Macmillan becoming library friendly

[kennyc]

But what about that voice from the burning pile of towels in the corner of the gym?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by kennyc

But what about that voice from the burning pile of towels in the corner of the gym?

That's the ghost of Steve past whispering "agency pricing is not dead, raise your prices"

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

I had absolutely no idea. Is this their track record in general?

Here's a recent sample of the wit and wisdom of Macmillan:
http://www.the-digital-reader.com/20...-12-in-length/

Check the comments here, mostly authors:
http://www.thepassivevoice.com/12/20...nt-of-justice/

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

That's the ghost of Steve past whispering "agency pricing is not dead, raise your prices"

You know, I do hope the thing gets to trial so we can find out whose idea the conspiracy was. My first thought was Penguin since they were thhe ones who talked Barnes and Noble into strongarm-ing Random House into joining the conspiracy (and why aren't *they* on the docket, at least as unindicted co-conspirators).
But right now Sargent is the public face of the conspiracy.
Of course, there's all those emails in the DOJ files...
I sooo want those made public.

(Now *there* is a righteous target for anonymous... )

[Laridae]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

And the library should all give us ponies.

Macmillan wasn't making e-books available to libraries at all. Now they are, at the cost of, perhaps, 50¢ per checkout. This is a better deal than Random House offered, and better than nothing. I don't think that turning down this offer will cause MM to make a better offer, or help customers at all.

I agree.
Anything that makes more e-books available has got to be a step in the right direction.
I don't think I need to list their many advantages for this crowd.

[DiapDealer]

I think all this will ultimately be Sargent's swan-dive--errr... I mean poop... or song... swan-something, anyway. His own little Don Quixote impersonation. To each his Dulcinea, I guess.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Laridae

I agree.
Anything that makes more e-books available has got to be a step in the right direction.
I don't think I need to list their many advantages for this crowd.

Not if it destroys the system in the long run.

That should be clear to anyone.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Not if it destroys the system in the long run.

That should be clear to anyone.

Modern libraries have many (worthwhile) functions.
Serving as cash cows for big multinationals should not be one.

But to a large extent they are.
I still think they *will* go along with this.
Shoudn't, but will...
(sigh)

[JSWolf]

What would be a lot better would be a two year deal with unlimited borrows.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Modern libraries have many (worthwhile) functions.
Serving as cash cows for big multinationals should not be one.

But to a large extent they are.
I still think they *will* go along with this.
Shoudn't, but will...
(sigh)

I think you are right..

[BadBilly]

Originally Posted by Iznogood

I haven't read all the discussions about this subject, but as far as I've read, no one is saying that the books should not expire and at the same time cost less than paperbacks.

I said in my last post in this thread that I see no harm in ebooks being more expensive than paperbooks if the library are allowed to treat the paperbook and the ebook the same way, i.e. interlibrary loans and eternal use. This would save the library a good deal of money, and that money should go to the publishers. Such a deal would be worth paying a premium to the publisher.

Or, if the book has to expire, it has to be rediculously cheap since the book must be re-purchased every second year, providing a steady income for the publisher.

Paying a large sum* for a book that expires doesn't make sense, and will lead to a poorer service and poorer selection as a lot of older books will expire and not be renewed.
*even $25 is a large sum to keep a book for only two years! A hardbound book costs the same and lasts much longer than two years!

You do remember that after two years the licence expires whether the 52 loans are reached or not, right? For unpopular books that gets checked out once a year this is expensive, so the libraries will not renew these books, and older books will(!) disappear from the system. That would be a disaster, since the publishers don't care a damn about preservation, and cannot be supposed to pay for preserving their books! As you yourself say, publishers do what they must to make money, everything else is not their priority. That's why we have libraries.

What we are saying isn't that books shall be free or that books shall be available to everyone, exactly where they want it, and exectly when they want it. But the libraries need to retain their independence from the publishers. The libraries are supposed to make books available after the book has disappeared from the market and preserve out cultural heritage, and we must make sure that they can do that.

I'm not saying that the libraries should be allowed to do what they want with ebooks in the first couple of years when the publisher is earning back the money they've invested in a book. But it is important that the libraries get a copy of the epub or mobi or whatever, and that they have the right to do what they want with the file after a while when this particular book gets harder and harder to find!

You make good points that I agree are well worth considering. Points that libraries can pursue. However, you are overlooking some points. For example, for popular titles, the 50 borrowing or two year limit isn't so unreasonable. In an article I read (it was linked to from one of these library/publisher threads), they quoted a librarian as saying that a paper version of a bestseller may last for about 50 borrowings before it is too worn for use. This was in an article that was against very high prices and limiting borrowings to 26 times. Now, if this this scheme from Macmillan allows a library to get about as much use from an e-book as from a paper book, it sounds like a step in the proper direction.

I agree that there is some point to libraries having copies of older books. Realistically, however, no public library keeps a copy of everything it has ever acquired. Academic libraries may be more inclined to this, but public libraries cull old books that nobody borrows. Older books already disappear from the system. Limitations of space mean that public libraries have limits on the books they keep. E-books don't require the same physical space, so that could be a real benefit, allowing libraries to keep older, more obscure works that are rarely borrowed. How publishers and libraries will deal with this is an important question that needs to be worked out.

I have no particular love for the BPHs. As large, publicly-traded corporations, they no longer show the love of literature that smaller publishers do. While there may be many people working in those companies that love the written word and finding a great author and bringing him or her to the public, the shareholder imperative of ever increasing profits has largely squeezed out the mid-list authors. Like big music and movies, it's now about the blockbusters. Those are books, though, that the public (as in PUBLIC library) wants to read. This deal seems like a decent starting point to further the discussion between libraries and publishers.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BadBilly

You make good points that I agree are well worth considering. Points that libraries can pursue. However, you are overlooking some points. For example, for popular titles, the 50 borrowing or two year limit isn't so unreasonable. In an article I read (it was linked to from one of these library/publisher threads), they quoted a librarian as saying that a paper version of a bestseller may last for about 50 borrowings before it is too worn for use. This was in an article that was against very high prices and limiting borrowings to 26 times. Now, if this this scheme from Macmillan allows a library to get about as much use from an e-book as from a paper book, it sounds like a step in the proper direction.

I agree that there is some point to libraries having copies of older books. Realistically, however, no public library keeps a copy of everything it has ever acquired. Academic libraries may be more inclined to this, but public libraries cull old books that nobody borrows. Older books already disappear from the system. Limitations of space mean that public libraries have limits on the books they keep. E-books don't require the same physical space, so that could be a real benefit, allowing libraries to keep older, more obscure works that are rarely borrowed. How publishers and libraries will deal with this is an important question that needs to be worked out.

I have no particular love for the BPHs. As large, publicly-traded corporations, they no longer show the love of literature that smaller publishers do. While there may be many people working in those companies that love the written word and finding a great author and bringing him or her to the public, the shareholder imperative of ever increasing profits has largely squeezed out the mid-list authors. Like big music and movies, it's now about the blockbusters. Those are books, though, that the public (as in PUBLIC library) wants to read. This deal seems like a decent starting point to further the discussion between libraries and publishers.

The "popular" "bestsellers" is where the BPHs make their money.
And if 50 reads is all a popular book can take these days then, yeah, 52 checkouts is no loss.

But what we're gripping about is the *expiration* "feature" that effectively forecloses library sales for anything *but* the "bestsellers".

Because a book that is only checked out maybe 5 times in two years becomes, in effect 10 times more expensive than a "bestseller" and the library becomes simply a free alternative to Costco.

Libraries should do better than cater to the lowest common denominator of book reading, shouldn't they? I'm no fan of the genre but this scheme pretty much shuts out litfic from ebook libraries.

The big issue isn't the limited checkouts (though it's bad enough), but the forced expiration. That is the poison pill here.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Libraries should do better than cater to the lowest common denominator of book reading, shouldn't they? I'm no fan of the genre but this scheme pretty much shuts out litfic from ebook libraries.

I'm on the fence regarding this whole thing, but...

Let's avoid elevating one type of reading over another. I think it more accurate to state that libraries *should* cater to a variety of readers while focusing on the demand of their particular user demographic. Because if there isn't enough stuff that their users want to read, regardless of whether it's genre fic or litfic or women's studies or what have you, this whole conversation is moot. If people aren't using libraries, there won't be libraries.

And the funny thing with city / local budgets - if you have money designated for a line item, and you don't use it, you might not get it next year, and it isn't always allowed to move it to another line item. I'm not saying that the proposed scheme is the best way to spend money for all libraries, but if there is money in the budget for ebook acquisitions, and the books on that list are ones that will increase circulation numbers for the library, then it's worth considering.

[tubemonkey]

If this Macmillan thing flies, soon all of the BPHs will be doing it. Want the latest Stephen King novel? Sure thing, only $100 per copy and a very generous 6 month expiration.

[Laridae]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

And the funny thing with city / local budgets - if you have money designated for a line item, and you don't use it, you might not get it next year, and it isn't always allowed to move it to another line item. I'm not saying that the proposed scheme is the best way to spend money for all libraries, but if there is money in the budget for ebook acquisitions, and the books on that list are ones that will increase circulation numbers for the library, then it's worth considering.

The unfortunate truth is that the Libraries are in no position to bargain. It's a seller's market. They don't have to sell the libraries anything. As it stands now only 2 of 6 BPH's make their ebooks available. Adding another one makes that many more ebooks available.

I say take the deal; if it's more expensive well, just suck it up - hopefully this can be offset by other benefits - less handling and storage of pbooks, and so on.

This is the wave of the future (as everyone hanging out here will attest) so let's not quibble.

Chant along with me ... More books ... more books ... more books!!