Publishers vs. Libraries: An E-Book Tug of War

[Blue Tyson]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Did you guys read the article all the way to the end? I know that you guys all want to hammer on the publishers and all, but if you read the entire arctic,le, it made clear that:
1. Two major publishers were holding back from library lending.
2. Those publishers are holding back because they want to wok out an industry wide agreement.
3. The other majors participate in library lending, with one imposing restrictions on the number of times a copy could be lent.
4. Most smaller publishers are completely on board with library lending.

Put like that, you can see that this isn't a big deal. This is link bait more than anything else.

No, no big deal.

Take a major publisher. Let's say they often make a billion in a year. Due to this dumbarsery they are 5% worse off.

So, 50 million dollars.

No big deal at all. Especially over, say 4 years they have been doing it for. That's only 200 million bucks. Chicken feed, really.

Two of them in similar circumstances, 400 million.

If it is 10% worse off it is only getting closer to a billion...

[ATDrake]

Originally Posted by JeremyR

One e-book sold to a library can last forever ...

"Can", but won't. My local library lost the entirety of its "Oxford Dictionary of [fill-in-the-blank-for-specialty-field] Terms" purchases because they were only available in the Mobipocket format and not replaceable by an equivalent ePub/PDF which did not exist when Amazon completely shut down Mobipocket loans (and Kindle loans are not yet in place in Canada, with no ETA that I've heard of).

File formats change, files become corrupt or lost due to hardware failures (or eaten by clueless/malicious software), old data becomes unreadable on new devices (cf. NASA trying to find old hardware so they can preserve their space mission findings; or that poster in the Amazon forum trying to put their old iSilo books on their new Kindle).

Originally Posted by JeremyR

Why should they be doing all this work with no benefit? Providing you with entertainment with no compensation in return?

The benefit from the library would be public exposure and potential expanded audience gained, as well as a certain guaranteed number of sales, which provide both immediate direct compensation* upon purchase** of the initial loan item and potential indirect compensation by attracting new readers who'd perhaps never heard of the author then going on to buy their own copies.

80%+ of my books are on my shelf as a result of my having seen and tried the authors on the library's bookshelf and enjoyed them enough to buy my own copies.

Probably a good 10-15% are additionally from word-of-mouth recommendations, which I quite cheerfully make for library-encountered authors whom I've mildly but not enough to buy myself, but think would be a good fit for someone else's reading tastes.

And lest anyone opine I'm some sort of horrible skinflint cheapskate who only wants to read stuff for free and thus unwilling to properly compensate the authors because I prefer to use the library as my go-to source at which I first check out a book, this is how much I've spent on e-books alone in a single year as of the beginning of December and I've bought a few dozen more since. And I'm one of those stubborn holdouts who still buys paper books as well. With a higher budget for them.

And most of them are republished backlist books which the authors themselves took to a digital house or went and put up directly, rather than Big 6 price-set "bestsellers".

So, long story short (too late!): stuff bemoaning what I can only describe as the projected apocalyptic "Tragedy of the Creative Commons" does tend to strike me as short-sighted concern-trolling, in a way.

If any publishers genuinely don't want readers to read their particular books without each interested individual paying for each and every single copy out of their own pockets at the full retail price before trying, rather than making them available to a common pool to share upon the principle of maximizing the available pool of matched-up readers+books via bulk purchasing and economy of scale, that's fine by me.

I'll just find some other books to read which are offered under less restrictive terms, and that means both a potential reader and a potential sale lost because had I read said book and enjoyed it, I'd likely have ended up checking out the other available enjoyable-looking books and perhaps even bought another one to read if the terms were decent.

* To support the arts, Canada additionally compensates Canadian authors who have their works on the public library bookshelf by paying them a set amount for each copy of said book which is on said public library bookshelf, up to a maximum dollar amount.

** And the library often has multiple copies of any given author's single title spread out across its various branches, which means extra royalties from extra sales they might not have had otherwise, if they'd needed to rely purely on royalties from individual bookshop end-customer purchases.

[spindlegirl]

I agree with ATDrake above. My primary exposure to many books which today I love and purchase, has been with the library. My children become aware of many authors (and even introduce me to ones they think I may like) via the library.

It is a long established institution and I don't think wanting library loaning to continue, only now under the format of e-books, is any sense of entitlement that we should all just "get free stuff", any more than my reading of a dtb for a few weeks (then returning it) is.

My love of books was born and nurtured at the library, and my knowledge of what I love and choose to buy and own permanently is because of the library. Eventually owning a book becomes more desirable and convenient than repeated borrowing and I make room to buy things I like when the funds come up.

And I most certainly don't take for granted the availablity of public domain literature and long favored literature for free. Especially given that mere months before I discovered PG and MR I actually bought Jane Eyre and a few other public domain books with my birthday money, because I loved them and wanted to own them.

[Dimwit]

I had brought up the Flint essay on Baen for a very good reason... Baen had found, to the industry's chagrin, that giving away previous editions, particularily from series, grew sales. Not of the new release which you would expect, but the very releases that were free.
It seems free is a valid marketing ploy. None of the other publishers seem to heed this datum, going so far as to drm and restrict their offerings. Which do you think is going to increase sales? I really wish Baen hadn't died. We need his leadership now more than ever.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by ATDrake

I'll just find some other books to read which are offered under less restrictive terms, and that means both a potential reader and a potential sale lost because had I read said book and enjoyed it, I'd likely have ended up checking out the other available enjoyable-looking books and perhaps even bought another one to read if the terms were decent.

Just to let you know Smashwords and Fictionwise have very restrictive terms in their T&Cs.

[ATDrake]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Just to let you know Smashwords and Fictionwise have very restrictive terms in their T&Cs.

I said "less restrictive", not "with no restrictions", and speaking from a publisher-affecting-reader point of view by disallowing and/or trying to block public library usage, which doesn't apply to stuff I actually buy for myself, some of which I've chosen based on having tried an author's e-book in said public library (which, incidentally, has a fair amount of selections from smaller independent e-book houses like RosettaBooks and e-Reads) and deciding to pick up their other works when they were on sale.

But as for SW and FW (and Baen, for that matter), while I can't "lend" my purchases to an interested friend as with a paper book*, either via official or unofficial mechanism, that's more than compensated by the fact that I can buy my books at a low cost without DRM and re-downloadable in whatever available format which I need should I switch devices, and sometimes there are discount coupons upon which I can pick which book to apply them to.

And that also works out to be less restrictive than the major publishers' general stances, which are also "no lending" (the B&N listings have even removed the "Lend Me" eligibility info from their product info), plus generally much higher non-discountable prices (except on selected promo books which the marketing department wants to push), as well as DRM & by extension of said DRM, format lock in.

Thus, better terms either way.

* I never lend my paper books anyway, because people tend to be really careless with stuff that's not theirs, and just direct them to the library for a reading copy to try.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by ATDrake

But as for SW and FW (and Baen, for that matter), while I can't "lend" my purchases to an interested friend as with a paper book*, either via official or unofficial mechanism, that's more than compensated by the fact that I can buy my books at a low cost without DRM and re-downloadable in whatever available format which I need should I switch devices, and sometimes there are discount coupons upon which I can pick which book to apply them to.

Amazon, B&N, Kobo, etc allow you to share your ebooks for others to read. Limit of 6 except for B&N which has no stated limit. If you and your spouse/parent/child/friend wish to read one of your ebooks, no real problem. But SW tells you to buy a copy for each person that makes it more expensive than Amazon (unless you give them your ereader and delete any copies from your computer).

If both Amazon and SW have the same book at $2.99, some may select the DRM'd one at Amazon and let it sync and share with family members. Yes, you have some format flexibility at SW and DRM-free but you may pay a premium for it $2.99 vs $5.98.

[bevdeforges]

I used to buy books for a large, university library back in the 1970's and even back then the publishers were grumbling (though not very loudly) about libraries lending their titles for free and thereby costing them sales.

The problem seems to be that publishers are trying to apply their old p-book business model to e-books, which are admittedly, far easier to copy, to lend without giving up the "original" and other things which appear to the publishers and the authros to be risks to their rights and ability to sell additional copies.

What's needed is a completely new business model for e-books - how they are sold, what rights transfer with a sale, and how to limit (reasonably) the rights transferred when someone lends or re-sells an e-book they have bought and paid for. As an e-book purchaser, I'd like to see pricing that reflects the bundle of rights I'm actually getting, plus the ability to make some "fair use" copies of a page or two, or even a paragraph or two, as I can with a p-book, plus the right to loan or re-sell my purchased books (perhaps in a somewhat "limited" form to reflect the second-hand nature of the transaction).

Seems to me that this would make an interesting "case study" for the folks at Harvard B-School (or any other B-School that uses cases). Whoever comes up with a decent business model for e-books is going to be a very successful business person, but at present no one seems to be working on it. Any ideas?

[FizzyWater]

I'm going to be upfront here and admit that the increase of ebook availability in libraries has made it easier for me to stick with my decision to buy as few books that are "agency priced" at the cover price as possible.

And it IS easier to borrow ebooks. I regularly do it at midnight. I seldom leave work before the library closes (and if I could get up earlier, I'd be going into work earlier and leaving at a "reasonable" time!) So if I could only borrow print books again, I'd definitely borrow fewer books.

Before B&N's purchase of Fictionwise and the imposition of agency pricing (and I am specifically referring to disallowing discounts on books), I spent an embarrassing amount a year on books. I'm 51 years old and I'll probably NEVER read all the books I own today...but I can honestly say, if Fictionwise existed as it did 3 years ago, I'd still be buying more books than I can possibly ever read!

So if the publishers do make it harder to get ebooks at the library, I'll likely buy more books next year than last. But it would be that 1-2 books a month that I just HAVE to have (and I'll go back to waiting for the paperbacks to come out). Unless ebook discounting is allowed again for those books, I'll never go back to the buying frenzy I used to do. (And the longer it takes to maybe, possibly switch back, the less likely it is that I would anyway...I stopped going to the salon to color my hair 18 months ago, and I really don't miss it any more. I wouldn't go back to paying those prices again now that I'm used to paying so much less).

Edited to add: Ooops, meant to add that I, like many of the other posters, first read almost all of my favorite authors as one I first borrowed from either a library or a friend who was raving about it. And after, I bought many many books.

[ATDrake]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Amazon, B&N, Kobo, etc allow you to share your ebooks for others to read. Limit of 6 except for B&N which has no stated limit. If you and your spouse/parent/child/friend wish to read one of your ebooks, no real problem.

Except that those aren't officially acknowledged methods that you'll find in any FAQ or support document as a desirable feature of the device/store. "Let your friends and family access your personal library at no extra cost and vice versa! Save $$$ by sharing with these guaranteed no-fail techniques!"

Sure, people tell each other about this and provide handy instructions for it all the time, and sometimes one of the Customer Service people may say you can do it when directly messaged.

But it's essentially a grey-area method that loopholes around attempted publisher-set restrictions (and they can set the Simultaneous Device Usage to less than the standard 6 at Amazon) by taking advantage of a feature built in to allow an individual to not be overly constricted in where and when they can access their purchased products, on the assumption that they won't be adding extra people-not-just-devices to their accounts with implied-purchasing-from-device-access or passing around the name/CC unlock info.

I myself quite approve of using it because it's ridiculous to expect people living in the same household and otherwise pooling the resources not to have a commonly accessible library, but likely if this way of sharing stuff ever touted openly as a value-added selling point with a handy how-to guide, there would be some sort of crackdown under publisher protests.

Originally Posted by Fbone

But SW tells you to buy a copy for each person that makes it more expensive than Amazon (unless you give them your ereader and delete any copies from your computer).

So where does your reasoning put Smashwords-to-Amazon published works, which will have the standard SW "buy one copy for each end-reader" boilerplate included right in the text of the works while the "Simultaneous Device Usage" ends up "Unlimited" at Amazon? Or works from other publishing outlets who see fit to do the same thing?

Originally Posted by Fbone

If both Amazon and SW have the same book at $2.99, some may select the DRM'd one at Amazon and let it sync and share with family members. Yes, you have some format flexibility at SW and DRM-free but you may pay a premium for it $2.99 vs $5.98.

That's a decision for them to make, based on whatever form of flexibility seems more important to their needs (although personally I think that many would just plain share their single copy, regardless of what the boilerplate says).

And that really depends on the assumption that whoever puts up the book in question will automatically sanction you to have the allowed 6 devices include other peoples' devices.

Here's an author who's just gone exclusive with Amazon and yanked the books in this particular series from all the other stores. They're sold with the standard 6-simultaneous devices DRM. Open up the Look Inside sample of one of her books and scroll down, and you'll see:

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person you share it with. If you're reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to your online retailer and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the author's work.

This is only a minor change from the standard Smashwords boilerplate, substituting "online retailer" for "smashwords.com".

Perhaps one might argue that the author was just copy-pasting from her tweaked Meatgrinder-output file into the DTP thingy and is a perfectly reasonable person who'd understand a little harmless simultaneous device usage bookswapping between up to 6 close friends and family members which increases her potential readership and didn't mean it that way.

But then again, she did take the time to change "Smashwords.com" to "online retailer" (assuming that wasn't already done as a byproduct of the original Smashwords-to-Amazon automated process, but I think that if you want to DRM your book, you have to separately prep and upload it yourself?).

If one really respected that boilerplated request as much as one would the SW/FW T&C, then one would then pay for extra copies on Amazon as well, to comply with that.

At least if you bought the old Smashwords edition of her book, you got all your copies DRM-free.

[stonetools]

So if the publishers do make it harder to get ebooks at the library, I'll likely buy more books next year than last. But it would be that 1-2 books a month that I just HAVE to have (and I'll go back to waiting for the paperbacks to come out). Unless ebook discounting is allowed again for those books, I'll never go back to the buying frenzy I used to do. (And the longer it takes to maybe, possibly switch back, the less likely it is that I would anyway...I stopped going to the salon to color my hair 18 months ago, and I really don't miss it any more. I wouldn't go back to paying those prices again now that I'm used to paying so much less).

But the publishers aren't making it harder. As i said above, if you read the article all the way through , most publishers are on board with ebook library loans and the two major publishers that aren't, are waiting to negotiate an industry wide standard for library lending. Its likely that there will be MORE, not Less, ebooks available for libraries in a year or two.
This is just another " let's bash the publishers for being greedy dinosaurs, whether its warranted or not" thread.

[Blue Tyson]

Yeah, because taking several years to get something done is what you want to pay senior management the big bucks for.

Hopeless.

[stonetools]

That's a decision for them to make, based on whatever form of flexibility seems more important to their needs (although personally I think that many would just plain share their single copy, regardless of what the boilerplate says).

And that really depends on the assumption that whoever puts up the book in question will automatically sanction you to have the allowed 6 devices include other peoples' devices.

THe point of course, is that if your word meant anything, you would comply with the Smashwords T& C and not send copies of what you bought to others in violation of the author's license terms. ( Of course, you can't "share" a single copy of any digital book, you can only make additional copies while keeping your own).
FBone is completely right, the amazon T&C as written is more liberal than SW's- if you actually stand by your word
But hey, SW is DRM free and that trumps everything.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Blue Tyson

Yeah, because taking several years to get something done is what you want to pay senior management the big bucks for.

Hopeless.

Well, in the real world. it takes time to negotiate industry wide agreements. Only in some fantasy geek world does everyone get on board with multi million dollar agreements overnight.

In any case, there is no evidence that publishers are moving to RESTRICT library lending.

[carld]

Originally Posted by stonetools

In any case, there is no evidence that publishers are moving to RESTRICT library lending.

Except for checkout limits (26 checkouts then you have to buy it again), and geographic limits (you can't loan books to people who would normally be outside your service area).