Random House's new library pricing increase revealed

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Everybody pays income taxes. Authors get tax deductions. This is just another reason why they should give something back.

Uh, tax deductions for what? Certainly not for selling copyrighted content; that's good ol' taxable income. They get the same tax deductions as are available to anyone else.

Same thing with protection of property and personal safety. I don't have to pay the police department or fire department extra if they directly intercede on my behalf.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You are talking about outsourcing distribution.

In post #69, you typed: "Coca-Cola and Pepsi can't say "you can only buy directly from us at triple the price that our distributors are offering"."

It is a fact that manufacturers and publishers can charge the general public twice or three times more or less than they charge for the wholesale price. They also can directly sell their products to the public for more or less than retailers selling the same product (though they will face the ire of their retailers if they charge less).

If you don't like it, the answer is not to threaten prosecutions for laws that don't exist, or to invent new obligations for copyright holders. The answer is to pressure the publishers via civil means, i.e. what the ALA et al are already doing.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Barty

There are pbooks in my library that look at least 80 years old.

Somehow I just doubt that a book in mobi or ePub will be practically accessible to the average user using whatever holographic reader we will have in 80 years. Heck, I have stuff I wrote in college with WordPerfect or whatever and I have trouble reading it now. And my stuff isn't even DRMed and there are no copyright or licensing issues.

Chances are libraries will be forced to update and repurchase these supposedly perpetual ebooks well before then.

^This


Anyone else have random hard disks at home that they can't access?


*raises hand*

[khalleron]

Late to the thread, sorry.

Seems the pro-inflated price arguments come down to (and I paraphrase)

Libraries should not carry things anyone would actually want to read or listen to or watch - that's ENTERTAINMENT and the taxpayers shouldn't be paying for that. If they want it, they should be happy to be price-gouged for it.

Meh.

When I was a poor kid on the farm, I used to check out records (you know, those vinyl things). I started checking out things I already liked (certain current pop singers), but the fact that my library had those things, led me to explore their collection and that's where I discovered Beethoven and other classical works. I'd never have done it if my initial explorations of their collection hadn't included anything I already knew about.

Has no one here ever read a fiction book and that led them to explore a topic further? Saw something in a movie or TV show and had their curiosity stirred?

Culture is a continuum - it's quite often exposure to the 'low' that leads to the 'high'.

As to the argument that literacy is provided by schools and not libraries - that's absurd. Only if you very narrowly define 'literacy' as being able to read but not actually doing it.

Music and film are just a much a part of our culture as books - I really don't understand the disdain for them that's been expressed here.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Seems the pro-inflated price arguments come down to (and I paraphrase): Libraries should not carry things anyone would actually want to read or listen to or watch - that's ENTERTAINMENT and the taxpayers shouldn't be paying for that....

Yeah, not so much.

It seems to me that some people are objecting to a specific subset of library collections, namely best-sellers, DVDs and CDs. But that objection doesn't really have much to do with Random House's price increase.

I for one have no problems whatsoever with libraries managing their own collections and assets. Libraries are locally-oriented institutions that are basically doing what their patrons ask, within the limits of the resources allocated to them. If the residents want 25 copies of the latest Stephen King book to loan out, and want the library to expend its limited funds to provide that service, then it's not a problem.

I.e. I see no reason to disparage the tastes of the public via library purchases, or to restrain their mission to "edifying the public."

The reason for the higher price on the ebooks for libraries is primarily because the libraries don't need to repurchase or replace an ebook after it's been checked out 25, 50 or 100 times; and the speed with which an ebook can be loaned out increases the number of times it gets checked out. The publishers also believe that on some level, loaning out popular new ebooks (their bread and butter) costs them some sales. Hence, they're asking more for ebook loans.

Originally Posted by khalleron

As to the argument that literacy is provided by schools and not libraries - that's absurd. Only if you very narrowly define 'literacy' as being able to read but not actually doing it.

The overwhelming majority of people learn to read in schools. Students spend hour after hour, day after day, year after year in schools learning to read. Libraries do not provide mandatory literacy instruction, they do not test students for literacy aptitude and improvements.

This is a good thing for libraries to do, but the fact remains that they are an adjunct to literacy training, not its primary provider.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

The overwhelming majority of people learn to read in schools. Students spend hour after hour, day after day, year after year in schools learning to read. Libraries do not provide mandatory literacy instruction, they do not test students for literacy aptitude and improvements.

This is a good thing for libraries to do, but the fact remains that they are an adjunct to literacy training, not its primary provider.

Substitute 'synergy' for 'adjunct'. It's pointless to train people to read and not provide anything for them to read. You can train someone in a skill, any skill, but if it's not USED, it's worthless.

A literate society needs both good schools and well-stocked libraries.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Substitute 'synergy' for 'adjunct'. It's pointless to train people to read and not provide anything for them to read. You can train someone in a skill, any skill, but if it's not USED, it's worthless.

A literate society needs both good schools and well-stocked libraries.

Now, now. You know reading for pleasure is only for the privileged elite. What do we look like? A nation that wants an educated public? For Shame! How else will the Agency6 execs build their 4th & 5th summer homes except on the backs of the public?

[plib]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

What do we look like? A nation that wants an educated public?

God, no! Particularly if they're going to read this book!

[dkperez]

Somewhere in reading through 7 pages of entries, I've lost something......

This whole thing strikes me as commerce, not learning, not public good, not whatever...

Library wants books. It wants paper books and it wants e-books.

There are 6 major publishers. As I understand it, 5 won't sell books to the library at all. The 6th WILL sell books, but wants to charge 300% or more for the library to buy the books...

I keep reading here in MR that there are all these fantastic indie authors and publishers. If so, and the items from the "big 6" are unavailable or unreasonably expensive, WHY can't the libraries purchase from these other sources? I'm sure, since these excellent alternatives exist, there should be easily available information on the alternate John Sandford or James Patterson or Nora Roberts... So, library, FIND a way to get the alternative books.

The ALA (I presume some umbrella library group and lobby and something out there to advocate for libraries) should GET THE WORD OUT. I find it hard to believe that the public can't be made aware of the problem with the publishers. Between the Internet and all the other media, there should CERTAINLY be a simple way to put something up that'll tell everyone "These are the publishers that REFUSE to make e-book content available to your libary. Here's the one that' WILL sell books but want to charge 3 TIMES what you'd pay for the same book."

Everybody keeps saying publishers ONLY respond to the monetary bottom line. Fine, maybe a few thousand or tens of thousands of people refusing to buy books from companies that continue to refuse to move into the 21st century can help the publishers figure out it may be smarter to provide materials the libraries want at reasonable prices...

[monkeyluis]

Publishers should be giving their books away for free to libraries. It's just dumb to charge them. We don't need them going out of business.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Uh, tax deductions for what? Certainly not for selling copyrighted content; that's good ol' taxable income. They get the same tax deductions as are available to anyone else.

What about this?

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

In post #69, you typed: "Coca-Cola and Pepsi can't say "you can only buy directly from us at triple the price that our distributors are offering"."
It is a fact that manufacturers and publishers can charge the general public twice or three times more or less than they charge for the wholesale price. They also can directly sell their products to the public for more or less than retailers selling the same product (though they will face the ire of their retailers if they charge less).

So you consider the wholesale price to be THE price, instead of a discounted one. I consider the list price to be THE price. If you look at the OP again you will see that the 300% is comes from the the library having to pay $120 instead of the $40 retail price. But if you consider the wholesale price to be the actual price of the book, then the libraries are being charged 600%.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by dkperez

I keep reading here in MR that there are all these fantastic indie authors and publishers. If so, and the items from the "big 6" are unavailable or unreasonably expensive, WHY can't the libraries purchase from these other sources? I'm sure, since these excellent alternatives exist, there should be easily available information on the alternate John Sandford or James Patterson or Nora Roberts... So, library, FIND a way to get the alternative books.

There is currently not an infrastructure in place for selling indie books to libraries. (Believe me, I'm still trying.) Overdrive doesn't allow indie publishers to join their publisher pool unless it's someone like J.A. Konrath.

The FLP library -- which I've approached about giving them a copy of my book -- also has a policy in place (if I understand them correctly) where they only accept books that have been "professionally" reviewed. Which most indies aren't.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

The FLP library -- which I've approached about giving them a copy of my book -- also has a policy in place (if I understand them correctly) where they only accept books that have been "professionally" reviewed. Which most indies aren't.

Libraries may have to change their tune as sources for ebooks continue to dry up.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

What about this?


So you consider the wholesale price to be THE price, instead of a discounted one. I consider the list price to be THE price. If you look at the OP again you will see that the 300% is comes from the the library having to pay $120 instead of the $40 retail price. But if you consider the wholesale price to be the actual price of the book, then the libraries are being charged 600%.

There is no "THE price" other than what is paid at any given time by any given buyer.

The rightful owner of any product can sell that product for whatever price she wants.

She can sell it indiscriminately to everyone at the same price, dicker individually with each buyer, or do a combination of the two.

There is nothing unlawful about that (according to current U.S. law).

There is nothing immoral about that (according to my personal ethics).

There are certain exceptions to the above rule, but none relate to issues raised in this thread.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Libraries may have to change their tune as sources for ebooks continue to dry up.

They're definitely between a rock and a hard place. If they accept every indie who walks in the door, they could be getting badly-formatted neo-Nazi propaganda. If they rely on professional reviews and A6 gatekeepers, they could be bled to death with check-out limits and 300% mark-ups.

And the compromise position -- accept indies, but read the book first -- is an undue burden on the librarians.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

There is no "THE price" other than what is paid at any given time by any given buyer.

When you are talking about percentages you are comparing one price with another price. If Kali Yuga considers that we should compare prices of books sold to the readers to the wholesale prices, then he should compare prices of books sold to the libraries to the wholesale prices as well.