Online petition over library ebook embargo

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Would you care to elaborate as to why on either of these?

Publishers tried complete ebook embargo before, and they changed their minds after a while. The library cannot financially lose, as it is operating as non-profit. They can still buy paper at a much cheaper price per borrow for the publisher and without limits.

Why do think it is a bad decision for the library?

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Publishers tried complete ebook embargo before, and they changed their minds after a while. The library cannot financially lose, as it is operating as non-profit. They can still buy paper at a much cheaper price per borrow for the publisher and without limits.

Why do think it is a bad decision for the library?

Can you provide a source on that embargo? All I've been able to find, removing Macmillan from the search to get rid of as many articles about this specific incident, are either for Academic publishers which isn't the concern here since Macmillan may have academic imprints, but are much more vast. A mention of eAudiobooks from Blackstone which was further limited to a selection of popular authors not their entire frontlist. And Tor (who are an imprint of Macmillan for those unaware) setting a 4 month embargo a little over a year ago. Tor officials citing that they were looking in to library loans affecting sales.

Source for Tor embargo: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...t-of-test.html

Though in my searching I also found a blog of a librarian who stated bluntly that libraries frequently break release dates for physical books. Yes anecdotal evidence, however there's plenty of cases where store break release dates it stands to reason libraries would as well. So perhaps some turn about is fair play with publishers now restricting formats they can assert more control over. If you've ever worked in a bookstore, a store which happens to sell books, or a library you're very aware books come in ahead of release dates, especially popular books, because of the logistics of shipping.

Circling back to Tors embargo, as an imprint of Macmillan I'm sure they shared any information from that experiment (they call it such themselves) with their larger company. It follows that Macmillan is using the information from that to set this policy.

Now to get to your question of why I think this is a bad move for the library. Fiscally it's not, as you mentioned they are a non-profit. Not buying something is certainly a good way to save money for other things.

However a library exists to serve the public, removing access to an affordable means to read news books runs counter to one of their chief purposes. Right now it's Macmillan, but what if other publishers want to follow Macmillan, will the library then cease buying ebooks from those publishers? And if so, how is that not damaging for the public good, since the library is now removing a form of affordable reading from the public?

While it's not apples to apples, Amazon caught flack from the public over their decision to not sell books from Hachette not too long ago, over of all things pricing. As I said it's not apples to apples, Amazon is a for profit mega corp, the libraries aren't. But I doubt we'll get an apples to apples situation that doesn't concern the same two parties (publishers and libraries). The point of this is public perception, and I'll grant libraries are otherwise doing a good job of getting good press on the Macmillan issue for their view. But when you start essentially banning books when the other side is not banning them the view starts to shift. Maybe not for everyone, and apparently not for everyone on MR, though given the general atmosphere of 'publishers are evil money grubbers' that seems to invade this forum I probably shouldn't be surprised.

Libraries are already a quarrelsome part of taxes, many people not understanding the full scope of the good they do. A fight libraries should be very much aware of. So when you go around and tell patrons "well we could have given this to you, but they wanted to limit for a time the number of copies we could lend so we decided zero was better' it's not going to sit well. One is still greater than 0, and if the members posting here about being willing to wait are indeed willing then 1 copy to go around 20 people is a night and day difference to zero copies.

All this leads to the public being less loving of libraries, they don't even need to shift into being openly hostile. They just need to go from viewing them as a cause to fight over to being ambivalent. Politicians see this shift and start cutting taxes for libraries. Now those libraries have less coming in than before, maybe not as much less as they're saving not buying ebook licenses, but still less. Which generally leads to stresses within the staff and the services offered.

Now, how is a library removing access to books a good thing?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

...
Now, how is a library removing access to books a good thing?

Hey, any stick to beat the publishers with makes it a good thing, right?

Some publishers and some authors tried an ebook embargo with Amazon a while back. Hold back ebooks for several months. While I don't have any data, the fact that they stopped doing it implies that the results were not what they wanted. But, of course, libraries are a very different situation. Libraries have lost a lot of leverage with publishers as their share of the business has gone down over the years. For the most part, they are reduced to the library patrons as major influencers argument, an argument of which I'm rather skeptical.

I think that around here, libraries have been losing the funding fight for a while. You are probably right that any fight where they expend public influence to not carry books isn't a good look for them.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Hey, any stick to beat the publishers with makes it a good thing, right?

Some publishers and some authors tried an ebook embargo with Amazon a while back. Hold back ebooks for several months. While I don't have any data, the fact that they stopped doing it implies that the results were not what they wanted. But, of course, libraries are a very different situation. Libraries have lost a lot of leverage with publishers as their share of the business has gone down over the years. For the most part, they are reduced to the library patrons as major influencers argument, an argument of which I'm rather skeptical.

I think that around here, libraries have been losing the funding fight for a while. You are probably right that any fight where they expend public influence to not carry books isn't a good look for them.

Unless of course the Amazon embargo was part of the pressure to get them to go with agency pricing on those new books rather than 9.99 in which case it’s mission accomplished.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Now, how is a library removing access to books a good thing?

I limit myself to this, as it very nicely sums up your whole wall of text.

They are not removing access to Macmillan books as you want to color this into practically censorship. They are removing the purchasing of new ebooks only, not books in general.

And nice to bring Hachette back into this. Amazon did no such thing as to remove their ebooks from the store. Once they were published, you could buy them. What you couldn't do was preorder them.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

I limit myself to this, as it very nicely sums up your whole wall of text.

They are not removing access to Macmillan books as you want to color this into practically censorship. They are removing the purchasing of new ebooks only, not books in general.

And nice to bring Hachette back into this. Amazon did no such thing as to remove their ebooks from the store. Once they were published, you could buy them. What you couldn't do was preorder them.

Actually they are removing access to Macmillan books it’s just any future Macmillan book and likely any licenses that expire. Even if it’s just future books it’s still censorship. The quote again is

My library has a banner on their website announcing that starting November 1st they will no longer purchase ebooks published by Macmillan.

Which would indicate a total cease of anything. So as those licenses run out, they wouldn't be purchased again.

And literally nothing you’ve said addresses how this is good for them.

And the point of the Amazon example was how public opinion can weigh in. The public was on the side of hachette despite Amazon wanting to charge less.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Actually they are removing access to Macmillan books it’s just any future Macmillan book and likely any licenses that expire. Even if it’s just future books it’s still censorship. The quote again is

Read again, it is not censorship on all books. Only on ebooks. Paper books are not effected. They might even choose to purchase more paper books, maybe even Macmillan paper books.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Read again, it is not censorship on all books. Only on ebooks. Paper books are not effected. They might even choose to purchase more paper books, maybe even Macmillan paper books.

It’s still censorship. They are removing a source of books and no where did I claim it was a total censorship, the use of the term ’book’ in my above post is fairly obviously referring to ebooks as that was the medium being discussed.

As you’ve yet again provided no answer as to why this move is a good one I can only conclude you’re unable to.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

As you’ve yet again provided no answer as to why this move is a good one I can only conclude you’re unable to.

You are jumping to conclusions. If the library still buys ebooks, then they are only allowed to buy ONE copy for a time. In a sufficiently large library, or even in a very small library that depends on a consortium, limiting to one copy is doing nothing to make their patrons happy. It is more like a tease. If the library decides to buy one copy, they are sending their patrons the message that this book is a good one to read, and please go buy the book instead. The exact opposite of the library spirit to make availlable books equally to everybody regardless of their income or ability to purchase.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Unless of course the Amazon embargo was part of the pressure to get them to go with agency pricing on those new books rather than 9.99 in which case it’s mission accomplished.

I don't think it had anything to do with the desire for agency pricing. If I recall correctly, the embargo for the Wheel of Time books was driven by the author's widow's desire that all the books make the NY Time's best seller list.

Back in the early days of the Kindle store, not every book was available as an ebook. Many authors were worried about piracy. There was quite a bit of experimentation during those first few years. Sony's ebook device and store predated the Amazon kindle by a year and there were other ebook stores as well that started well before the Kindle store. Fictionwise and Peanut Press had been around since 2000 or so if I remember correctly. It was a long time before books were released as ebooks as a matter of course.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

It’s still censorship.

Oh please, not again. By whose definition?

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I don't think it had anything to do with the desire for agency pricing. If I recall correctly, the embargo for the Wheel of Time books was driven by the author's widow's desire that all the books make the NY Time's best seller list.

Back in the early days of the Kindle store, not every book was available as an ebook. Many authors were worried about piracy. There was quite a bit of experimentation during those first few years. Sony's ebook device and store predated the Amazon kindle by a year and there were other ebook stores as well that started well before the Kindle store. Fictionwise and Peanut Press had been around since 2000 or so if I remember correctly. It was a long time before books were released as ebooks as a matter of course.

Yes the wheel of time finale being delayed was Harriets decision. I’m not sure if the publisher could have done anything else. However it was a universal embargo on the release until some time had passed. And you’re right about the reasoning from her, at least the publicly stated one, that she felt it being available as an ebook would restrict it from being the number one NYT best seller. As to if this argument held any water at that time or now is of course a different discussion.

Yes the early days of ebooks were weird and slow. Though I’d argue as technology made them more approach by the masses opinions of the authors changed. To the point that WoTs delay in ebook was remarked upon as an odd move.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Oh please, not again. By whose definition?

The dictionaries.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring

censor verb
censored; censoring\ ˈsen(t)-​sə-​riŋ
, ˈsen(t)s-​riŋ \

Definition of censor (Entry 2 of 2)

transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable censor the news also : to suppress or delete as objectionable

The library has removed (deleted if you will) all future ebooks from their shelves.

"Ah but the physical book is still available" I hear you cry. Which is immaterial. A TV network for example can censor words from movies, the word remains uncensored in the original source but is still censored in the version aired on the TV station.

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

You are jumping to conclusions. If the library still buys ebooks, then they are only allowed to buy ONE copy for a time. In a sufficiently large library, or even in a very small library that depends on a consortium, limiting to one copy is doing nothing to make their patrons happy. It is more like a tease. If the library decides to buy one copy, they are sending their patrons the message that this book is a good one to read, and please go buy the book instead. The exact opposite of the library spirit to make availlable books equally to everybody regardless of their income or ability to purchase.

Or they're sending the message it's not popular enough to warrant them getting additional copies which is more likely given that's how every other sales industry works, demand determines stock considerations. And yes I'm purposfully not using your term of "good" since popularity does not necessarily equate to good.

It's also laughable that you want to argue that not providing a format which is far and away more accessible than the physical edition for a storied list of reasons, is somehow in that spirit of providing books to the public regardless of income or ability to purchase.

Again I will use this very thread, full of people saying they will wait and wait and wait for a book as evidence that having a single copy is still better than zero copies. It may be a tease, but at least with the single copy you will eventually get it, for free, and without having to take a trip and hope the physical edition is currently available.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Can you provide a source on that embargo? All I've been able to find, removing Macmillan from the search to get rid of as many articles about this specific incident, are either for Academic publishers which isn't the concern here since Macmillan may have academic imprints, but are much more vast. A mention of eAudiobooks from Blackstone which was further limited to a selection of popular authors not their entire frontlist. And Tor (who are an imprint of Macmillan for those unaware) setting a 4 month embargo a little over a year ago. Tor officials citing that they were looking in to library loans affecting sales.

Penguin in the USA, I think for around two years, but sources are scarce. 2011:

http://www.thedigitalshift.com/2011/...-ebook-titles/

And Penguin Australia completely pulled out of library lending for around two years in the early to mid tweenties. I remember it, but can't pinpoint the dates. Hachette did the same mid-decade - I still can't see any Hachette Australia ebooks available in my Overdrive catalogue, only audiobooks.

This book seems to corroborate.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

It's also laughable that you want to argue that not providing a format which is far and away more accessible than the physical edition for a storied list of reasons, is somehow in that spirit of providing books to the public regardless of income or ability to purchase.

What is laughable that you use the same argument against the library when you fully support it when it comes to the embargo imposed by Macmillan. You cannot have it both ways. Macmillan should jump up and down with joy, if their argument about cannibalized sales due to frictionless library ebook lending is true.