HarperCollins Seeks to Limit Digital Lending, Access Patron Data, Generally Piss Off Readers

imagePublishers 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.

Categorized:

Ranty McRant

Comments are Closed

  1. LaurieDouglas says:

    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.

  2. Amy says:

    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.

    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. 😉

  3. Min says:

    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.

  4. Olivia says:

    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.)

    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.

    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.

    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.

    I’d be *giving* my books to the library just for the exposure (except for maybe the last 5 chapters). 😉

    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.

  5. LG says:

    @Amy

    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.

    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.

  6. akajill says:

    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.

  7. LG says:

    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.

  8. Karen S. says:

    One thing to add, in response to @LisaHendrix:

    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’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?

  9. Gwynnyd says:

    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.

  10. Olivia says:

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Gwynedd, I’m reposting your entire comment becase YES. This is what I was too inarticulate to find the words to say. Thank you!

  11. Faellie says:

    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.

  12. Cathy B says:

    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?

  13. Lyssa says:

    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.

  14. Amy says:

    “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. “

    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.  🙁

  15. rigmarole says:

    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.)

  16. Jennifer123 says:

    @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.

  17. CupK8 says:

    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.

  18. HollyY says:

    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.

  19. Arethusa says:

    @Amy

    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…) 😉

    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.

  20. Alpha Lyra says:

    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.

  21. Olivia says:

    @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.”

    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.

    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:

    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.

    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.

  22. meganhwa says:

    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?!?

  23. B. Sullivan says:

    (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…) 😉

    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.

  24. lalien says:

    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.

  25. Rebecca says:

    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.

    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.)

  26. Roxie says:

    @Lisa Hendrix:

    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.

    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.

  27. MissFancy says:

    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?

  28. Yeah, except you do pay for the library- TAXES.

  29. Noelle N says:

    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.

  30. Olivia says:

    Let’s grow up and pay for what we use, okay?

    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.

  31. Noelle N says:

    @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.

  32. Sandir says:

    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.

  33. Amy says:

    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.

    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

    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.

    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.

     
    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.  🙁

  34. Amy says:

    ““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.

    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.

  35. Olivia says:

    @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.

    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.)

    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.

  36. Arethusa not bothering to log in says:

    @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

  37. robinjn says:

    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.

  38. Jean says:

    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.)

  39. bookstorecat says:

    really effing sick and tired of people saying that fiction, even genre fiction, is somehow inherently non-educational

    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.

By posting a comment, you consent to have your personally identifiable information collected and used in accordance with our privacy policy.

↑ Back to Top