eBook sales are down 17%

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

Macmillan and some of Simon & Schuster's divisions sell DRM-free ebooks for the same price as other publishers. I've never really understood why the Agency 5 have an adversarial position with Amazon, yet require Amazon Kindle owners lock in all of their purchases with Amazon.

The big deal is Amazon can discount indie and small publishers at their will.
They can discount paper books but not the ebooks from the big 5.
They pay a percentage per each e-book sold.
There is no adversary. They made a deal.
So I wish people would quit saying that stuff.

As to libraries and Amazon it is called libraries don't want to pay for ebooks that won't get borrowed.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by darryl

Then again, perhaps overdrive and others who provide the infrastructure for libraries to lend ebooks are boycotting Amazon.

Back when eBook products from Simon & Schuster, and Macmillan, weren't ever found in public library collections, I don't recall any defender of big publishing suggesting such an implausbile excuse.

Publishers have a freedom-to-read responsibility to make their products available to public libraries, and at prices good libraries can, even if painfully, afford. This is how publishers can balance their responsibility as good citizens with fiduciary duties to employees, authors, and stockholders. When a best-selling product isn't in any library, that is evidence of failure to exercise said responsibility to make sure reading, including eReading, won't be restricted to the affluent.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Publishers have no power to stop a public library from buying a physical book.

Never said they did, but they also don't have to court library sales on their website either. Was just pointing out that they don't seem to be against it for physical books, but anything digital they want to keep locked up tight to their own ecosystem for the most part (which stinks).

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Digitally they do seem to, yes. AFAIK their print books are available to libraries...

I seem to remember quite a few American Kindle owners who borrowed and continue to borrow Kindle format ebooks from their local libraries. The objection I've seen in Canada are basically the cost and the potential violation of privacy laws. While epubs are loaned by the library from their servers, borrowing a Kindle ebook redirects you to Amazon for the loan which is enough to give the average library's privacy maven a conniption fit -- the stance of the Canadian Library Association is that information on patrons should only be disclosed when required by law -- if you want information on a patron's borrowing habits, get a court order first.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Back when eBook products from Simon & Schuster, and Macmillan, weren't ever found in public library collections, I don't recall any defender of big publishing suggesting such an implausbile excuse.

Publishers have a freedom-to-read responsibility to make their products available to public libraries, and at prices good libraries can, even if painfully, afford. This is how publishers can balance their responsibility as good citizens with fiduciary duties to employees, authors, and stockholders. When a best-selling product isn't in any library, that is evidence of failure to exercise said responsibility to make sure reading, including eReading, won't be restricted to the affluent.

@Steve. Unfortunately you seem to be simply making some of this up. I have the same evidence for my statement that you quote as you have for yours. That is, both are sheer speculation. However, my statement was simply illustrating this point, that we are only speculating on the reasons. I went on to advance another possible explanation, of which there could be many.

And if you believe publishers are providing their books to libraries at prices they can afford, I would, to quote another poster, like whatever you are smoking. Admittedly they have improved a little, but prices to libraries are still basically extortionate. You have accused Amazon of an ebook boycott of public libraries based on the fact that you couldn't find some books you searched for. Whilst you may prove to be correct, logically it simply does not follow.

Amazon has been the subject of calls for boycotts from all sorts of Luddites and supporters of the way things were which recur frequently. Many bookstores apparently did boycott Amazon titles and as far as I know still do. It is no great leap to conclude it is equally plausible that Overdrive and others are boycotting Amazon titles. And even more plausible that neither Amazon nor Overdrive and other library suppliers have bothered. I would also suggest that Amazon Derangement Disorder is at such levels that any examples or evidence of Amazon refusing to supply its ebooks to public libraries would be a big story indeed. Perhaps this may even happen as a result of your post if you do prove to be correct.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I seem to remember quite a few American Kindle owners who borrowed and continue to borrow Kindle format ebooks from their local libraries. The objection I've seen in Canada are basically the cost and the potential violation of privacy laws. While epubs are loaned by the library from their servers, borrowing a Kindle ebook redirects you to Amazon for the loan which is enough to give the average library's privacy maven a conniption fit -- the stance of the Canadian Library Association is that information on patrons should only be disclosed when required by law -- if you want information on a patron's borrowing habits, get a court order first.

That's not what was being discussed though. What was being talked about were Amazon Publishing titles and their availability to libraries.


The same privacy issues of Kindle lending have been brought up by many US librarians.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by darryl

@Steve (I got it right this time!). So far the evidence such as it is supports the hypothesis that Amazon's ebooks are not available in libraries through overdrive or any of the other players. But the evidence says nothing about why. We can only speculate. You could be correct that Amazon's ebook operation is boycotting public libraries. Then again, perhaps overdrive and others who provide the infrastructure for libraries to lend ebooks are boycotting Amazon. Or perhaps it is simply a case of none of the parties involved have been interested in making an arrangement. I would not bet against you being correct. Amazon could take the view that it has more to lose from making ebooks available in public libraries than it has to gain, though this is not necessarily the case.

Any librarians or others reading this thread who can throw some light on this? As I said, a boycott by Amazon is not impossible, nor am I convinced it is the case.

Hmmm...aren't all of the e-books by Ed McBain published by an Amazon publishing arm? As far as I can tell, they are on Overdrive.

Shari

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by shalym

Hmmm...aren't all of the e-books by Ed McBain published by an Amazon publishing arm? As far as I can tell, they are on Overdrive.

Shari

The only Ed McBain books on OverDrive are the ones not published by Amazon.

[ekbell]

A possible conflict for Amazon could be the fact that unlike other publishers it operates its own subscription library.

To be honest I'd expect to see a version of Kindle Unlimited for public libraries before seeing Amazon exclusives on overdrive.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

The only Ed McBain books on OverDrive are the ones not published by Amazon.

Ahhh...I didn't realize that. Thank you.

Shari

[Gardenman]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Publishers have a freedom-to-read responsibility to make their products available to public libraries, and at prices good libraries can, even if painfully, afford. This is how publishers can balance their responsibility as good citizens with fiduciary duties to employees, authors, and stockholders. When a best-selling product isn't in any library, that is evidence of failure to exercise said responsibility to make sure reading, including eReading, won't be restricted to the affluent.

Publishers are private businesses. They do not have a responsibility to sell books to anyone. They only have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders and any contracts they have with their employees and authors.

[darryl]

So far no one seems to have found any Apub works on Overdrive. The question is why.

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Want some beach property in west Texas?

Is it a BIG beach? I HATE those little sandy strips!

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Gardenman

Publishers are private businesses. They do not have a responsibility to sell books to anyone. They only have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders and any contracts they have with their employees and authors.

A lot of posters here seem to think that the supreme responsibility of private businesses is to customer welfare. Your viewpoint at least has the attraction of being different.

At least publicly, I don't think you would find many private businesses saying that their only responsibilities are to obey contract terms and keep up the stock price. But if that really is their only moral responsibility, you just gave a tremendous argument against capitalism.

I don't recall anyone giving such a hyper-capitalist defense -- or any defense -- back when some of the big five refused to sell eBooks to public libraries. Then it was a major sin. But maybe I forget and/or maybe your opinion was different.

Hardly any of the corporate players would publicly agree with your stockholder-focused description of their mission. For one example, Penguin Random House's owner, Bertelsmann, is in turn mostly owned by a charitable foundation. When I posted that before, a German poster questioned the sincerity of the arrangement (I can't recall, but maybe he called it a tax dodge). However it is partly the case that Penguin Random House is in business to help charities. And, even though I'm often an Amazon critic, I think that Jeff Bezos had a genuine public interest motive in buying the Washington Post (and subsequent adding reporters). He would never agree that the purpose of Amazon is to make stockholders as much money as possible while obeying his contracts.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

Is it a BIG beach? I HATE those little sandy strips!

Only about 30 miles. Is that big enough?
The hubby says to pull it up on Google earth.
Search for Monahans and zoom out from there.