Random House's new library pricing increase revealed

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by azazel1024

A great example is Netflix, Redbox, et al. Warner Brothers and others have come out with 30 day and starting soon in some cases 60 day blackouts in when Netflix, Redbox and others can rent new releases. However, that only applies to movies sold to those companies through wholesale rental copy deals with them. The companies can go out and buy the movies at retail price and rent them to their hearts content day 1 without the movie publishers being able to say a thing.

They cannot just buy movies at retail price and then show them to their subscribers. And they pay a whole lot more than retail for their copies.

I can see both sides of the dispute. A fair solution would take into account the average times a pbook could be checked out before it had to be retired (due to damage). A surcharge is reasonable, the question is how much. You can't just expect publishers to make forced donations. Perhaps giving them tax credits instead as they get for real donations?

[plib]

Originally Posted by azazel1024

Within reason, libraries versus publishers should/is the exact same situation, but it isn't playing out that way. I firmly believe electronic media, software, etc should be treated exactly how physical media is. If the library can legally purchase a book and lend it, then there should be nothing stopping them from buying the ebook however they want and lending it. Yes, there are some additional strings attached when it comes to electronic means.

It isn't ethical, let alone legal (and grey area there) to buy a single ebook and lend it concurrently to multiple people. However, my public library damn well should be able to buy 50 copies of a kindle book off Amazon and lend it up to 50 times at once without anyone being able to tell them differently.

This. I'm not sure whether there's a current legal reason why they can't do this, but if so I'd be firmly in support of changing the law so that they could.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I absolutely favor government intervention to keep prices set the same regardless of the customer. Random House can't charge me 300% of what they charge everyone else; why should libraries be any different?

That's my view as well.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I absolutely favor government intervention to keep prices set the same regardless of the customer. Random House can't charge me 300% of what they charge everyone else; why should libraries be any different?

How about because their usage is different than a book sold to an individual consumer would be?


I'm not saying 300% more is reasonable, but something above consumer level retail probably is. Libraries were often already paying double retail list though so how much of an increase above that might be justifiable?

The publisher makes the point that a digital copy can be lent forever, but have they come out and guaranteed that they'll update the formats the library has if ePub falls out of use or the DRM scheme changes? What if OverDrive goes under, will the publisher guarantee transfer of the libraries copies to a different distributor? If they want to claim the digital copies last forever then they need to do something on their end to at least give libraries an actual expectation they will be.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by azazel1024

Within reason, if you are targeting a large enough portion of the public, you don't have a right to not sell your product to catagory of someone.

You can't discriminate based on race, religion or gender. That doesn't mean you are required to sell content to everyone. (E.g. a retailer is not required to sell sexually explicit materials to minors.)

Originally Posted by azazel1024

A great example is Netflix, Redbox, et al.... The companies can go out and buy the movies at retail price and rent them to their hearts content day 1 without the movie publishers being able to say a thing.

Netflix cannot pick up a copy of the DVD, rip it, and stream it to customers; they can only stream the content when it's been granted a license. There are no problems with licensing content to Hulu but not Netflix, HBO but not Showtime, ABC but not CBS.

Different media = different means of distribution.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

My friend, you are way too literal.

This was a metaphor for what?

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

The point is that government-mandated prices are a bad idea, even when the recipient of said largesse provides a public service.

I didn't say that the government should set the prices, the publishers would still do that, but they shouldn't be allowed to triple the price that they chose for one person/organization.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Yes, they can. And do.

A publisher can sell you a book directly at full price, while a retailer slashes the price by 50% or 75%. It happens all the time, with retailer discounts, used books and remaindered books.

I see that you have some difficulty comprehending the difference between <more> and <less>.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Sure. They have to pay their taxes and obey the laws, just like everyone else.

If I self-publish a book, I get full control over how that book is distributed. I am not legally or morally required to provide the public with anything. If I decide I don't want libraries to distribute my book, should I be forced to do so?

Getting copyright should come with that.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Why stop at imposing extra duties on publishers? What's so special about libraries, since there are so many public goods? Why not require gasoline companies to provide gas for free to fire departments? Free bullets to police? Free medicines to hospitals?

So now <wanting to pay less than 300%>=<wanting to get it for free>. Another metaphor?

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

And I disagree. Free public Libraries are a public good and a government service. As such the cost of them should be primarily borne by the public, who wants those services.

That's where we're bumping heads. Libraries are not free. They are paid for. Every year. By the public.

The access may feel free because you don't have to pay a fee at the door. But it's not free. It's paid for.

So what I feel you are saying is that the fees we pay for libraries should be higher because corporate greed has gotten bigger. Cause libraries are not free. It's paid for.

The books in the library are not free. They are paid for. Every year.

So what I feel you are saying is that the fees we (you know, the paying public) should pay should be higher because corporate greed has gotten bigger. Gotta have those million dollar bonuses. Screw the public. Cause library books are not free. They are paid for.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

How about because their usage is different than a book sold to an individual consumer would be?

Says who? I may lend a paper book to hundreds of friends. That same book might otherwise languish unread on a library shelf.

When I purchase a paper book, I receive the right to lend it to someone else. I can, for that matter, give it to a library. Shocking, I know, but I have in fact done this very thing.

eBooks should not be different, in my humble opinion.

ETA: And no, I do not accept the "eBooks are forever!" explanation. I have books that are several decades old and still in mint condition despite being moved dozens of times and read more times than I can count.

[Kali Yuga]

*sigh*

Sil_liS, my point is that the government should not step in to regulate prices -- especially since the government winds up being the recipient of its own largesse.

The idea behind copyright is that the copyright holder is granted full control over how their works are distributed. It is conditional upon paying taxes, not on being forced to turn over one's books to libraries. The fact that a library wants a book in its collection does not give it the right to demand it and to force the vendor to provide it at a specific price-point.

It is, in fact, perfectly legal and ethical for a manufacturer or publisher to charge different groups different amounts; it happens all the time. Penguin runs its own bookstore which sells directly to the public ( http://us.penguingroup.com/static/pages/shop/index.html ). They are perfectly capable, legally and morally, of charging the cover price for any book on that site, while selling to distributors and large retailers at 50% less than the cover price. They are not required, legally or morally, to cut the prices at their own bookstore when Amazon offers the book at 50% off the cover price.

The existing restrictions on pricing do not apply to this situation. Random House is not discriminating based on race, gender or religion. They are not raising prices for all libraries in order to damage the competition. They are not charging extra for an essential good during a state of emergency.

And, of course, many non-legislative approaches are available, and can be pursued. Libraries can cut back on buying RH's books; the ALA can work on public awareness; your local library can encourage patrons to express their displeasure to RH.

Thus, it is not an appropriate response to this situation to demand the government to "fix the bad publisher."

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Says who? I may lend a paper book to hundreds of friends. That same book might otherwise languish unread on a library shelf.

True, but you don't run a public library.

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I do not accept the "eBooks are forever!" explanation. I have books that are several decades old and still in mint condition despite being moved dozens of times and read more times than I can count.

True, but again, you don't run a public library.

Library books are frequently lost, stolen, spilled upon, torn up, written in and the like. Children's books take a lot of wear and tear, so libraries often purchase a more rugged binding for them.

There is little basis for comparing the lifespan of a book in your private collection, and one in a public library.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

There is little basis for comparing the lifespan of a book in your private collection, and one in a public library.

My public library lends MMPBs...and I've managed to check out the same copy multiple times...

Occasionally, when the book starts to wear, they put some heavy clear tape on the spine. Sometimes they do it prior to the wear starting, too.

Other than that...it's a MMPB.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

The idea behind copyright is that the copyright holder is granted full control over how their works are distributed. It is conditional upon paying taxes, not on being forced to turn over one's books to libraries. The fact that a library wants a book in its collection does not give it the right to demand it and to force the vendor to provide it at a specific price-point.

Everybody pays income taxes. Authors get tax deductions. This is just another reason why they should give something back.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

It is, in fact, perfectly legal and ethical for a manufacturer or publisher to charge different groups different amounts; it happens all the time. Penguin runs its own bookstore which sells directly to the public ( http://us.penguingroup.com/static/pages/shop/index.html ). They are perfectly capable, legally and morally, of charging the cover price for any book on that site, while selling to distributors and large retailers at 50% less than the cover price. They are not required, legally or morally, to cut the prices at their own bookstore when Amazon offers the book at 50% off the cover price.

You are talking about outsourcing distribution.

[howyoudoin]

*sorry, ignore this*

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Everybody pays income taxes.

Not even close.

Originally Posted by www.npr.org

It turns out that nearly half of all Americans don't have to pay any federal income tax. In 2009, 47 percent of all filers paid nothing. It's a number that's gone up significantly in just a couple of years.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=125997180

[Barty]

There are pbooks in my library that look at least 80 years old.

Somehow I just doubt that a book in mobi or ePub will be practically accessible to the average user using whatever holographic reader we will have in 80 years. Heck, I have stuff I wrote in college with WordPerfect or whatever and I have trouble reading it now. And my stuff isn't even DRMed and there are no copyright or licensing issues.

Chances are libraries will be forced to update and repurchase these supposedly perpetual ebooks well before then.