Publishers STILL doing their best to screw the libraries?

[QuantumIguana]

No one is talking about publishers subsidizing anyone. The question is what terms are reasonable. If I check out a paper book, but don't get around to reading it before I return it, I haven't increased the wear and tear on the book. However, if I check out an e-book, but don't get around to reading it, that reduces the number of times the library can check it out.

[colinsky]

Originally Posted by dkperez

Well, it's been ANOTHER six months. Has there been any SIGNIFICANT movement from the publishers to get current, best-selling books that people actually want to read into the hands of libraries?

Penguin is trying something...
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...ity-libraries/

[dkperez]

This discussion caused me to go out and rummage the 3M cloud... They've got some ebooks, although many I looked at were pretty old. The interface is somewhat difficult to use since the search is rather odd, and it hung the computer periodically for extended periods - I started monitoring things and when it hung one CPU would peg at 100%... But, at least it's another source.

As far as Penguin and New York... When their books get to the library here, we'll see. Until then, anything I look at the says Penguin is the publisher, DOESN'T get bought.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I haven't seen anybody suggest that libraries should be able to buy one copy of an eBook and then loan it out to an infinite number of simultaneous users. What libraries actually want to do is buy X copies of an eBook and then lend out "X" copies at the same time (via DRM).

Previously, they could do that with any pBook that they wanted due to the first sale doctrine. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do the same thing with eBooks?

I haven't seen anyone in this thead say that libraries should be able to buy one copy of an eBook and then loan it out to an infinite number of simultaneous users. But the OP saying

At reasonable rates and WITHOUT ridiculous usage limitations?

without defining ridiculous implied this to me.

I thought that libraries are able to buy X copies of an eBook and then lend out "X" copies at the same time already. Is this not the case? How else do they manage to have several copies available on many ebooks?

Helen

[Anabana]

From the article, I'm presuming that Penguin is referring to its entire family - some 30+ imprints (Ace, NAL, Berkley, Jove, et al). If you plan to 'not buy', you might want a list to carry along.
http://us.penguingroup.com/static/pa...ers/index.html

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

speakingtohe:

None of those points are valid, not even the seemingly legitimate "wear out" argument. As for the other points, they are just plain misleading.

Libraries are only authorized to lend out one copy of each purchase. They must then wait until the book is returned or the book expires. In that sense, it is no different from lending print books.

Even though the bits are being duplicated, an individual's right to access those bits is being restricted. So those bits are effectively useless. Now I supposed that you could argue that it is possible to crack DRM, but photocopiers can duplicate print books anyway. Again, it is no different from lending books.

So let's get back to that wear out bit. Strictly speaking, ebooks don't wear out. Yet the popularity of books does wear out. So if a library buys 20 copies of an ebook to satisfy demand, they will have 20 copies of that book sitting on their virtual bookshelf in 20 years. If the same library bought 20 copies of a print book to satisfy demand, they may have 10 copies sitting on the shelf in 20 years. But both the ebook and the print book may only have 1 copy out at any given time 20 years down the road. There is no difference in the publisher's or author's revenues. Even authors who would only sell 1 copy to a library are unlikely to see a difference, since books that aren't in demand aren't going to be replaced.

What I see are a bunch of weak arguments that are intended to create an absolute sense of ownership that is meant to control how people use the products that the purchase. Quite frankly, I find that dangerous. When one side is given absolute property rights while the other side has no property rights, the many will become impoverished -- or worse.

Just curious which points are misleading and how?

I find the 20 year argument in your post to be somewhat irrelevant and very misleading.

The majority of sales are made within the first year or two. Especially for Bestsellers. I would go so far as to say that the majoriy of Paper books, both fiction and non-fiction are not even being printed and sold 20 years after initial publication.

Many books are reprinted and sold after 20 years and why shouldn't the author/publisher prefer and possibly be entitled to make a few dollars more if the book is that good?

Quite frankly, I find that dangerous. When one side is given absolute property rights while the other side has no property rights, the many will become impoverished -- or worse

I can agree with this part of your post, but while I would like to see a world where no one was impoverished (as in everyone had the same rights and privedges and amount of material goods) I am not sure I would be a good enough person to lower my standard of living which is not even close to affluent, so no one was impoverished and instead we would all be poor. No excuses, just don't have the jam. Perhaps you do.

I do fail to see that making ebooks moreaccessable and the fact that they can in many cases not be sold, will impoverish anyone, or limit their quality of life when paper books are still available in all the traditional ways. Eventually this might change but it hasn't happened yet, and if it does are the publishers/authors to blame?

And of course the power is still in the hands of the buyer. Just don't buy the product if you don't like the terms.

Helen

[BelleZora]

Originally Posted by dkperez

I'm generally not sure what publisher, through all their cutouts, actually publishes who... I'm generally looking by author. For example, these are some of the folks on my current list that I haven't been able to find in any library: Ace Atkins: Lullaby, Nevada Barr: The Rope, C. J. Box: Force of Nature, Stephen Cannell: Any of the Shane Scully series, Tom Clancy: Locked On, Lisa Lutz: Any of the Spellmans series... And on, and on.

The Kootenai County (Idaho) library system has Ace Atkins' Lullaby in ebook so you might might want to look again on that one.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by colinsky

Penguin is trying something...
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...ity-libraries/

What they're doing is leaving OverDrive out of the equation.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by dkperez

Likewise, if a publisher sells a hardcover book to a library for $30 (or whatever the price may be), but wants to charge the same library $90 for the same book in electronic format, I believe it's nothing more than extortion to keep the library from getting the e-book.

You are citing here a Random House practice. But if the library waits until the book has been out a year, it goes way down.

It would be nice if they didn't charge libraries way more, but I don't have too much problem with the more common practice of charging a few dollars more. It's trivial compared to the Journal of the American Medical Association changing thousands of dollars to non-profit universities, and $1,070 to public libraries, as shown here:

http://jamanetwork.com/data/pdfs/ads...ricing2012.pdf

compared to $175 for a non-member physician, as can be found by hunting through the pull-down menus on their web site.

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

What the rights holder wants is irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what?

I could say that compared to public libraries making major medical journals available, supplying fantasy literature is of trivial importance.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Irrelevant to what?

I could say that compared to public libraries making major medical journals available, supplying fantasy literature is of trivial importance.

To set the conditions for ownership. If I buy an ebook, it's mine. I should be allowed to loan it as many times as I want or to sell it.

[Steven Lake]

I find it funny how people yell and complain about the anti-library policies of the big publishers. I for one applaud them. Now, before you go and start throwing bricks, allow me to explain. First off, this opens up a HUGE chance for Indie authors to get seen. If enough of us provide the libraries with our books, and our books are out in the libraries IMMEDIATELY after release, yet the big guys aren't, who do you think the readers are more likely to gravitate towards? Yup, us.

I actually found this to be true when I was still doing print. I'd bring a book down to the local library, they'd add it to their system, and then I'd advertise in the local paper or through some other means that it was available via the library. People would go over, check it out, and then read the book. I got a reasonable portion of my sales from new readers I picked up in the local library. So I say let the big guys be spoiled, greedy, selfish brats. It's a huge potential for people like us. All we need to do is jump on the chance.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

If I buy an ebook, it's mine. I should be allowed to loan it as many times as I want or to sell it.

This doesn't apply to your apartment. And housing is, in most climates, a lot more vital than reading.

People here keep on blaming the publishers for living in the past. Well, part of the past is that books were sold and not leased.

I fail to see a moral reason why selling is better than leasing. Now, I do see a practical problem in that the commonly used DRM schemes are easily broken. Even moderators do it! Necessity is truly the mother of invention, and, one day, I predict, someone will invent the better DRM needed to perfect the model of book leasing.

Now, I know that a lot of people on this site collect books. So a leased book would be of less value to them than a bought book. If and when hard-to-hack DRM is invented, booksellers will be able to set two prices, one for purchase and one for renting, just as some apartment house builders do. There's nothing wrong with such innovation that I can see.

[dkperez]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

But the OP saying without defining ridiculous implied this to me. Helen

Sorry, I should have been more specific... In this case, "ridiculous" specifically meant the policy by at least one of the publishers that an ebook could only be loaned 26 times before having to buy it again. As I recall, this was the publisher's definition of the life of a paper book...

Thus, "ridiculous".

[dkperez]

Originally Posted by BelleZora

The Kootenai County (Idaho) library system has Ace Atkins' Lullaby in ebook so you might might want to look again on that one.

Interesting. I just checked Overdrive again, and the book is still only shown as being at "bookstore" in ebook format. It's available as mp3 or wma at libraries. Is Overdrive incorrect? is there a different source through which the library may have gotten the ebook?

[ebusinesstutor]

I read an article that some libraries are purchasing from Smashwords - getting indie books into the libraries at a much better cost and less restrictions than places like Overdrive.