New Retail Channels, The Library e-Book Wars and Bundling

[DonaldL.]

New Retail Channels, The Library e-Book Wars and Bundling

All the talk and media attention given to self-publishing as an alternative to legacy publishers seems to be having some impact. A panel featuring executives form S&S, Random House, Little Brown, HarperCollins and Perseus, spent the morning issuing mea culpas (and highlighting current and planned correctives) over past “paternalistic” practices in dealing with their authors. Indeed there was a fair amount of discussion about whether authors should be called “partners,” “customers,” or “clients,” in an era when veteran authors and even emerging writers have viable alternatives to the traditional publishing contract.

[CyGuy]

Quote from the article: "Indeed, Sendze said that her library has a budget of $850,000 to buy e-books, “but we can’t find enough e-books to buy, because publishers won’t sell them to us.”"


There it is again, the "publishers won't sell them to us" thing. Why oh why does anyone need to purchase the file from the publishers? They should simply purchase the ebook from anywhere it is for sale and loan it out as normal. I think it comes down to this "ebooks are licensed not sold" nonsense. Our lawmakers need to put a stop to this as soon as possible...

[cjr72]

Indeed there was a fair amount of discussion about whether authors should be called “partners,” “customers,” or “clients”

Well that's a relief. One would hope these industry Thought Leaders also discussed how best to Leverage these Empowering and Incentivizing label changes for their assets in way that will lead to Sea Changing, Win-win Organic Growth down the road.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

Why oh why does anyone need to purchase the file from the publishers? They should simply purchase the ebook from anywhere it is for sale and loan it out as normal.

Because libraries perform a different function than the individual who buys a book.

The intent is for the library to share that particular content with an entire community. When you buy an ebook from a retailer, the intent is for you, and perhaps a very small group connected with you, to read that ebook.

Originally Posted by CyGuy

I think it comes down to this "ebooks are licensed not sold" nonsense. Our lawmakers need to put a stop to this as soon as possible...

Selling a license rather than selling a file is not illegal.

I also don't think it should be illegal. Paper books and ebooks are not the same thing, nor should we treat them as though they are the same thing. Compared to paper, ebooks lose certain capabilities and gain others. C'est la guerre.

[emilikins]

Why oh why does anyone need to purchase the file from the publishers? They should simply purchase the ebook from anywhere it is for sale and loan it out as normal.

Because a digital file is not a physical object. Even when libraries buy and own a physical book for lending, they generally pay a higher cost for it. Part of this is due to it being a higher quality binding in order to survive more loans than the mass market binding you get at the store. This is why my library does not allow patrons who have lost or damaged a book to run down to Walmart or B&N to buy a replacement. But I also would be willing to bet there is some extra cushion on the publishers' end when it comes to "library binding."

Physical books are a finite thing. If you lend it out, that item cannot be used by someone else. Digital files can essentially be replicated an infinite amount of times, hence why companies try to circumvent that with DRM.

I agree with the idea that libraries should be able to truly own the ebooks they "buy." But they don't. If you buy from Amazon, you don't own it. You're paying Amazon to own the item as long as they see fit. Stripping DRM is breaking a contract with them. It doesn't break copyright, but it does break a contract. Same goes for Microsoft Office - you don't own the software. You paid $$ to use it on MS's terms.

I would LOVE for libraries to be able to own the ebooks they purchase and either build their own platform of delivery and storage or be able to migrate their files to another platform if, say, their provider went belly up or didn't meet their needs anymore. Coding that still "returns" the book after the loan period and makes it unusable for the reader would be okay. I don't see how you could argue that libraries have the right to buy one ebook copy and make it available to any number of people at any time, no restrictions whatsoever. It isn't right to the rights owner. In THAT sense, I'm all for a DRM mechanism, as long as it would work across multiple platforms.

I do not support DRM and licensing on ebooks that are bought and paid for, but that's the other can of worms.

From the article:

Moderating the panel, “New Models for Library Sales,” Library Journal’s Barbara Genco said, “publishers are completely befuddled about libraries and the new world of e-books,” joking that publishers think librarians are “sluts” because they “give it away,” or, she said, “they think we’re pirates.

What the ebook debacle is showing libraries is that the publishers were never our partners or really valued us in the print business. We had that creeping feeling for decades (at least in the academic library world); despite being rather lucrative customers, libraries have been paying more and getting less.

As for the publishers' empty words, it definitely just sounds like typical corporate lip service. And like Target calling customers "guests." Publishers can say whatever they want for PR at a conference, but it'll be their actions that matter.

Also from article:

The panel featured librarian Monique Sendze of the Douglas County Public Library, who has built a digital platform that integrates e-books into the library online catalog and allows patrons to not only borrow e-books form the library but to buy them if they want to avoid the wait. “3 clicks to buy, no more,” she’s said, “We try to make it easy to borrow Library e-books,” Sendze said noting that “20,000 people clicked on the buy buttons,” during three weeks in January

*sigh*

Libraries do need to show that borrowing can lead to buying at a significant rate, but I abhor the idea of libraries becoming another storefront. I don't know if the DCPL's borrow later or buy now system is actually Amazon or their own system, but it's a bit of soul selling, IMHO. (Of course, if it is Amazon, that train has left the station). I guess I can't be satisfied. Libraries need to show they're not the enemy, but what will they give up to do so?