Reading. (This despite the fact some of the stuff I’ve checked out is this side of written p0rn.)
And it’s all okay to demand that everyone pay for it and publishers keep their pricing reasonable even if the publishers aren’t making money (or don’t know how) and some huge % of the population doesn’t actually step foot in the library. Because it’s Reading and therefore better than watching movie, hanging out on the Internet, etc. ;)
If you love romance books, and pay for what you use in some form, these library restrictions are really a non-event. And libraries had to become community centers because they are funded by general public money because, in the end, it is not fair to tax people who do not read for entertainment for the sake of those that do. It will not be the end of libraries if they have to pair down their entertainment books or turn back into privately sponsored organizations.
Olivia said on 02.28.11 at 02:31 AM • [link]
@Amy: I am now convinced you are a very sophisticated troll, because you keep bringing things back to the idea that people are upset with HarperCollins’ new library requirements because we think all romance wants to be free. You have clearly not been paying attention.
I actually totally agree with the first statement here. Any type of reading is superior to not-reading, since the act of reading as a mental process is unique (as described in this NPR article).
As for your second statement—I write erotic romance. It pretty much IS written pr0n. And all I have to say about that is: neener neener.
Arethusa not bothering to log in said on 02.28.11 at 06:55 PM • [link]
@Amy - You didn’t answer my question. You suggested that if a library’s mission is to be “educational”—libraries have always been about more than that but whatever—then non-fiction should somehow gain precedence over fiction. I am trying to point out that imaginative works of all kinds have helped in humanity’s mental development for centuries so why would you say that? I’m not concerned with aesthetic judgments on what should be considered a “great book”. If we can get out of the classroom mentality, we could consider the idea that not only the classics have “educational” value, which is why libraries don’t just stock Homer.
Re: Harlequins - What? lol I meant research on Harlequins from a feminist, pop-culture angle, as romantic literature etc etc.
“Austin” - Austen, lady! Please
robinjn said on 02.28.11 at 07:09 PM • [link]
I know I’ve written this before in other threads, but to diverge a bit from the whole HC debate into the role of fiction, including romantic fiction, vs non-fiction, lit-fic, etc. in education, let me say that I get really, really effing sick and tired of people saying that fiction, even genre fiction, is somehow inherently non-educational because it’s romance (or a mystery, or sci-fi, or whatever).
I have been a voracious reader of genre fiction my entire life. I have never liked either lit-fic or non-fiction. That’s my own choice. I have enjoyed romance sci-fi and urban fiction as my mainstays.
I learned an incredible amount of vocabulary, history, and just plain interesting facts by not going anywhere other than genre. If I fell in love with a story, I would immediately find out more about that period in time, or about the city they lived in. I’ve looked up French phrases, bought entire books on fashion history so I can mentally place the right clothing on my characters (I mean, I needed to KNOW what the heck a pelisse was didn’t I?)
I have somehow managed to make it through 50 years being regarded as pretty damn smart. And reading has contributed immensely to that. Genre fiction is *just* as educational and contributory as anything else. Quit dissing it. It’s not only elitist, it’s just flat wrong.
Jean said on 02.28.11 at 11:27 PM • [link]
There are two interesting things I have to contribute to this. I’ve seen neither of them mentioned. First is a video by Neil Gaiman. Neil Gaiman on Copyright Piracy I’m going to get back to this bit at the end, but it’s really very engaging to see how this author feels about having his works pirated online.
Second is the publisher Baen. While I’m sure some of the women here read more than just romance, it also doesn’t surprise me that their publishing method hasn’t been mentioned here… because they don’t publish romance. They’re mostly a scifi fantasy publisher, with some military fiction tossed in. Why do I mention them? Because they’ve been doing ebooks since 1999/2000. They’re successful at it. They’re doing so well at it that they’ve gone from being a softcover only publisher to publishing first time authors in HC. Their model is routinely held up as THE model to use for ebook publishing. And the big five won’t touch it.
Why? Baen eschews DRM. They bend over backwards to give their readers every single open format they can. Text, RTF, mobi and more. When you buy a book from their store it’s yours. you can log in five years later and download it again. They don’t think of their customers as criminals. (Shocking, I know.)
This is only the beginning of Baen’s strange and twisted ways. Every book they put out has chapters posted online for reading…sometimes months before the book is actually published. A few weeks before release date most of their books actually have 3/4 of the book online for you to read for free. (Hey, kid? Want a sample? Just a taste.)
Baen puts entire books online into their free library. Entire Books. Books they still publish in paperback are free to read online. They have ten years of statistics that prove that when an author puts one of their books up for free ALL of that authors works get sales increases usually in the realms of double digit percentages. And not just that author’s works from Baen either. (First hit is free kid. They admit to this.)
This is all shocking and appalling enough I’m sure, but Baen goes even further. When they release a HC of an author with a lot of stuff, especially an author with a long running series, that book will come with a CD bound into it. On that CD? All of the author’s other works being published by Baen. And they tell you right on the disc that you can make copies of the CD and spread it around as much as you like as long as you don’t sell it. You can find every single one of these CD’s online. They encourage it.
And it works. Their sales are good. They have a fan base. The PUBLISHER has a fan base. Baen has realized the same thing Gaiman has: It’s actually advertising.
The thing that the big five don’t/won’t understand is very simple: when it comes to fiction the majority of your sales are not going to be impulse buys. The people who will feed your business and keep it running are the loyal readers who fall in love with something and will keep buying it. The people who pirate a book and then DON’T buy it? they fall into two camps. They’re the small minority of people who really are out to steal from you. guess what? you never would have made money off of them anyway. They’re not a lost sale. Everyone else? If they didn’t buy it then chances are it wasn’t to their taste which means if they picked it up in a store and flipped through it they probably wouldn’t have bought it.
How does this relate to libraries? libraries are not their customers when it comes to fiction. Libraries are their advertisers. Making a library pay for a physical book? fine. There are physical printing costs involved. Making a library pay for a digital file? it’s like shooting themselves in the foot. A digital copy of a file costs no more than the bandwidth it takes to email the thing and the employee paid to push send. They should be GIVING them away to libraries. Libraries are simply a stepping stone to what should be their ultimate goal: getting a dedicated addict who will beat down your door for more product and will pay for it.
(Case in point? Baen sells eARCs for essentially the same price as a hardcover. Why? Not because they want to make more money, but because their customers BEGGED for it and selling one or two copies of an eARC will basically recoup their entire cost for making the thing available. The people who buy the eARC will then almost certainly go on to buy the dead tree and digital versions a few months later. Baen would have been stupid not to do it.)
bookstorecat said on 02.28.11 at 11:28 PM • [link]
Reading fiction enlarges one’s personal experience beyond the limits of one’s own time and place. It is absolutely educational—essential even, for a certain quality of life. Recently there have been laments that, because studies have shown that fiction reading increases empathy, the decline of fiction-reading means the decline of empathy in our society.
Jennifer said on 03.01.11 at 03:34 AM • [link]
Join us!
HarperCollins Facebook Boycott
Janelle said on 03.01.11 at 07:07 PM • [link]
As someone who once worked at a library, here’s my spiel:
One, most library books circulate well over 26 times.
Two, the more money books cost, the fewer books libraries can buy. So HarperCollins, you won’t be making more money. Libraries only have so much dinero in their coffers.
Three, the day libraries start handing over their patron information to anyone, let alone publishers, is the day I find out I’m secretly a princess. No, make that a warrior princess. Libraries have a strong code of ethics, which includes protecting the privacy of their patrons. And libraries already do a good job of ensuring that their patrons are area residents. They have a vested interest in doing so. Patrons who want a library card but aren’t from the area typically have to pay for one.
Four, if people check out an author’s book from a library (hard copy or e-book) and enjoy it, they might be hooked enough to start buying that author’s books for their own private collections.
I’d like to point out that a great deal of the books on my bookshelves are published by HarperCollins. As a publisher, HC has high standards and one can always tell so much time has gone into each book. (Seriously, I get butterflies every time I see the cover of one of Melissa Marr’s books.) But I must disagree with this decision. Perhaps it’s back to the drawing board on this one, HC.
NotACat said on 03.02.11 at 12:51 AM • [link]
Three things occur to me while reading the article and consequent comments, one of which has already been covered (thank you, Jean): at least one publisher (Baen) is deeply committed to being friendly to eBooks and is apparently thriving on it.
The second refers to the price of eBooks. It seems from the comments that most people expect eBooks to be cheaper than the paper equivalent, and frankly so did I…until I went to look up Behemoth by Scott Westerfeld (OK, so a single data point isn’t strictly data, but finding more would be depressing). On Amazon UK, the Kindle edition is more expensive than the hardcover, and nearly twice as expensive as the softcover.
The third thing refers to the rather surprising comments about whether “literature” is worth taking care of: I too was rather surprised that a visitor here would have the temerity to disrespect the romance genre ;-) What bubbled to the surface of my mind in rebuttal was a mangled quote from a Barbara Hambly book (much loved, sadly in storage for ages so not to hand): The Time of the Dark if I recall correctly. The lead characters are evacuating their homes to escape the titular monsters, and one of them is vacillating over whether to take her favourite fiction or yet another religious text. Another, the wonderful Gil-Shalos (a historian, but she might as well be a librarian ;-) tells her to take the fiction. The local religious types will be bringing along copies of all the religious texts anyone will ever need, after all. I distinctly recall her lamenting that so much detail about historical societies has been lost to history because the everyday stuff (books, etc) has been lost in favour of copy after copy of the officially-sanctioned religious tracts.
Whew: that went on rather longer than I meant, sorry…
Captcha: both53 — I’m neither a bitch nor a cat, and I’m not 53 (yet) so not quite sure what the system is trying to tell me there ;-)
Tianna Xander said on 03.04.11 at 10:49 AM • [link]
Okay… I can understand the publisher wanting a book replaced after a certain amount of reads. Books do wear out. However, if they had this in mind, the smart way to go about it, would have been to ask several large libraries how many times a popular book is read over it’s lifetime. Meaning, before they have to replace it. Let’s give it an arbitrary number here and say it’s 110 times. Well, then, after 120 times an e-book has been ‘checked out’, they would be within their rights to ask for a repurchase, but I believe it should be at a reduced rate—say half price. The reason for that is, the book is obviously no longer new and the chance that it would be lent out as many times slim.
This helps the publisher, it saves the library money because they would have to pay full price to replace a hard copy and it helps all of the readers who want to read it and can’t afford to buy it. That’s my opinion, such as it is. LOL
Wahoo Suze said on 03.07.11 at 01:04 AM • [link]
Wow, lose your internet connection for a week and the whole place explodes.
I was in the big city this week (hence no internet) and got to visit some big bookstores with lots of selection, and found a few new books out there by fave authors I had no idea were around. (And didn’t buy, because I want an e-version, so I hope I can find one.)
Since I got my ereader, and especially since the agency bullshit started, I’ve been unable to find or buy my traditional favourites by the Big 6 publishers, and have discovered other authors by more flexible publishing companies. I’m certainly not hurting for stuff to read. I feel kinda sad that I’m losing track of some really good stories, but not sad enough to put a lot of effort into tracking them down.
Honestly, as a reader (who discovered my love for books at libraries), I don’t give a flying fuck about publishers. I don’t go looking for the new Book & Sons release, I go looking for the new release by my AUTHOR. I browse (in the library, and on-line for excerpts) for new AUTHORS. I notice the publisher if the quality is crap or is exceptionally good, but otherwise they’re invisible.
In the end, if the publishers don’t get their shit together, it’s they who’ll lose out. Authors will move to more savvy publishers or will self-publish. Readers will find them, and leave the publishers behind.
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments