HarperCollins Puts 26 Loan Cap on Ebook Circulations

[stickybuns]

Originally Posted by stormcloude

This is a power-grab by HC, pure and simple.

Sadly, the heads of the other publishing houses are more than likely now screaming at their minions, "Why didn't WE think of this first?!"

I'm normally not much for boycotting, but HarperCollins has set a very ugly precedent that needs to be nipped in the bud. As someone who owns a non-library-friendly e-reader, it would be too easy for me to say, "Doesn't effect me; why should I care?" but the consequences of not protesting HC's actions go far beyond library books.

[Joykins]

FWIW, in my younger, poorer days I used to hit the library booksales and purchase books that had significant wear 'n' tear or other issues and been removed from library shelves. Been stampled "no longer the property of X library" or had a marker stripe through the library stamp. These books are still re-readable, you have to be a little gentle but they're not totally useless and I paid money (granted usually less than $1) for them.\

26 loans, by the way, wouldn't be a year's lease for the most popular books. Many people return early out of courtesy if they know their book is in demand.

I could see a lease/subscription working if there was some quid pro quo for the library and a reasonable term/price, but I think if the price is the same and the expiration time potentially unreasonably short, what libraries will choose to do is buy e-books from other publishers than HC until this shakes out.

[stormcloude]

Originally Posted by Joykins

I could see a lease/subscription working if there was some quid pro quo for the library and a reasonable term/price, but I think if the price is the same and the expiration time potentially unreasonably short, what libraries will choose to do is buy e-books from other publishers than HC until this shakes out.

Yes, after talking with a friend whose husband is a librarian, what they're planning on doing is waiting till the popularity of a title dies down before they buy an ebook copy, so the only way to get a popular new release will be though hard copies. I agree with the poster who said HC is trying to kill or severely limit ebook lending. I mean the biggest lenders of books in the world are libraries.

[starrigger]

A useful data point would be: How often do libraries buy replacement hardcovers or paperbacks for books that have been worn out? I honestly have no idea.

While I'm definitely a library supporter and generally a supporter of free exchange and DRM-free ebooks, I have some sympathy for the publishers on this one. Should ebooks in libraries really be infinitely lendable, especially if they're purchased at regular retail price? I'm not so sure they should be. I try to make my own ebooks DRM-free, but that's with an implied social contract that the purchasers will not share them with an unlimited number of their closest personal friends (or all of their Facebook pals).

I do think 26 is way too low a number--maybe 100 would be better, if this model goes forward. But maybe a preferable model would be, charge a "library binding" price and say it's a forever-license.

[stickybuns]

Originally Posted by starrigger

A useful data point would be: How often do libraries buy replacement hardcovers or paperbacks for books that have been worn out? I honestly have no idea.

While I'm definitely a library supporter and generally a supporter of free exchange and DRM-free ebooks, I have some sympathy for the publishers on this one. Should ebooks in libraries really be infinitely lendable, especially if they're purchased at regular retail price? I'm not so sure they should be. I try to make my own ebooks DRM-free, but that's with an implied social contract that the purchasers will not share them with an unlimited number of their closest personal friends (or all of their Facebook pals).

I do think 26 is way too low a number--maybe 100 would be better, if this model goes forward. But maybe a preferable model would be, charge a "library binding" price and say it's a forever-license.

From what I've gathered, libraries already pay a higher price for ebooks.

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by stickybuns

From what I've gathered, libraries already pay a higher price for ebooks.

Do they? I honestly don't know.

[natasha_fawn]

Originally Posted by starrigger

A useful data point would be: How often do libraries buy replacement hardcovers or paperbacks for books that have been worn out? I honestly have no idea.

While I'm definitely a library supporter and generally a supporter of free exchange and DRM-free ebooks, I have some sympathy for the publishers on this one. Should ebooks in libraries really be infinitely lendable, especially if they're purchased at regular retail price? I'm not so sure they should be. I try to make my own ebooks DRM-free, but that's with an implied social contract that the purchasers will not share them with an unlimited number of their closest personal friends (or all of their Facebook pals).

I do think 26 is way too low a number--maybe 100 would be better, if this model goes forward. But maybe a preferable model would be, charge a "library binding" price and say it's a forever-license.

I agree. I was trying to get at this information earlier and not succeeding very well. Seems there's not a lot of data publicly available about the lifespan of a library book. I did find these two little articles that may shed a bit of light (I posted them earlier, so you might have seen them): http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...e-library.html and http://nyunews.com/news/2009/11/17/books/. They're both for academic libraries, though. ATDrake looked up the Da Vinci Code on his home library's site that gave the number of loans of each book and some were up in the 70s I think.

Then there's this:

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.

[sufue]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Yes it's called greed. There are hb books in librarys that are DECADES old and still in use.

In fact, just find one that is old enough to have the old checkout card/pocket (remember those???) instead of a bar code, and unless it's something really esoteric like Life Cycle of the Nassau Grouper, I'll bet you it HAS been checked out more than 26 times, and is still in fine shape.

Seriously though, our local libraries are having enough trouble with finding budget to buy e-books ONCE - who would really expect them to re-buy every year or two? So, although I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist sort of person, I'm afraid I find myself in the "believe this is meant to kill library lending of e-books" camp!

[stormcloude]

When CDs first came out, did music companies try to limit their shelf life to make them the same as cassette tapes? It's a new technology, not just the same book with a jpg cover instead of a paper one.


In fact, why isn't HC trying to force libraries to reserve shelf space for their ebooks and force them to reduce the shelf space they're giving to HC's competitors? One inch for every ebook they buy and they can only buy as many ebooks as they have shelf space for? The longevity of ebooks is an advantage and HC is turning it into a liability. Ebooks are NOT the same as tangible books.

[dkb]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

Who needs to read when you have movies? In twenty years the biggest growing profession will be professional readoutlouders.

Yes, let's have kids watch TV and play video games instead of reading! I think the big 6 need to worry more about competition from other digital media than about libraries and pirating.

I think these policies are very short sighted. I wouldn't have become the reader I am today without the public library being readily available to me as child and a young adult before I could afford to buy books for myself.

I think libraries having a good digital selection is a great way to increase access to books. Increasing access encourages reading and literacy.

But I think that if they limit the license time--the time should reflect the average life of an actual book. I think only 26 times is unreasonable.

[kbrand]

I just went to the Harper Collins website, and sent an email boycotting their authors. I am sure my email will go unnoticed, but It makes me feel better.

[Valentino]

Serious leeching of our tax dollars.

I can't believe the libraries have accepted these terms.
If so then we deserve it, but I would expect more from them.

[snipenekkid]

wouldn't it make more sense for publishers and libraries to just lock themselves in a room and beat each other over the head until they come up with a universal subscription model for their catalogs in which there is a constant cost for the libraries but the content is on a rotation. So rather than purchase licences for each title individually the libraries can have a group pool sharing the titles between each on a rotating basis. The rotation could be based on demand but with a hard cap on the total number of individual titles a library can have out on loan at any given time.

Basically to a person looking to check out a book we would see the whole catalog with some sort of status but it's not based on the number of copies for that title (well maybe a hard cap on new titles so as not to kill those sales) but based on the total number of titles a library can have checked out.

I likely did not describe what I see in my head. I just think a more fluid model could work for ebooks. It would also give individual libraries a set known cost for each year yet expand their catalog for people in that town. To me it makes more sense than forcing libraries to chose the books for me, let us readers decide what titles we want, put it on reserve then once a license is free just let me know and *poof* I have that book.

To me that idea makes a lot more sense. Heck I don't even mind the idea of a membership to a library group for a donation of some sort, you know like a zoo membership. Of course I have long wanted a subscription model at bookstores anyway. I already pay Audible a couple hundred a year for audiobooks so what would a 2-book/month discounted membership at an online bookstore be? Say $12-$15/month? I know, I know the whole agency model pretty much buggers that idea so I gave up in it. And for all I know the subscription model for library groups is not popular with publishers already as I really don't follow library matters anymore. But something has to be better than the current options. Or is this how Overdrive actually works already?

[FizzyWater]

I have no idea if it will make the slightest difference, but I've gone into the four digital libraries websites that I have access to and sent the following comment via their "Contact Us" form.

I just heard that HarperCollins is forcing libraries into a limitation of using an ebook for 26 times and then it expires. While I would definitely miss access to HC authors, I think this is just wrong. I would like to offer my support if you decide to boycott HC digital titles until this is resolved.

[Valentino]

@FizzyWater, I hope everyone here sends a similar message.
I completely agree and appreciate you sending yours.