HarperCollins Puts 26 Loan Cap on Ebook Circulations

[graycyn]

Originally Posted by sufue

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.

I have, currently, an out-of-print, 1962 book checked out from my library... and it has a checkout card. *IF* the checkout card in the pocket is always kept with the same book, then I can tell you that this 40+ year old book has been checked out 33 times in the last three years. Heaven only knows how many times before that.

It's not new looking, but it is a long, long way from falling apart. Better still, it's a children's book, so you know it probably hasn't had the most careful handling.

[sufue]

Originally Posted by 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.

So did I. Trouble is, I was ALREADY boycotting their books due to the agency pricing thing, and had told them so. So I'm even surer it will do no good

- Sue

BTW, the link for the HC "contact us" help page is here:

http://www.harpercollins.com/footer/help.aspx

I used ordersATharpercollins.com (replace the AT with the @) when I first complained to them about agency pricing, and eventually, much later, got back a very obviously canned response which clearly showed they had barely looked at my e-mail.

[batgirl]

Originally Posted by starrigger

Do they? I honestly don't know.

As someone who buys ebooks through Overdrive for my library, yes they do. And quite a lot more. Someone earlier pointed out the difference we pay for a hardcopy v. ebook for Grisham's The Confessions.

Also someone pointed out that mass market paperbacks wear out much quicker. True, but with the library discount the costs of these books is minimal, about $4.

What is even more crazy is that not only is HC telling me I'm only going to get 26 circs for a much higher priced ebook but they are telling me how I can get those 26 circs. If they are going to limit my circs, then I should be able to decide how to manage them and if I want to let all 26 circs happen at once.

I'm not surprised this comes from a Murdoch company though I expect the other publishers to follow suit.

[batgirl]

Originally Posted by 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.

We weren't even given an option. No actual libraries or librarians were involved in these negotiations. Our only option is to not purchase HC ebook titles. Which I and many libraries will probably do. Which is probably precisely what HC wants.

[Lirael]

Oh, Harper Collins...

Well, next time I want any of their books, I'll be heading straight to the used bookstore.

They're certainly not going to get any more of my money.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by wyndslash

Poor libraries. They (publishers) really are beating this horse to death.

If they're really that scared why not just the limit the number of each title instead? I mean, libraries only have a few copies of a single title to lend out at a certain time. Why not just imitate that then remove the cap? Some books in ny university are so old that hardly anyone borrows them anymore

They already do this. The libraries buy a certain number of licenses, and that determines how many ebooks can be used simultaneously. This is a restriction on top of this current restriction.

[Barty]

Hmm, Time for me to go check if HC has any must-read authors before I announce my boycott of another company.

Seriously, these companies must have a Division of Customer Screwer-Overers.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by batgirl

We weren't even given an option. No actual libraries or librarians were involved in these negotiations. Our only option is to not purchase HC ebook titles. Which I and many libraries will probably do. Which is probably precisely what HC wants.

Why didn't HC just decide to disallow library borrowing for all their e-books? At least that would be honest.

[amjbrown]

There is a huge amount of anger on this thread directed at Harper Collins.

I am not familiar with the author royalty model. How do authors get rewarded for the not inconsiderable effort of writing a book when it is being lent out by a library? Presumably the HC model will allow authors to get royalties every 26 loans?

I am not sure whether it has been covered already, but I expect eBook borrowing would naturally be higher than the equivalent pbook levels. I will worry less about trying the first couple of chapters if I can just download the digital bits. I tended to read the first few pages in the library before lugging the thing home! That will eat through those 26 loans faster which will cause more concern.

Interesting times.

amjb

[starrigger]

First, thanks, Batgirl, for clarifying the question of libraries paying more for ebooks than retail customers.

Originally Posted by amjbrown

I am not familiar with the author royalty model. How do authors get rewarded for the not inconsiderable effort of writing a book when it is being lent out by a library? Presumably the HC model will allow authors to get royalties every 26 loans?

That is true--though, as an author, I think 26 loans is way too restrictive.

Authors in the U.S. don't get any payment for library loans beyond the royalty on the sale of the book. This is one area in which (in my opinion) the U.S. lags behind some European countries. I don't recall which countries, but there are nations which have what they call a "library lending right" (I think that's the phrase), which means there's a payment to authors out of public funds for library loans. This does not mean it comes out of library budgets, but is something funded separately. SFWA, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, actually receives a payment each year from one of the Scandinavian countries for library lending rights on behalf of its membership. (The money goes into SFWA operating funds.)

No doubt a scheme like that will not fly in the U.S. anytime soon, given the current political climate, but it's something that's considered normal in other places.

I should also say that most writers consider that they derive indirect benefit from gaining readers through libraries, and from the general support of literacy in the nation, encouragement of reading among kids, etc. I heartily second that.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by amjbrown

There is a huge amount of anger on this thread directed at Harper Collins.

I am not familiar with the author royalty model. How do authors get rewarded for the not inconsiderable effort of writing a book when it is being lent out by a library? Presumably the HC model will allow authors to get royalties every 26 loans?

Yes, this is strange. If somebody download a book and are not allowed to do it there is people making the moral argument that the author looses money and it is wrong to download. But concerning library people seem to think they have the right to register at remote libraries and lend books an infinite amount of times and the author will not get any money for that and that is OK.

[TallMomof2]

I've volunteered in libraries over the years and even cheap paperbacks are checked out more than 26 times before disintegrating. I also spent a lot of time patching up books so they could go back in circulation. Considering the price a library pays to Overdrive for one ebook license limiting it to 26 times is ridiculous. 260 times is more equitable. I can see HC's point about ebooks not wearing out but 26 loans is too few.

BTW, the school libraries where I live have not received any funds from the county budget for new books in several years. The public library system has had its budget radically slashed and almost all new acquisitions come from donations and fund raisers.

[ATDrake]

Originally Posted by tompe

But concerning library people seem to think they have the right to register at remote libraries and lend books an infinite amount of times and the author will not get any money for that and that is OK.

The thing is, with libraries loans, each individual copy that is lent out is duly paid for (at higher prices than normal retail), and each copy can only be read by one person at a time, so anyone else who wants to read it will have to wait until the e-book is "returned" to the library for re-loan.

So the authors are paid. Maybe not as much as they'd like to be, but they're paid.

The major objection people seem to raise to pirated books (beyond the obvious) is that umpty zillion people can hypothetically be reading that single copy of a book that's been shared online, for which original copy the author may or may not have been paid for in the first place (homebrew scans and all).

Incidentally, I'm going to be cynical and say that I deeply doubt that if HC gets their extra money for the 26 loan expiry fees, they're going to be sharing the largesse with their authors.

[graycyn]

My guess is that our library's digital consortium is probably not going to be getting a lot of new Harper Collins titles. I just don't think they'd be able to afford it, at least not for any seriously popular titles.

I was looking at the hold number this morning for Hillenbrand's Unbroken and it's at 93. Larsson's Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest is at 209. I'm at patron 20 for that title right now. The library has 5 copies. Heaven only knows how many people have already borrowed and read it!

It's only going to get worse too, because a year ago, the library held an e-reader event and while a number of people came, no one at that time who showed up actually OWNED a reader. This year, it was quite different!

I can understand publishers not wanting to grant a never expiring license, but 26 lends per license is just too few. At least they could consider a two or three year license.

[BearMountainBooks]

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 worked in a library and there really isn't a "Generally." I've seen books get checked out ONCE that came back mud spattered with pages ripped out. So that was "one time." I've seen other books that were older than I was (and I wasn't young when I worked there) get checked out again and again.

Paperbacks and trade paperback (which are becoming far more common) can last anywhere from "twice" to forty checkouts. Sometimes a popular paperback will be "hardcovered" by libraries. We did this if it was only the cover that was destroyed, but the book was popular. Sometimes it was done for very popular YA books BEFORE they were put in circulation (cost was about 8 dollars to turn it into a hard copy--not counting the salary of the librarian who made the decision and the paperwork overhead.)

One thing that is missing here is that ALL publishers (from my understanding and I could be ill-informed) ALREADY have a licensing agreement in place that is done either by checkout or by time period. So if library A wants James Patterson and gets the ebook, it isn't "forever." But books are in different licensing categories. A library can buy multiple licenses at a time for a popular book (thus decreasing the waiting list because multiple copies can be out from the same library at the same time.) They can then decrease the licensing as needed.

Another worm for the wiggle: Libraries can "share" overdrive. For example, my library could not afford the overdrive program so is in the program via a "group." Example: Five libraries are sharing the same overdrive books. The libraries have to figure out which x number of books to "lease" and for how long. Different books can be cycled in and out of the program.

There are "issues" with this as well because my library wanted (example only) 10 copies of James Patterson Title X, but Library B doesn't have many patrons so they voted for ONE copy...

Some of this has to be worked out--it's still very new. Some of the "lending rules" are being set by publishers (for example the 26 checkouts. But I believe other publishers actually pull books from the overdrive program entirely after a certain length of time. Or never offer them to the program in the first place.)

It's far from a perfect system. Perhaps better than "licensing" or "subscription" might be a small charge per checkout (the reader could actually be responsible for paying 10 cent or 25 cents or some fee.) Or the subscriptions have to be equitable and fair so that libraries can afford to get books for a decent amount of time.

I don't have answers and I really don't have a horse in the race. I would download ebooks from my library were I able to, but right now it's a complicated process and not all that friendly. It will get better--BUT I think it will get better because some enterprising company will come along and start a real "lending" program like Netflix. "Pay x, get access to Y number of books per month/year/etc."

Just a guess.