HarperCollins Puts 26 Loan Cap on Ebook Circulations

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Amalthia

I'm not sure if anyone else brought this up but if HarperCollins is licensing th ebook to the library does the author get a higher royalty rate on books purchased by libraries? It's not technically sold. I think I read somewhere that the reason publishers are still saying ebooks are sold and not licenced has to do with the royality rates.

It all depends on the contract. ...

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Amalthia

I'm not sure if anyone else brought this up but if HarperCollins is licensing th ebook to the library does the author get a higher royalty rate on books purchased by libraries?

Not if Rupert Murdoch can avoid paying more!

[Joykins]

I like this open letter from a library:

Starting March 7, the “total number of permitted checkouts” for any HarperCollins eBook will be 26, after which point, libraries will have to purchase the eBook again. This figure does not account for people renewing an eBook to finish reading it and no accommodations are made for eBooks which never checkout. There is no option for the library to remove the title from their virtual collection; instead it will remain listed and unavailable for customers and library staff to access. The eBook is essentially locked until a re-entrance fee is paid by the library for the next 26 checkouts.
...
Despite statements to the New York Times that HarperCollins hopes this move will, “ensure a presence in public libraries and the communities they serve for years to come,” it may, in fact, do just the opposite. Many of our collection development policies require us to look at longevity to insure we are being good stewards of the public monies. HarperCollins has now ensured that their eBooks are forced in to obsolescence and off our virtual shelves and away from consumers with the means to purchase these titles in print or electronically for themselves.

... we apologize to our readers who enjoy authors published by HarperCollins but until a change is made in the licensing, the Virtual Library cannot, in good conscience spend our limited budget, to repeatedly purchase eBook titles from HarperCollins or any other publisher who enforces checkout limits. Doing so would restrict us from purchasing new titles from authors who work with other publishing houses such as Nora Roberts, J.D. Robb, John Grisham and Terry Brooks.

http://www.pioneer.lib.ok.us/PLS/111...ders-of-ebooks

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Joykins

I like this open letter from a library:



http://www.pioneer.lib.ok.us/PLS/111...ders-of-ebooks

Perfect! I hope all libraries will do the same!

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Perfect! I hope all libraries will do the same!

+1

[Joykins]

Yeah, I think it is a good point that libraries use *taxpayer* money to purchase their collections and HC policies make those ebooks not the best use of those limited dollars.

[silasgreenback]

Originally Posted by Joykins

Yeah, I think it is a good point that libraries use *taxpayer* money to purchase their collections and HC policies make those ebooks not the best use of those limited dollars.

Maybe Fox News should cover it. Sounds like good fodder for one of Beck's chalk talks.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by silasgreenback

Maybe Fox News should cover it. Sounds like good fodder for one of Beck's chalk talks.

Why would Beck bring it up? His publisher is Simon & Schuster, which doesn't allow libraries to loan out ebooks at all.

[OtterBooks]

I suspect someone could have also made a video of books that had been checked out 10 times and ruined. Handpicked examples that support their point isn't so convincing in itself. That said, the HC limitation does seem rather low, and my guess is the policy will be adjusted at some point.

[MV64]

That's ridiculous. It should be illegal to artificially force people to repurchase an item that isn't broken.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by MV64

That's ridiculous. It should be illegal to artificially force people to repurchase an item that isn't broken.

This!

Because the only reason for it is to attempt to protect the status quo instead of move into the future.

[silasgreenback]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

Why would Beck bring it up? His publisher is Simon & Schuster, which doesn't allow libraries to loan out ebooks at all.

With Beck, making sense isn't part of the equation.

In the context of Beck, this makes sense:

HarperCollins = Rupert Murdoch = Shaking down libraries for tax money = Big Government = Fox News = Glenn Beck = Socialist

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by silasgreenback

With Beck, making sense isn't part of the equation.
....

[aagstn]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

Why would Beck bring it up? His publisher is Simon & Schuster, which doesn't allow libraries to loan out ebooks at all.

Libraries are part of the Progressive agenda that is ruining America. I'm sure once we have public libraries and other progressive ideas like public schools eliminated we can finally have the perfect America Beck and his ilk dream of.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by MV64

That's ridiculous. It should be illegal to artificially force people to repurchase an item that isn't broken.

They are charging libraries for the renewal of limited manufacturing and distribution rights which exceed that of a normal consumer purchase. I understand the logic behind it, though I think the limitation number they chose seems harsh.