Libraries Demand Better eBook Services

[tubemonkey]

Over 70 library systems from the United States and Canada — including New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Toronto, and Chicago — today issued a joint statement demanding vastly improved ebook services for library users in North America.

The statement, dubbed the ReadersFirst Initiative, outlines four principles the libraries want e-content providers — the middlemen between publishers and libraries — to follow in order to lift content restrictions and also make the borrowing experience less cumbersome.

“Libraries have a responsibility to fight for the public and ensure that users have the same open, easy and free access to ebooks that they have come to rely on with physical books,” the statement reads. “They face two major challenges. The first is that, unlike print books, publishers are not required to sell e-books to libraries – and many do not. This is a complex and evolving issue. The second, addressed here, is that the products currently offered by e-content distributors, the middlemen from whom libraries buy ebooks, create a fragmented, disjointed and cumbersome user experience.”

Four of my libraries signed this statement (the only ones in the state to do so); and not coincidentally, the four libraries with the largest ebook collections in the state. That's a good sign and shows a strong commitment by them to increase digital services.

[kennyc]

Wonderful!

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Four of my libraries signed this statement (the only ones in the state to do so); and not coincidentally, the four libraries with the largest ebook collections in the state. That's a good sign and shows a strong commitment by them to increase digital services.

“They face two major challenges. ...

I'm going to address a snip backward:

The second, addressed here, is that the products currently offered by e-content distributors, the middlemen from whom libraries buy ebooks, create a fragmented, disjointed and cumbersome user experience.”

I chalk that up to growing pains. The technology will fix itself. I applaud their nudge to the providers though.

The first is that, unlike print books, publishers are not required to sell e-books to libraries – and many do not. This is a complex and evolving issue.

I suppose the bolded is an accurate assessment. It is hard for me to wrap my head around the disconnect between lending paper and lending bits.

The disconnect being, it is generally not in the interest of the book seller to give away his products, be they paper or bits.

When and why is the interest different? The inescapable conclusion is that the book seller would rarely find a public library in their profit column regardless of the book format. If they had their dithers, they'd be compensated for every read of every book, at the market price.

I know there are exceptions to the above (new authors, etc).

So, fill in the blank: Rob Lister, you are wrong because __________

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

I suppose the bolded is an accurate assessment. It is hard for me to wrap my head around the disconnect between lending paper and lending bits.

I don't see a difference either. But publishers sure do. They're afraid of what digital technology means to their bottom line. With paper books, they had several tiers to generate profits from (HC, TPB, MMPB). Not so with ebooks; the cheapest of all formats. They need to trim operations and reduce their overhead if they expect to survive in a digital world. Impeding progress will only hurt them.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

I suppose the bolded is an accurate assessment. It is hard for me to wrap my head around the disconnect between lending paper and lending bits.

The disconnect being, it is generally not in the interest of the book seller to give away his products, be they paper or bits.

When and why is the interest different? The inescapable conclusion is that the book seller would rarely find a public library in their profit column regardless of the book format. If they had their dithers, they'd be compensated for every read of every book, at the market price.

I know there are exceptions to the above (new authors, etc).

So, fill in the blank: Rob Lister, you are wrong because __________

The interest isn't different.
They probably would rather prevent their paper books being sold to libraries.
But they can't. Libraries can but a book just like anyone else can. And once they own that physical copy, they can do what they like with that single copy, including renting it out.
The difference isn't that publishers want to prevent libraries lending ebooks, it is that they can prevent them lending ebooks, while they can't prevent them lending pbooks.

[MikeB1972]

To be fair to the publishers :
Borrowing a pBook involves going to the library, finding the book, checking it out, reading it in the fixed time frame & then going back to the library to return the book.
Borrowing an eBook involves exactly the same as buying one but without spending any money.

At the moment it is far easier to buy pBooks than get them from the library.
Personally, I think you should have to go in to the library to check out eBooks as well - that way if your money is more important than your time, you can get library books like always, otherwise you can buy the book (And cut down on what is going to be an ever growing burden on the libraries as more people realise that it is as easy to borrow as buy in eWorld).

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

To be fair to the publishers :
Borrowing a pBook involves going to the library, finding the book, checking it out, reading it in the fixed time frame & then going back to the library to return the book.
Borrowing an eBook involves exactly the same as buying one but without spending any money.

At the moment it is far easier to buy pBooks than get them from the library.
Personally, I think you should have to go in to the library to check out eBooks as well - that way if your money is more important than your time, you can get library books like always, otherwise you can buy the book (And cut down on what is going to be an ever growing burden on the libraries as more people realise that it is as easy to borrow as buy in eWorld).

I think the linked article alluded to that using the term 'friction'. Libraries want less, publishers want more.

Now that I have everything set up on my computator, visiting my public library and checking out an ebook really is as easy as buying directly from a non-B&N* source. The only real friction is the somewhat lacking user interface my library has for searching. That said, the hoops I had to go through to get set up for that library lending would put a circus animal act to shame.

*The only advantage I get with the B&N source is not having to physically connect my device.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Personally, I think you should have to go in to the library to check out eBooks as well - that way if your money is more important than your time, you can get library books like always, otherwise you can buy the book (And cut down on what is going to be an ever growing burden on the libraries as more people realise that it is as easy to borrow as buy in eWorld).

Implement that and I'll quit using libraries. Will I buy the books instead? Nope.

Reading fiction is a hobby. It's not necessary for survival. Make it difficult, and I'll just find another hobby to occupy my free time.

[elemenoP]

Considering I bought my ereader when my library closed for multi-year renovations, I don't like the "go to the library" method. To me, the friction in library ebooks is the wait times. I would be fine if publishers only allowed a limited number of copies to be sold to each library. A long wait for a book could generate "buzz" and then people would want to buy it?

eP

[BeccaPrice]

Why are publishers so fond of adding "friction" to their books? I'd think they'd want to make it easier to read their books, not harder.

[nogle]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

Why are publishers so fond of adding "friction" to their books? I'd think they'd want to make it easier to read their books, not harder.

They want to make it easier to buy their books. Reading them is material to them only in as much as it is an inducement to purchase. Although libraries represent sales, they also represent lost sales in the people that will go on a wait list at the library to avoid the purchase. Some of those on waiting lists would buy the book rather than wait if "friction" is great enough.

[Penforhire]

Friction? Just the slow death rattle of an industry of dinosaurs. The publishing industry isn't so different than many historical examples dating back at least as far as player pianos going to put musical performances out of business. Evolve or die.

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

To be fair to the publishers :
Borrowing a pBook involves going to the library, finding the book, checking it out, reading it in the fixed time frame & then going back to the library to return the book.
Borrowing an eBook involves exactly the same as buying one but without spending any money.

At the moment it is far easier to buy pBooks than get them from the library.
Personally, I think you should have to go in to the library to check out eBooks as well - that way if your money is more important than your time, you can get library books like always, otherwise you can buy the book (And cut down on what is going to be an ever growing burden on the libraries as more people realise that it is as easy to borrow as buy in eWorld).

Actually it obviously depends on ones location as to whether or not it is easier to buy a paper book or check it out from the local library. The same story as far as ebooks go. In my case buying a paper book involves at least a 80 mile each way trip to the nearest retail bookstore with the high probability that unless what I am looking for is a high seller that the book will not be in stock anyway. That leaves purchase over the Internet (say Amazon) with at least ten days or so wait, or obtaining it for free from my library that is within walking distance. Even if I must request the book through inter-library loan I am still likely to receive the book sooner, and still for free. The only impediment for obtaining ebooks fro free from my library at the moment is the fair probability that it will not even be available, or if it is I will have to join a wait list.

I think it comes down to thee fact that publishers have managed so far to convince law makers that buying an ebook is some how different from buying a paper book and so can justify not allowing libraries to add ebooks to their collections and lending those ebooks out just as they presently do paper books.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Friction? Just the slow death rattle of an industry of dinosaurs. The publishing industry isn't so different than many historical examples dating back at least as far as player pianos going to put musical performances out of business. Evolve or die.

You know, people keep comparing publishers to dinosaurs in the MR echo chamber, but it's just not true. Publishers have dived into e-books very quickly and are making record profits. Sales are up and profits are up, in large part because they have embraced e-books wholeheartedly. More specifically, because they have embraced selling e-books wholeheartedly.

Friction? Lack of library lending? That's evolution.

I don't like the direction, particularly, but that's how evolution works.

[JeremyR]

I would say that libraries are the dinosaurs in the room.

There's a recent story in my local paper about a city wanting to start a library. The tax to pay for it will be 20 cents for every $100 in taxable property you own.

Or basically, $2 for every $1,000. Have a modest (say $100,000) home, the library will cost you $200 a year.

How about this - everyone just keeps their money and uses it to buy the ebooks they want?

And ebooks are different from physical books. They don't wear out. If a library buys a book, it's going to be worn out after X amount of readers. An e-book wont. Is it fair to the author that one sale of his work will be readable to an infinite amount of readers? (Albeit sequential)

Public libraries were created (as opposed to private membership ones) supposedly to help give people access to books to educate themselves. With an e-reader, they don't need a library to get books for that, there's a wealth of free books out there.

But IMHO, they never should have been entertainment centers subsidized by taxes - providing movies, video games, and fictional book. But that's what they are now and seen as some sort of entitlement. "I want free books! I want free DVDs rentals! I want free video games!"