Online petition over library ebook embargo

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by issybird

I think the embargo is a poor choice but it doesn't offend me. If I were a customer of a library instituting such a ban, I might or might not send them a protest, but I wouldn't feel as if my rights had been trampled. I fail to understand why so many discussions here seem to involve a forced moral component (Censorship! It isn't fair!) about what is purely business, impersonal and amoral.

Is it 8 weeks? I seem to recall others bandying 90 days, but if it's 8 weeks then that just puts me further into the camp of the publishers. Some of these authors take 8 years to put out a new book in a series, at that point 8 weeks is barely a drop in the bucket.

To be clear, I'm not ascribing a moral reasoning behind the action of either the publisher or the library. One is restricting the number of copies, the other is removing them entirely. These are, as you say, business decisions. Call it what you will, I still find it a bad move for the library.

[Tomk2]

I believe McMillan treats an entire library system with many branches as one entity for the embargo period. Thus, the entire city of New York would get only one ebook copy for the millions who live there? Not even one ebook for each branch. This is not enough product for the services and demand library clients expect. They aren't asking for a handout, they want to buy ebooks for their clients.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by Tomk2

I believe McMillan treats an entire library system with many branches as one entity for the embargo period. Thus, the entire city of New York would get only one ebook copy for the millions who live there? Not even one ebook for each branch. This is not enough product for the services and demand library clients expect. They aren't asking for a handout, they want to buy ebooks for their clients.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

There are actually three library systems within NYC. NYC Public Library, Brooklyn Public Library, and Queens Public Library. Manhattan, Bronx, and Staten Island (I think) are all part of NYPL, Brooklyn and Queens are both unique entities with their own catalogs.

There are, approximately, 8.55 million people in NYC. So assuming even distribution that's 2.85 per branch. I can't find figures for how many ebooks specifically are checked out a year, the only figure I found stated the combined libraries saw 8.8 million check outs, though it was not clear if this was physical and ebook. Either way it's barely more than one book per person per year. Which says to me that it's more likely large amounts of the population are not checking books out at all, while a smaller selection check out some, and a still smaller check out many. Then you also have to remember that not everyone is going to want the same book. Finally it's only one book for a short window, and then it's however many the library wishes to buy.

So claims of "one book can't possibly serve a population the size of NYC" are arguably true, assuming that it was really only one book and that everyone wanted it, but neither of those are the case. Reducing that argument to hyperbolic rhetoric.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

There are actually three library systems within NYC. NYC Public Library, Brooklyn Public Library, and Queens Public Library. Manhattan, Bronx, and Staten Island (I think) are all part of NYPL, Brooklyn and Queens are both unique entities with their own catalogs.

There are, approximately, 8.55 million people in NYC. So assuming even distribution that's 2.85 per branch. I can't find figures for how many ebooks specifically are checked out a year, the only figure I found stated the combined libraries saw 8.8 million check outs, though it was not clear if this was physical and ebook. Either way it's barely more than one book per person per year. Which says to me that it's more likely large amounts of the population are not checking books out at all, while a smaller selection check out some, and a still smaller check out many. Then you also have to remember that not everyone is going to want the same book. Finally it's only one book for a short window, and then it's however many the library wishes to buy.

So claims of "one book can't possibly serve a population the size of NYC" are arguably true, assuming that it was really only one book and that everyone wanted it, but neither of those are the case. Reducing that argument to hyperbolic rhetoric.

You seem to be arguing that hardly anyone is going to check it out. If so, why bother to limit the library to only one copy in that time? The publisher seems to think that the checkouts in the first few months _are_ a problem.

I get the feeling that this policy is driven by the big hits; those books that everyone is talking about and that everyone wants to read together. The embargo is probably meant to cover the period of those books' popularity, thus forcing more sales when the books are a cultural phenomenon. From the libraries viewpoint, it may not make sense to obtain one copy and then see how many people put it on hold during that period. They aren't going to get an adequate number of copies until the hype starts to cool down, so why not just wait until then before offering it up for borrowing? A lot of people who wanted it when everyone was talking about a book won't want it afterwards, because they only read the odd book when it is hot. For them, it will be a wasted loan. Put the book up for borrowing only when you can get the number you need, and decide then what number you should buy based on demand at that time. That seems like a sensible reason to not offer a book for borrowing during the embargo period.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

There are actually three library systems within NYC. NYC Public Library, Brooklyn Public Library, and Queens Public Library. Manhattan, Bronx, and Staten Island (I think) are all part of NYPL, Brooklyn and Queens are both unique entities with their own catalogs.

There are, approximately, 8.55 million people in NYC. So assuming even distribution that's 2.85 per branch. I can't find figures for how many ebooks specifically are checked out a year, the only figure I found stated the combined libraries saw 8.8 million check outs, though it was not clear if this was physical and ebook. Either way it's barely more than one book per person per year. Which says to me that it's more likely large amounts of the population are not checking books out at all, while a smaller selection check out some, and a still smaller check out many. Then you also have to remember that not everyone is going to want the same book. Finally it's only one book for a short window, and then it's however many the library wishes to buy.

https://company.overdrive.com/2019/0...out-club-2018/

New York Public Library 4+ million
Brooklyn 1+ million
Queens <1 million

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by rkomar

You seem to be arguing that hardly anyone is going to check it out. If so, why bother to limit the library to only one copy in that time? The publisher seems to think that the checkouts in the first few months _are_ a problem.

I get the feeling that this policy is driven by the big hits; those books that everyone is talking about and that everyone wants to read together. The embargo is probably meant to cover the period of those books' popularity, thus forcing more sales when the books are a cultural phenomenon. From the libraries viewpoint, it may not make sense to obtain one copy and then see how many people put it on hold during that period. They aren't going to get an adequate number of copies until the hype starts to cool down, so why not just wait until then before offering it up for borrowing? A lot of people who wanted it when everyone was talking about a book won't want it afterwards, because they only read the odd book when it is hot. For them, it will be a wasted loan. Put the book up for borrowing only when you can get the number you need, and decide then what number you should buy based on demand at that time. That seems like a sensible reason to not offer a book for borrowing during the embargo period.

I'm just saying grabbing big cities like NYC to try and prove a point works only until you start crunching the numbers. 8 million people having to share one book sounds a lot worse than say 200 people, a number I pulled using Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone which with NYPL is sitting at 34 licenses out, and 164 on hold. I think HP is still popular enough to have a comparable draw of a new book, though anyone is free to use something new if they want. So lets pretend this was a brand new book, they'd have 1 copy and 197 on hold, assuming 2 weeks per hold that's quite a wait time at 394 weeks. But once the 8 weeks pass the library is free to adjust per demand, they can see the holds on it. So they buy more licenses, how many will depend on the number of holds, and the book of course it's not like these decisions are entirely automated so there's still someone there saying "yes it makes sense to buy this many for this book that's being compared to Harry Potter and is already being optioned as a movie" or "no, it doesn't make sense to get 15 more licenses for 'Best Places to Watch the Leaves Change in 2019' right now" because it's a very short lived topic. Yes obviously there's a range between those, the point is only that high demand isn't the only factor, and that a human is there making the decisions.

The embargo the publisher is enforcing is likely driven by getting sales yes.

I'd say not buying a license within the embargo period would be better than not buying at all. But it'd be better for both the publisher and the library. The library because they can then get a better feel for how popular the book still is after the initial hype. And the publisher because this would be like a second release day, it could stir up new hype from those library patrons who will never buy a book and those willing to wait.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by issybird

...
I fail to understand why so many discussions here seem to involve a forced moral component (Censorship! It isn't fair!) about what is purely business, impersonal and amoral.

There is a book that attempts to answer that question. "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt. It sounds like a political book, but Haidt is actually a psychologist.

[Tomk2]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

There are actually three library systems within NYC. NYC Public Library, Brooklyn Public Library, and Queens Public Library. Manhattan, Bronx, and Staten Island (I think) are all part of NYPL, Brooklyn and Queens are both unique entities with their own catalogs.



There are, approximately, 8.55 million people in NYC. So assuming even distribution that's 2.85 per branch. I can't find figures for how many ebooks specifically are checked out a year, the only figure I found stated the combined libraries saw 8.8 million check outs, though it was not clear if this was physical and ebook. Either way it's barely more than one book per person per year. Which says to me that it's more likely large amounts of the population are not checking books out at all, while a smaller selection check out some, and a still smaller check out many. Then you also have to remember that not everyone is going to want the same book. Finally it's only one book for a short window, and then it's however many the library wishes to buy.



So claims of "one book can't possibly serve a population the size of NYC" are arguably true, assuming that it was really only one book and that everyone wanted it, but neither of those are the case. Reducing that argument to hyperbolic rhetoric.

I stand corrected. 3 ebooks for all of New York City. Why would they need any more.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by Tomk2

I stand corrected. 3 ebooks for all of New York City. Why would they need any more.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I'm sorry, I forgot every single NYC resident will always want to read the same book at the same time and not a single one of them will ever want to buy a copy nor will any of them want to read a physical copy, nor will they want an audiobook.

The library better buy 2 million licenses for every ebook so everyone can read the book in those 8 weeks.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

Tell you what when you bother to answer my question about why this particular tactic is a good move I’ll answer this. All you’ve done so far is say the library has a right to try and get the best deal it can.

Follow the money.

If the publisher can afford to lose the library as customer for ebooks, they will change nothing. If they find out after a while that their embargo is counterproductive, they have to please the library to get them back as customer. By limiting to one copy they are not hurting the few that use the library to save money, but regular users that cannot just simply buy. It is also a statement that you cannot simply push the library around. Ebooks are already more lucrative for the publisher than pbooks. Now the library is also responsible for "stealing customers". It doesn't appear to be a problem with paper, just ebooks. Maybe, just maybe, the problem of their inability to sell ebooks to customers has other more pressing reasons than the library.

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Follow the money.

If the publisher can afford to lose the library as customer for ebooks, they will change nothing.

Yes, and from the figures we've seen it sure seems like library sales make up fairly little. So unless these sales amount to a fairly massive word of mouth reaction for selling, which seems unlikely given that we know Tor did a full embargo last year to test this, the publisher can afford this loss.

If they find out after a while that their embargo is counterproductive, they have to please the library to get them back as customer. By limiting to one copy they are not hurting the few that use the library to save money, but regular users that cannot just simply buy.

So here's the cold hard truth, the publishers care more about the people who are able to give them money. Not in a mean way, it's just not a businesses job to put compassion before profit. The people who can't, or wont buy books are essentially the same to the publisher. Though I'm sure none of them will say this because they have PR teams, and it's not like they want those who are unable to buy to be unable to buy.

It is also a statement that you cannot simply push the library around. Ebooks are already more lucrative for the publisher than pbooks. Now the library is also responsible for "stealing customers".

This is what the action does. It is not a reason for why this particular tactic, not buying any ebooks, is a good one. Also the cost differences for ebook and pbook are not as far apart as people like to pretend. But that's another dead horse discussion so we can agree to disagree there.

It doesn't appear to be a problem with paper, just ebooks. Maybe, just maybe, the problem of their inability to sell ebooks to customers has other more pressing reasons than the library.

[/quote]

As I've mentioned, physical books impose many of the same restrictions by their very nature on libraries. There is only so much space a library has to store them. They do not automagically get returned exactly at their due time if not before, really the list goes on. So the publishers imposing a limit to ebooks is bringing them more in line with ebooks in terms of the libraries ability to distribute.


And as to your question, why should the library bow to the will of the publisher no matter what the publisher says.

They shouldn't, I never said they should. I said the tactic of not buying books is foolish for the library. I've stated several times that libraries as a whole were doing a good job with the media in terms of crafting a narrative before this single library decided to not buy ebooks from Macmillan.

[murraypaul]

One nuance I hadn't realized is that the single license available in the first 8 weeks is a perpetual one, not time or loans limited like the additional licenses will be.
That is actually a good long term benefit to the library, they can maintain a copy of less popular books for ever with no renewal cost.

Under the publisher’s new digital terms of sale for libraries, "library systems" will be now be allowed to purchase a single—that is, one—perpetual access e-book during the first eight weeks of publication for each new Macmillan release, at half price ($30). Additional copies will then be available at full price (generally $60 for new releases) after the eight-week window has passed. All other terms remain the same: e-book licenses will continue to be metered for two years or 52 lends, whichever comes first, on a one copy/one user model. A Macmillan spokesperson confirmed to PW that the single perpetual access copy will be available only for new release titles in the first eight weeks after publication—the option to buy a single perpetual access copy expires after that eight week window, and the offer is not available for backlist titles.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by MGlitch

There are actually three library systems within NYC. NYC Public Library, Brooklyn Public Library, and Queens Public Library. Manhattan, Bronx, and Staten Island (I think) are all part of NYPL, Brooklyn and Queens are both unique entities with their own catalogs.

There are, approximately, 8.55 million people in NYC. So assuming even distribution that's 2.85 per branch. I can't find figures for how many ebooks specifically are checked out a year, the only figure I found stated the combined libraries saw 8.8 million check outs, though it was not clear if this was physical and ebook. Either way it's barely more than one book per person per year. Which says to me that it's more likely large amounts of the population are not checking books out at all, while a smaller selection check out some, and a still smaller check out many. Then you also have to remember that not everyone is going to want the same book. Finally it's only one book for a short window, and then it's however many the library wishes to buy.

So claims of "one book can't possibly serve a population the size of NYC" are arguably true, assuming that it was really only one book and that everyone wanted it, but neither of those are the case. Reducing that argument to hyperbolic rhetoric.

Some libraries have a 3 week loan and most people do not return early. With a 3 week loan and no early return, it only takes 9 people borrowing to reach a 6 month wait. With 2 weeks, it's only 14 people.

So it really doesn't take all that long to get a rather long wait list. The thing I'd like to see is all libraries with a 3 week borrow dump that for a 2 week borrow as 3 weeks is too long.

[rem736]

am i alone in thinking that it's reasonable for publishers to try and make money for just the first 8 weeks? this is the same thing that happens with movies in theatres. if they release dvds/blurays for purchase right away, theatre attendance will be reduced dramatically. why do you think publishers shouldn't do this? it's just for 8 weeks. is this too much to ask?

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by rem736

am i alone in thinking that it's reasonable for publishers to try and make money for just the first 8 weeks? this is the same thing that happens with movies in theatres. if they release dvds/blurays for purchase right away, theatre attendance will be reduced dramatically. why do you think publishers shouldn't do this? it's just for 8 weeks. is this too much to ask?

You're not alone, we're just rather outnumbered by those who like beating the publishers with sticks over anything they can.