Doctorow on the e-book rip-off for libraries

Originally Posted by Sregener

Okay, let's look at this from an author's perspective.

I don't know much about this author. I'll give that author the benefit of the doubt and say that they are a great author, but very much unknown by readers.

Now my question is: why would the situation be any different for the author if the virtual library didn't exist? Just because a book is lent out, doesn't mean the book was read. Maybe the reader didn't have time. Maybe the reader finished the first chapter and found that it didn't suit their tastes. Yes, that can happen with purchased books. On the other hand, I'll suggest that it is much more common with borrowed books. People are much more likely to take something that is free, even if they don't really want it. People are far less likely to pay for something that they are uncertain of.

I would suggest that the author needs to look at how they can get their book to their customers, rather than complaining about libraries. Libraries may be a useful tool here, or they may be getting in the way. Libraries may be a way to get their book in front of their readers. If they like it, they may buy it. If they like it, they may discuss it with friends who will buy it. Your foot is in the door. Of course, the library may be full of anti-social leeches who would never spend a dime on a book. But there is not much that you can do about that.

Of course the thing that the author really has to work on is getting people to buy the book from the store front. Presumably people who are at the store are interested in buying, while library patrons may or may not be interested in buying. So the store customers are the important ones. In that case, the author has to ask what does it take to get noticed? When they are noticed, they have to asked what does it take for the customer to read their advertising literature (e.g. the blurb, positive reviews, etc.)? When they are reading the advertising literature, how does the author translate the customer's interest into a transaction?

You see, those six sales tell me something: it tells me that the author doesn't have a clue on how to sell their product in a competitve marketplace. (I'm not saying that I do either, but I do something else for a living.) Even a moderately successful salesperson would be able to sell more than six copies, even if the product is truly horrible. That author, who I already assumed was a good author, should be able to do as well or better once they acquire the skills to do so (or hire someone who does).

[cortman]

Originally Posted by latepaul

There are lots of way that ebooks can be distributed that don't necessarily lead to a drastic drop in author revenues.

...and so far none of them have been satisfactory (or, for that matter, even worked- name one form of DRM that has not been cracked). If you can get it from Amazon, you can almost certainly get it from Pirate Bay. Etc.
I'm hoping that rather than us appeal to Big Brother, they (publishers) realize that the current business model isn't really working, and decide to implement something that respects book owner's freedom of possession.

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Now my question is: why would the situation be any different for the author if the virtual library didn't exist? Just because a book is lent out, doesn't mean the book was read.

...I would suggest that the author needs to look at how they can get their book to their customers, rather than complaining about libraries.

I think you have perhaps misunderstood the question I was answering. Someone proposed that people could lend their eBooks to friends just like they do printed books. I pointed out that a virtual "library" where people who have never met could become "friends" such that a single eBook could be distributed over and over again to a large number of people, with that eBook only being bought once, was trivially easy to set up. A physical book has some limitations with borrowing, in that you are restricted to a small geographical area and limited circle of people with which to share a book. As such, a physical book owned by a private party probably does not pass through hundreds of homes as an eBook could, and if it did, it would probably be rather ratty at the end, rather than pristine and new.

I have nothing against libraries. In fact, I paid for a copy for my local library and happily donated it to them. I want people to hear about my book. But I also want people to buy my book, and if it were possible for everyone to get a copy for free via a virtual "library" where "friends" share a single copy, I suspect my sales would be rather anemic.

In devising any system for exchange, the needs of both the consumers and producers have to be considered, and it simply does not make sense to permit unlimited borrowing of eBooks the way it does for physical ones.

[hwlester]

There are communities out there like that already and B&N actually has their own called Nook Friends where you can see the books that your friends have available to lend. I've never used the lending functionality, but I believe that B&N allows a book to be lent to someone one time... as in you lend the book out and it can never be loaned out again. As I said, I've never done it, so I can't swear to this.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by hwlester

I believe that B&N allows a book to be lent to someone one time... as in you lend the book out and it can never be loaned out again. As I said, I've never done it, so I can't swear to this.

That's the same as Amazon allows (in the US only).

[covingtoncat73]

Libraries generally buy hardcovers or library bindings (extra-sturdy hardcovers). Those aren't actually more expensive to libraries. An individual can buy library-bound editions of some books on Amazon.

I understand that, when you buy an eBook, you are buying a "license," not a physical thing, but it "destroy after 26 uses" thing by Harper is just library-gouging during tough economic times for the municipalities and counties who run public libraries and, yes, I think it is immoral.

For example, I bought an eBook of The Hobbit. I have a physical copy but I wanted to have the ease eReading affords. Anyway, I have already read it twice. If I live as long as my grandmother did, I might well read it more than 26 times, assuming my device didn't break and the format didn't become obsolete (all too likely).

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by hwlester

There are communities out there like that already and B&N actually has their own called Nook Friends where you can see the books that your friends have available to lend. I've never used the lending functionality, but I believe that B&N allows a book to be lent to someone one time... as in you lend the book out and it can never be loaned out again. As I said, I've never done it, so I can't swear to this.

I just loan out my spare Kindle.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by latepaul

There are lots of way that ebooks can be distributed that don't necessarily lead to a drastic drop in author revenues.

Originally Posted by cortman

...and so far none of them have been satisfactory (or, for that matter, even worked- name one form of DRM that has not been cracked). If you can get it from Amazon, you can almost certainly get it from Pirate Bay. Etc.

And yet authors and publishers still make money from Amazon. But this isn't about the technical methods used (or not) to enforce copyright, it's about the terms under which licenses are given. (OK it's partly about the DRM because the publishers need some sense that Amazon will be able to deliver)

There are current deals under which libraries can lend out ebooks and the terms of those deals are deemed unsatisfactory by many - BUT many libraries still lend, and the publishers get some recompense.

The global virtual library idea proposes a deal under which that money would be cut to almost nothing. Why would they go for it?

I'm hoping that rather than us appeal to Big Brother, they (publishers) realize that the current business model isn't really working, and decide to implement something that respects book owner's freedom of possession.

Well I think that the current business model may have its weaknesses but it's hard to see how the virtual library is a better deal from their point of view.

As for "book owner's freedom of possession" - I assume from context you're not referring to the copyright owner? This is probably a tangent to this thread but having read many and participated in a few "license v ownership" debates I'm afraid I fall down on the license side, simply because no-one can explain to me what "owning an ebook" means that doesn't amount to owning the copyright itself (or acting like it)

[faithbw]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

If I understand correctly, you want to let libraries loan popular new books without a reserve wait.

Going on the assumption I did understand: I like the collection-building mission of the library. This goes against it. If this was adopted, I think sales to individuals would plummet. While libraries have a mission to make books available to the public, they also have a mission to support creation of great books, and I think no-wait library borrowing goes against that.

Usually libraries get e-copies of popular books later than p-copies. Some publishers even have explicit policies about that. For instance, my library has paper copies of And the Mountains Echoed. They pre-ordered copies before the book was released. However, they have yet to purchase any e-copies of the same book. This book has been out for a couple of months. By the time my library purchases e-books of this novel, it probably will have been out for a few months. It isn't likely that having an open license of this e-book will cannibalize sale of the novel as it will have already been available for months for purchase to individuals.

The way that publishers currently deal with libraries in regards to e-books does little to help libraries in collection building or even authors. If libraries have to spend so much money buying multiple licenses for popular books it doesn't leave nearly as much for them to buy licenses for other e-books.

[cortman]

Originally Posted by latepaul

As for "book owner's freedom of possession" - I assume from context you're not referring to the copyright owner? This is probably a tangent to this thread but having read many and participated in a few "license v ownership" debates I'm afraid I fall down on the license side, simply because no-one can explain to me what "owning an ebook" means that doesn't amount to owning the copyright itself (or acting like it)

Correct. That's the trouble, and that's why I think all this DRM nonsense that tries to tie you to a company or prevents you from reading an ebook on anything but a specific device is missing the point- if there was some way to simply prevent copying the ebook itself, that would be sufficient.

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by latepaul

The global virtual library idea proposes a deal under which that money would be cut to almost nothing. Why would they go for it?

They wouldn't. Those who insist that the government intervene and make eBooks the same as physical books when it comes to lending/reselling are not thinking about the logical implications of such an intervention - the existence of a global virtual lending library. And as much as I hate DRM, I can understand why publishers would argue that a "used" eBook is materially identical to a "new" eBook and thus selling/lending is in effect making a whole new copy without the author's permission.

[ottdmk]

Given that Overdrive enforces loaning one e-copy to one e-lendee at a time from libraries, I fail to see why the publishers are charging such high "licensing" fees except as a price gouge.

While yes, there is some potential sales loss from replacement copies, it's most likely vanishingly small. There's a youtube video out there of some librarians shooting to pieces the twenty-six limit by showing physical books that have gone out over twice that often (published by the appropriate publisher.)

There's gotta be a balance. But while there are rules in place that disallow companies from charging different groups different prices for the same physical things, no such rules exist for digital goods. I'm not a huge fan of gov't intervention (despite being Canadian) but this is one area where it might be necessary.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by ottdmk

There's a youtube video out there of some librarians shooting to pieces the twenty-six limit by showing physical books that have gone out over twice that often (published by the appropriate publisher.)

I believe this is the one you mean.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by doctorow

How is a library any different from, let's say, a car rental company? Why should libraries pay a multiple for the same e-book compared to what normal people pay, while car rentals get premium discounts when purchasing cars for their fleet? How are the two any different from each other? Why should e-books with little resale value have an artificial expiration date attached to them? Should rental cars automatically expire once they reach 10,000 miles?

(Before anyone asks, I am not not related to Cory Doctorow.)

Cars wear out and require maintenance, plus they have to be replaced with newer models or no-one wants to rent them. Paper books require buildings to store them, staff to shelf and while some may be able to be leant more than 26 times, many aren't.

According to Henning's cost per circulation is rarely below $2.00 and in some smaller libraries much higher for paper books.

I will go out on a limb and say that the fact that many major libraries are acquiring ebooks by leaps and bounds and stocking 50 or more copies of the most popular books in ebook format, that it is in some way to their advantage to do this. In British Columbia all of the provinces libraries could link to the BC libraries ebook collection,. Now a lot seem to be acquiring a large independent collection and still linking to the BC collection as well.
Vancouver Public library started 2 or 3 years later than BC Libraries To Go and has almost double the amount of ebooks now.

And why does no one ever mention audio books in these discussions on cost. They always cost much more per circulation than paper books I believe.

Helen

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I wonder what publishers will do when ereaders drop below $50? Imagine buying a few spares for group use and loaning them out to get around the current personal ebook lending limits.

Ereaders are already below $50 in the case of the Kobo Mini. It is rarely sold at full retail.

And libraries have in some cases kindle they loan out with 50 est sellers loaded on them even in Canada where you cannot get a kindle library book by itself. I am sure this is all on the up and up with publisher approval as it is advertised on their websites.

Libraries are funded in part based on their book circulation. Would a library director submit a funding application that asked for funding for ereaders based on the idea of ripping off the publishers and actually reducing their circulation? If more people can read the same book on one loan, then library funding would be reduced. Find me a library director who wants that.

It would benefit people in smaller libraries who cannot or will not provide ebooks, but then why would they provide readers.

added

Perhaps you are referring to users buying a few spares and lending them out. They do this already as I am sure you know. And a book can often be read on more than one device. We don't have to imagine this.

Helen