HarperCollins Puts Cap on Ebook Circulations by Libraries

Wow. You'd think at a time when we're in a recession, and public libraries are losing funding right and left, they'd want to encourage libraries to keep ordering their material.

This isn't the way to do that, especially as more and more of their patrons come in with digital readers and want to fill them with library books. People have less money to buy books, they go to the libraries to borrow. They read because they can't afford the movies.

Stupid and greedy. Even if they have a good reason, it makes them look stupid and greedy.

I am so disappointed in this policy. It will directly hurt me, as a new unknown author, by limiting the number of people who might discover my book in a library, and then want to actually purchase other books by me.

I know McMillan and Simon&Schuster don't even allow their ebooks in libraries, but there has to be some workable solution to this.

Here's another post:

http://bit.ly/faxKbR

HarperCollins has set up an email account for people to weigh in on this, so I'd encourage anyone who is a librarian or user of a library to weigh in.

library.ebook@[B]harpercollins[/B].com

I mean, on one hand, I can see their point. A library may only buy one (but probably more of popular titles) ebook copy, and then never have to buy it again. Unlike paper books, which wear out and need to be replaced. So the publisher makes money as many times as the library purchases that title.

However, unpopular titles are likely to be weeded after a year or two, so they wouldn't be replaced anyway. Not all books are, especially when you have a shelf space issue. So then they would only be purchased once.

On the other hand, an ebook can be stored forever, granting access to that story to people years from now. And if a patron finds and enjoys that older title, they are more likely to go and search for others by the same author. The ebook would be more likely to hang around in circulation.

I don't know why businesses have to be so shortsighted.

Why do some of the big publishers want to cut off their noses to spite their faces? I don't get it. As someone who prefers reading fiction on my ereader, I've been very excited about the idea of being able to dowload books at the public library. With this limitation, I'm afraid libraries will use their limited funds elsewhere. Grr.

I can see their point about hardcopy books only lasting a certain number of circulations on average, requiring a new purchase of a popular volume. But that's an average, so it's a bit presumptuous to say all books wear out after that many circulations.

I think an argument could be made for renewable licenses, though. Something that makes it affordable for the libraries to keep popular e-books in circulation and available, but also puts more money into the publisher's -- and thereby the AUTHOR'S! -- pocket. Maybe $.05 (US) or 5p (UK) per check-out once the initial license has been used up. That would cost a library less than it would to buy a new copy, and still earn money for the folks who invested in bringing the content to market in the first place.

I like the idea of renewable licenses, Terie. I hope that will be the wave of the future.

Libraries using Overdrive are already paying more for the ebooks, plus they're paying a subscription fee to Overdrive for their checkout system.

In the case of Overdrive, specifically, the books have a limited lifespan because of the software they use--Adobe. Adobe has changed their ebook protocol about every two years since they first started using the "digital reader" model in 2000. These books won't last forever; they have a limited life.

I think the ebook licensing model should be based on site licenses for software. That is, the number of simultaneous users. You buy X number of licenses. No more than X number may check out the application/ebook at a time. The license has a start and a stop date; in some cases, the license has not expiration period (but of course hardware / OS incompatibilities usually create cessation of usability).

There's a direct correlation right now between ebook readers and printed book buyers, much as there is between regular library patrons and book buyers. The correlation between frequent library users and frequent book buying is over two hundred years old--and I think we're going to see a similar thing with ebook readers beyond the early adopters.

Medievalist said:

I think the ebook licensing model should be based on site licenses for software. That is, the number of simultaneous users. You buy X number of licenses. No more than X number may check out the application/ebook at a time. The license has a start and a stop date; in some cases, the license has not expiration period (but of course hardware / OS incompatibilities usually create cessation of usability).

Click to expand...

As I'm quite ignorant compared to you, I'm not saying I'm right about this being a good idea, but I was thinking: for particularly popular books (say, 'the next Stephen King'), would it be unreasonable for libraries to be able to purchase what I'll dub 'usage bundles'?

What I mean by this is that if a library buys 5 licenses, only 5 readers can check out the book at a time, meaning long waiting lists for popular books. But if they came up with a way to offer 'usage bundles', a library could buy, say, 500 check-outs, and if 100 readers want the book on the first day it's available, they could all get it, until the 500 check-outs have been made.

I'd think that something like this (not for all books, but for ones where you know bazillions of patrons are going to want the book) would be interesting to see on offer. And, of course, if a library over-estimated how many check-outs they'd need and didn't used them all up by the time a new version was released, well, that's equivalent to the risk they take when they buy books that never get checked out.

But then, as I said, I don't really know much about that stuff.

I didn't even know libraries HAD eBooks. How do you check them out? Do they lend you a reader, install the book, then you have to bring it back when you're done?

I can't fathom it.

Shadow_Ferret said:

I didn't even know libraries HAD eBooks. How do you check them out? Do they lend you a reader, install the book, then you have to bring it back when you're done?

I can't fathom it.

Click to expand...

Read this:

http://drmless.blogspot.com/2011/02/public-library-ebooks-and-overdrive.html

Follow the links

Terie said:

What I mean by this is that if a library buys 5 licenses, only 5 readers can check out the book at a time, meaning long waiting lists for popular books. But if they came up with a way to offer 'usage bundles', a library could buy, say, 500 check-outs, and if 100 readers want the book on the first day it's available, they could all get it, until the 500 check-outs have been made.

Click to expand...

I think that's functional, and doable. Where I think it might be a problem is in royalty tracking. An author who has a book that is more popular and checked out more, should receive more money. If a library licenses more copies of a given ebook, because of popularity, than the author gets more money. The equivalent of this in the analog world is the way a library will order multiple copies of a book that they know will be checked out more frequently, or will order additional copies if it proves more popular than expected.

One of the reasons to go ahead and use those "wait list" online reserve systems many public libraries have is that it helps with circulation control/book purchase decisions.

I wish the U.S. paid royalties to authors for library books the way the U.K. does.

Shadow_Ferret said:

I didn't even know libraries HAD eBooks. How do you check them out? Do they lend you a reader, install the book, then you have to bring it back when you're done?

I can't fathom it.

Click to expand...

My library system has a small but growing selection. As Medi said, you use Overdrive (free download you install on your computer), then you check out and download the book, then you read it on your PC or copy it to your e-reader.

You can check the book back in early, but if you don't, it becomes unreadable at the end of the lending period. (Yeah, I tested it on the first e-book I borrowed just to make sure it really did become unreadable, and it did. As an author, I was happy to see that.) My library lets you renew online (if no one is waiting for the book). Easy-peasy, no late fines, no hassles.

It's super-duper cool. My library system is also building its collection of e-audiobooks.

I'm loving it!

Medievalist said:

I think that's functional, and doable. Where I think it might be a problem is in royalty tracking. An author who has a book that is more popular and checked out more, should receive more money. If a library licenses more copies of a given ebook, because of popularity, than the author gets more money. The equivalent of this in the analog world is the way a library will order multiple copies of a book that they know will be checked out more frequently, or will order additional copies if it proves more popular than expected.

One of the reasons to go ahead and use those "wait list" online reserve systems many public libraries have is that it helps with circulation control/book purchase decisions.

I wish the U.S. paid royalties to authors for library books the way the U.K. does.

Click to expand...

The way I'm imagining it, a 'usage bundle' is paid for upfront. If the library doesn't use all the instances, they lose out, so it's in their interest to try to do a good job estimating. Better to buy too few and then have to order another bundle, than to hugely overestimate and lose the money. Also, they could even use economies of scale, so that the more usage instances you buy, the lower the cost per instance. The publisher and author wins, the reader wins, the library wins. Really, the more I think about it, the more win I see.

(As a UK resident, yeah, I LOVE PLR. Wish they'd implement it Stateside.)

Amadan said:

I also would like it if libraries here in the U.S. paid a small fee to the publisher/author for each check-out. But given our national hatred of anything that smacks of smarty-pants elitism (like reading), libraries are already on the chopping block in a lot of places. I'm afraid adding such fees to their budgets would just mean closing more libraries.

Click to expand...

It doesn't come out of library budgets. It's paid by the government. Yeah, that means it comes out of tax revenues, but it's not the same bucket as library budgets.

Right now, many libraries here in the UK are in danger of being closed, too, but the government has (so far...knock on wood) confirmed its commitment to paying PLR to authors. Unfortunately, they're moving the administration of the programme to some other branch, so the people working in the PLR organisation will probably lose their jobs.

Amadan said:

Congress ain't gonna pass a law to give more tax money to writers. So if we enacted anything like PLR here, it would come out of library budgets.

Click to expand...

I realise that. I happen to be a US citizen living in the UK and paying taxes in both countries. I'm just explaining how it works for those watching at home.

Well, Harper Collins is owned by NewsCorp. Owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Which explains so. much.

PLR is never going to happen in America, and I'm glad it won't. Our libraries aren't base don any national hatred of reading, but that free reading should be available to everyone, no matter how poor.

Writers complain too much. A book sold to any reader through a commercial publisher may get passed through hundreds of hands, based on the used bookstore system. The writer receives no royalties on any of these repeated sales. A library is just a used bookstore that doesn't charge readers for the books.

Free lending libraries are one of the best things about this country, and the surest way to screw anything up is to get the government involved. What the government giveth, the government can taketh away, and what the government giveth to, the government hath control over.

No thanks.

I'm content to have my books read so that those readers who can afford to do so will go out and buy more of my books for their own libraries.

I agree with James. Libraries should be free.

I just looked into it. Our library uses Overdrive too.

Jamesaritchie said:

Free lending libraries are one of the best things about this country, and the surest way to screw anything up is to get the government involved. What the government giveth, the government can taketh away, and what the government giveth to, the government hath control over.

Click to expand...

James

The government IS involved. You might ask your local libraries about how they're funded. Libraries receive both state and federal funding, as well as local tax base funding.

Which is why libraries are closing.

I note as well that the public libraries in the UK are free.

Terie said:

I can see their point about hardcopy books only lasting a certain number of circulations on average, requiring a new purchase of a popular volume. But that's an average, so it's a bit presumptuous to say all books wear out after that many circulations.

I think an argument could be made for renewable licenses, though. Something that makes it affordable for the libraries to keep popular e-books in circulation and available, but also puts more money into the publisher's -- and thereby the AUTHOR'S! -- pocket. Maybe $.05 (US) or 5p (UK) per check-out once the initial license has been used up. That would cost a library less than it would to buy a new copy, and still earn money for the folks who invested in bringing the content to market in the first place.

Click to expand...

I just wanted to say this sounds like a really clever idea. I like it.

The PA in the UK hates ebook lending; their current policy appears to be to make it as inconvenient as possible, while pretending they think it's a good idea. That said, there's a clear difference of scale between the implications of lending of print copies between friends or at libraries, and the implications of being able to lend ebooks, unless some kind of DRM is applied to close that gap in scale. Which, being DRM, will be largely useless and self-defeating, I guess. HC's 'solution' will just tend to piss people off.

I suspect that the way this will shake out is that eventually lending will be limited to a 'friends and family' list, or possibly just via Bluetooth; solutions that work via hardware DRM. Library ebook circulation... probably best to deal with it as per Medievalist's software licence solution or Terie's royalty-based method. (I think they'd go for whichever one involves the least amount of admin.) The PA's current idea, which is that you have to show up at the library and transfer the books onto your device there, sounds like more of a pain in the neck for library users than either of them.