HarperCollins Puts 26 Loan Cap on Ebook Circulations

[kiwipippa]

Originally Posted by Blue Tyson

Rupert Murdoch, still full of the suck.

That says it all really. I didn't realise Harper Collins was owned by News Corp.

[rogue_librarian]

That explains a lot.

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by pietrocrazy

If libraries were some kind of new idea rather than a very old one that far predates modern mass publishing, I really think that they would not be allowed to exist.

You're right.

[Worldwalker]

So Harper Collins wants libraries to pay for books on an annual basis. Rent, in other words.

Actually, it looks like Harper Collins wants to hammer more nails in the already-closing coffins of libraries. This isn't surprising; libraries benefit the many (the public), not the few (the publishers' management). In the eternal tug of war between the seller (who wants buyers pay everything for nothing) and the buyer (who wants to pay nothing for everything) they're firmly on the side of the buyer. They came about at a time when the needs of the public were considered important, instead of merely interference with the desires of corporations, and at a time when fulfilling such needs was considered a virtue, not a vice.Yes, there was a time when taking care of other people, and a mutually-supporting society instead of a cutthroat mob of antagonistic individuals, was believed to be a good thing. Kinda weird, isn't it? People who didn't even know that greed, arrogance, and hate were civic virtues, and thought it was a good thing to be nice to each other?

Here's what Harper Collins is forgetting, though: In their greed to squeeze every penny out of today's book buyers, they're losing tomorrow's. The book buyers of today became what they are because of a lifetime of access not just to new hardcovers, but to public libraries, used books, borrowed books, and all sorts of other things that don't give money directly to publishers. If the only way they could have read books was to pay hardcover prices for rentals of those books, they would have used any of the many other available sources of entertainment. And the more forms of entertainment emerge -- streaming video, for instance, or computer games -- the more competition books have. The more distractions the next generation of book buyers has. And the fewer reasons, therefore, they have to establish a book-buying habit that will benefit a company like Harper Collins in the long run.

So, they're squeezing a little more money out of the customers they already have in exchange for losing the customers that will sustain them ten years from now. Typical modern business short-sightedness: It's all about boosting the short-term stock price for the benefit of the speculators. "The long view" means thinking about next fiscal year rather than just next quarter. The Rupert Murdochs of the world win. And everyone else...?

Here's a thought: Andrew Carnegie was a robber baron. He was greedy, ruthless, and very, very good at what he did. He started from poverty and made a huge fortune. But he would be mocked, today, especially by the Murdochs of the world and their kin, because he was "too nice". He spent his money. Worse, he spent it on the "undeserving" -- people who hadn't accumulated wealth of their own, who, in modern belief, deserve only poverty. He bought libraries for towns who couldn't afford them, and pipe organs, which don't get quite as much press. He helped people with that money. He believed it was his obligation to use his wealth for the benefit of others, and he did. And, apparently, had a hell of a lot of fun doing so -- more fun, I would think, than partying on a yacht ever could be. That would be laughable today. People believe wealth is virtue, and should never be shared with the less virtuous (that is, the less wealthy), and things like libraries are liberal nonsense.

There was a time, too, when the owners and managers of businesses wanted those businesses to be strong and healthy in the long term. Firing the R&D department to boost short-term profits used to be the subject of jokes, not business as usual. That's what Harper Collins is doing here, though, in other terms. They're trying to squeeze a bit more money out of current customers at the expense of future customers. Like a company that fired its R&D department because it's better for immediate profits but leaves them with no products in the pipeline, they're eating their seed corn.

They don't care, of course. And society has been taught not to care. But those of us who remember a time before the 80's, who remember a time before "Greed is Good!", remember other sorts of virtue than the accumulation of wealth. A time when libraries were considered a public good to be encouraged, not a profit center to be exploited. And I don't think we're better off for discarding that notion.

[rhadin]

The squeeze on libraries is more than just the time issue. Publishers and Overdrive are charging libraries more for ebooks than for hardcover versions. For example, John Grisham's The Confession costs libraries $28.95 for a single ebook license; the hardcover can be bought for a 40% discount, or approximately $17.37. The ebook is an expiring license whereas the hardcover is an outright purchase. Economically, it makes little sense for libraries to invest in ebooks, regardless of what patrons want.

[wyndslash]

Originally Posted by rhadin

The squeeze on libraries is more than just the time issue. Publishers and Overdrive are charging libraries more for ebooks than for hardcover versions. For example, John Grisham's The Confession costs libraries $28.95 for a single ebook license; the hardcover can be bought for a 40% discount, or approximately $17.37. The ebook is an expiring license whereas the hardcover is an outright purchase. Economically, it makes little sense for libraries to invest in ebooks, regardless of what patrons want.

woah. that's sick D;

[faithbw]

I don't know why I am surprised by this latest move from Murdoch. A year or two ago, the Chicago affiliate of Fox did a piece on whether or not libraries were really needed anymore. The reasoning was that since people are buying e-Readers and e-Books, there was no longer a need for libraries. It was utter rubbish. A poster on a different forum said something to the effect that this was a way for Murdoch to assault libraries and get people to buy e-Books.

Fast forward to this latest stunt and I'm inclined to agree 100% with that poster. Murdoch wants libraries to die a quick death so that we'll all be forced to buy e-Books. He knows that many cash strapped libraries can't afford to replace e-Books every year.

[SameOldStory]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Bibles are usually made a bit more durable than the average hardback, especially the more expensive ones. Better quality acid-free paper, better binding, and real leather covers contribute to their longevity.

Back in the late '60s I briefly worked in a book distribution warehouse pulling and shipping books. Most, if not all, libraries received such special printings/bindings back then. I'm sure that they paid a lot more than for the same book titles sold in the drugstores, but there’s no doubt that baring catastrophic damage those books are still useable.



So what do we have now?

• Agency pricing.
• E-book rental (that’s what it really is) to libraries, increasing their costs over paper books.
• DRM
• Geographic restrictions.

Those pretty much top the list.


I don't think that the paper printing publishers are going to win. Instead I think that they'll grievously wound, if not kill, themselves.

In a world where the population of people who read, or even those that can read, is dwindling, I see very little hope for them. And in the end that'll hurt us, the readers.

The winners will be new authors (or those that keep control of their e-book rights), resellers dealing primarily with e-books, and used book stores.

Last year I bought only 3 books, of any kind, from "mainstream" publishers. Good luck Harper Collins, Random House, et al. And thanks for all the fish.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

Last year I bought only 3 books, of any kind, from "mainstream" publishers. Good luck Harper Collins, Random House, et al. And thanks for all the fish.

Since Random House is the only major publisher that is NOT part of the Agency pricing, I'm not sure why you're including them.

[SameOldStory]

Because I'm dumb and don't follow agency pricing very much. As I said, last year I only bought about 3 books from big name publishers.

Agency pricing effects me very little. I prefer new talent and old writers more than "blockbuster" titles.

If you follow agency pricing, please substitute another company.

[randyflycaster]

If publishers are so scared of ebooks why don't they sell them directly from their websites?

Randy

[graycyn]

Originally Posted by faithbw

Fast forward to this latest stunt and I'm inclined to agree 100% with that poster. Murdoch wants libraries to die a quick death so that we'll all be forced to buy e-Books. He knows that many cash strapped libraries can't afford to replace e-Books every year.

Well, good luck to him with that... I'm not so spoiled by my e-reader that I won't go to my library and checkout hardcovers if I don't want to buy a title.

[Barcey]

The governments can roll back copyright to 7 years and libraries can wait to get the books then. Budget problems solved.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by randyflycaster

If publishers are so scared of ebooks why don't they sell them directly from their websites?

Because Amazon got there first.
They can't sell DRM'd books to Kindles without selling through Amazon, and can't get access to Whispernet for instant delivery. They would lose access to the majority of the market.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by randyflycaster

If publishers are so scared of ebooks why don't they sell them directly from their websites?

Randy

The same reason that they don't sell paper books directly from their website - it's completely different from what their core competencies are.

Also, they tried this and failed.