Amazon Withholds Its Ebooks From Libraries Because It Prefers You Pay it Instead (theverge.com) 96
Amazon is withholding ebook and audiobook versions of works it publishes through its in-house publishing arms from US libraries, according to a new report from The Washington Post. The Verge: In fact, Amazon is the only major publisher that's doing this, the report states. It's doing so because the company thinks the terms involved with selling digital versions of books to libraries, which in turn make them available to local residents for free through ebook lending platforms like Libby, are unfavorable. "It's not clear to us that current digital library lending models fairly balance the interests of authors and library patrons," Mikyla Bruder, the global marketing chief at Amazon Publishing, told The Washington Post's Geoffrey Fowler in an emailed statement. "We see this as an opportunity to invent a new approach to help expand readership and serve library patrons, while at the same time safeguarding author interests, including income and royalties."
At the heart of the issue is a debate over whether libraries, which often pay far higher than retail price for physical and ebook copies of books, ultimately harm publisher sales by letting people check out copies for free. In the age of mobile apps and widespread Kindle usage, borrowing an ebook is now easier than ever -- you need a library card and the Libby app, and you can then place holds and eventually check out ebooks that can be sent directly to your Kindle e-reader or app to access for a limited time.
At the heart of the issue is a debate over whether libraries, which often pay far higher than retail price for physical and ebook copies of books, ultimately harm publisher sales by letting people check out copies for free. In the age of mobile apps and widespread Kindle usage, borrowing an ebook is now easier than ever -- you need a library card and the Libby app, and you can then place holds and eventually check out ebooks that can be sent directly to your Kindle e-reader or app to access for a limited time.
Right to read. (Score:4, Insightful)
Getting closer and closer to reality...
Re:Right to read. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a publicly traded company that has a responsibility to shareholders to run a business not a charity. In the current system being a huge asshole is less controversial than playing nice honoring your community obligations.
tl;dr - don't blame the player, blame the game.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
RIGHT?
Who knew having shareholders justifies being a cunt to society.
Re: (Score:1)
To flip things around, governments have a responsibility to citizenshipholders to run a society not a profit sacrifice chamber. In the current system being regulatory should be less controversial than playing lackey honoring your lobbyist whispers in the king's ear.
Regulations don't care about yachts they care about humans.
This all being theoretical waffle since it turns out all orchestration orgs are corrupt and plebs are fucked either way. Libraries were a great boon to the species while they lasted, we'l
Re:Right to read. (Score:5, Insightful)
To flip things around, governments have a responsibility to citizenshipholders to run a society not a profit sacrifice chamber.
In a functioning democracy it's implied that the government works for the people. In a system where dollars buy lobbyists and fund new PACs, the government has new masters.
In America there is but one State religion: the Almighty Dollar.
Re:Right to read. (Score:5, Interesting)
Correction...not just in a democracy, but any nations that is free and aims to be wealthy. Just read The Wealth of Nations to understand the full scope. Monopolies, like copyright, are what kills wealth, and ruins nations. And the litmus test of a monopoly - the canary in the monopoly coal mine- are consistent profits above the cost of capital. Fierce competition is the ONLY regulating force that makes capitalism work. Without it, everything is lost, including the nation, as it pivots to poverty and likely another form of goverment...according to Karl Marx, these monopolies lead to poverty, and a revolution that ultimately and inevitably leads to communism. This is why copyright was limited to 14 years, and with all the provisions like make works accessible, especially to libraries.
Anyone expecting that the current situation will lead to anything by poverty and a weak, poor nation, is deluded. One doesn't need to be a Phd in the latest thinking in economics to understand it. All that's required is to go back and read The Wealth of Nations, a book by Adam Smith published around 1776 or so, in plain english and with no complications. And to understand the context of how wrong what Amazon is trying to do, one doesn't need to be an expert in copyright law, but to learn about the origins and intent of why the law was enacted in the first place, and what were worries with granting this anti-competitive monopolies.
Actually, the biggest hesitation was that the first incarnation of "copy right" had as sole purpose to give the right to the Crown to censure any work. Nothing can be more dangerous to a nation than wants to be wealthy and free than censorship. This is what the Crown wanted around 1500, and why Copyright laws was seen with heightened hesitation and second thoughts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Both of which proved "Supply vs Demand' is NOT the price setting mechanism in any mature market of Capitalist Control
Re:Right to read. (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies will take advantage of the rules just the same as anyone else, just the same as any regular person would use tax deductions and store coupons.
If you TOLD me I could do it, you have no right to get upset at me for doing it!
If you don't like it when I make the best decision for myself, instead of complaining about my actions, work to change the law that says its OK for me to DO that.
Re:Right to read. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are just asking to be regulated. Play nice or face the consequences. Your business operates at our pleasure, we make the rules and decide what is acceptable.
At least that's the way it's supposed to work. In the US the corporations are in charge.
Re: Right to read. (Score:1)
And that is exactly what Amazon wants. They know they would have to be really careful around antitrust when dealing with competitors. However, get regulated and then any startup willing to compete would have to be regulated too, and Amazon can afford the overhead.
That is why you see pretty much any big company, when it gets big enough, lobbying for market regulation over antitrust legislation.
Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and Google all have been begging lately for regulation, because a regulated market has les
Re: Right to read. (Score:4, Informative)
Not sure how a regulation saying that they must supply books to libraries on a reasonable basis would help competitors, especially given that everyone else is already doing it.
Re: (Score:1)
Requiring they supply books to a library adds costs.
Here is the scenario under regulatory frameworks:
If you're a startup, can you afford to donate 1 or 10 or 100 books to libraries if you can only sell 1000 because Amazon is also in the space? Amazon can give 1000s of books to libraries since they already sell millions. If you can start a company that can match their ratio of book-donation to book-sales, they'll simply ask for more regulation to increase the rate of book-donations and they'll be the "good g
Re: (Score:2)
When this kind of regulation is introduced in Europe there is usually an exemption for small companies.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh I know, I used to work for one of those entities. Once they grew large enough, they split off their IT and their devs into a separate corporate entity to avoid the regulatory framework.
Re: (Score:2)
Must have been quite badly designed legislation if lame tricks like that work.
Re: (Score:1)
What do you expect from a (European) government. There are plenty of tricks to avoid paying taxes and regulations, hence why it only hurts the small-medium size businesses and not the large businesses or the rich who can afford armies of lawyers and accountants to keep them from it. This isn't the only example, there are many places, including Amazon that for various regulatory and legal reasons have each of their warehouses under a separate corporate entity that isn't going to be harmed by any such legisla
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a publicly traded company that has a responsibility to shareholders to run a business not a charity
Then why does amazon donate to a charity if you go to smile.amazon.com? Also this is often repeated lie and bullshit. There's absolutely no law like that in USA or otherwise. You're not obligated to seek maxmum profit, your'e not obligated to seek maximum share price. This lie needs to die. It's not a game, it's the players
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Right to read. (Score:5, Informative)
For those who don't have a clue what the parent is referring to:
The Right to Read [gnu.org] by Richard Stallman.
Re: (Score:2)
I have read that story numerous times. I just read it again. I gotta say, in some ways, the paranoia level is infantile... but it is also fairly accurate. I especially like how it predicted that computers would be come pre-rooted. Infantile, but accurate.
Library; lending (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that the whole point of a library?
It's publicly funded to increase literacy.
Not profit.
Re: Library; lending (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It is a bit of a drive to the Library of Congress, though.
Re: Library; lending (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Library; lending (Score:3, Informative)
The LoC has long since stopped collecting every book. They would need an insane amount of physical and digital storage and some form of marketplace only rivaled by Amazon themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can find right now, that book no longer exists except for a few copies in private hands.
Copyright Libraries (Score:4, Insightful)
This system probably needs wider adaption and expansion for the modern world. Beyond the free copies to major, national libraries perhaps there should be some right to buy for other libraries at the standard retail price. Refuse and your work loses copyright protection and can be copied by anyone with impunity. We need something to ensure that society has the ability to access the creative works helps foster the creation of by providing copyright protection and with the ever-increasing copyright terms fuelled by commercial greed this would be one way to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK has a system of "copyright libraries". These are libraries that have the right to receive a free copy of every book published - and hence copyrighted - in the UK. It includes the British Library plus the Cambridge and Oxford University Libraries plus a few others.
And students have the right to check out books (with some restrictions for particularly rare ones). A number of years ago, there was a brief fashion for checking out the mister men books because the library had them.
Re: (Score:2)
Increase learning in general I believe, which was also the original reason for copyright (in Common law countries). If the publishers don't want to keep their part of the bargain, society could always remove copyright, something that Amazon leveraged to become one of the larger companies in the world.
List the publishers and authors (Score:3)
So I can download all of them. For free.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It already exists: Library Genesis. The educational form of pirate bay.
Say Whaaaa???? (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF? I'm an author with a book in all three forms (ebook, paperback, audiobook) available on Amazon. Am I hearing that they haven't made my book available to libraries to purchase?
My paperback edition is available outside Amazon, but because of the terms they offer, my ebook and audiobook are exclusive through Amazon (and audible for audiobook). Seems like I'll have to re-evaluate my relationship with them as an author.
Yeah, large corporations and their monopolies are very good for everyone, especially authors, because their interests are taken care off. (my ass /sarcasm)
Re:Say Whaaaa???? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh but amazon is protecting you. If libraries bought your book, then loads of people would read it for free, and you would make less money.
See? Amazon really has your interests at heart here.
(I am being equally sarcastic).
Re: (Score:2)
If a book is readily available at most libraries then hundreds of children can write book reports against my book. Encouraging more libraries to have more copies on hand. That means Amazon is missing a real sales opportunity.
Re:Say Whaaaa???? (Score:5, Insightful)
That means Amazon is missing a real sales opportunity.
While there are plenty of studies to back that notion up, we've lost the point if we allow the conversation to go down that route. Whenever Amazon or other companies make the discussion about whether or not libraries benefit the industry, they're implicitly denying that libraries provide any other benefits, almost all of which are significantly more important than drumming up book sales.
Libraries exist to expand literacy, educate communities, make knowledge freely available, and facilitate learning, among many other things. They are a public service, first and foremost. For thousands of years the need for them has been recognized in every well-functioning society, and that need has entitled them to a raft of legal protections in keeping with their importance. That they happen to have knock-on effects that benefit private interests is of secondary concern, and shouldn't be used to justify their existence. Even if the studies went the other way, indicating that libraries were a net drain on book sales, libraries would still be worth it.
We mustn't lose sight of that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. Far from striking a fair balance, this arrangement puts things very much in the favor of publishers. But that isn't favorable enough to publishers to satisfy Amazon, so they call it unfair.
Incidentally, this is also clearly a situation where publishers already get to have things both ways. The digital media is treated as if it is physical media in that arbitrary duplication is not allowed, but then is absolutely treated as if non-physical inasmuch as libraries have to keep forking over cash again
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Say Whaaaa???? (Score:4, Interesting)
I had to sick lawyers onto my publisher to stop them selling my product to Amazon.
I only found out Amazon were selling it when people who bought my book started showing up to classes having purchased it.
I still haven't gotten my royalties for those sales, or even know how many electronic copies Amazon sold via my publisher.
Re: (Score:2)
Diito. But there's no audiobook for mine.
I didn't write it to get rich. I wrote it to fix a set of common misunderstandings about the security relevant technology I am most involved in. I want people to read it. I don't care if they get it from a library or have it delivered to their yacht in a gold binding.
Fortunately, Amazon is not the publisher. The publisher is.
Re:Say Whaaaa???? (Score:4, Informative)
Same here. I published my book through my own company, which is why I also sell it via Ingram and anybody in the world can purchase discounted copies for resale. After finishing the audiobook just a couple of months ago, I was astounded to find the cut audible/amazon take with an exclusive license and how much more they even take without an exclusive license. Furthermore, they priced my audiobook book at $24.95, whereas I had intended for it to be no more than $14.99. When I contacted them, they told me I had no control over the price of my audiobook, even though I paid for all the production costs myself. But they have a near-monopoly, so I reluctantly signed on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't understand why anyone on Slashdot would "have to re-evaluate my relationship with [Amazon]".
If you book and audiobook are exclusive through Amazon then I won't be buying them, just like I won't be buying anything from a rapacious tax-dodging bunch of thugs like Amazon.
Nope (Score:2)
I think we should be pretty clear here: Amazon does not care a whit about "the interests of authors". The only thing they care about is that authors get the minimum amount of payment that Amazon can get away with, and Amazon gets the maximum.
oh, and they don't care about the interests of library patrons, either.
Re: Nope (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ride the horse in the direction he's running (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And if anyone tried to open the first library, they would be sued into poverty.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course public libraries are socialist - that's what public means.
I've personally started a small private library, free to the public but not owned by it. We use a 'right of return' model which means regular people park their books at the library, for lending, and they always get first dibs on their own book and can reclaim them at any time (almost never happens).
I also pay $60 a year to belong to a nonprofit library in the next town. It's so good that they don't have a public library there - the Town
Re: (Score:2)
No, socialism means "government ownership of the means of production".
Libraries do not have to be government-owned and often aren't government-owned.
Books aren't means of production.
Libraries do not aspire to prevent individuals from owning books in addition to those books in the library.
So libraries are not socialist.
No more kindles for me (Score:3)
I picked up an Onyx Nova 3 (not the color edition, I have no idea for that) and now I can use any reader I want on my eink device, including Libby and Hoopla's own readers. I've read a ton of books this year with zero visits to Amazon to buy.
Sure it's not perfect (but then my Paperwhite isn't perfect either) but it's good enough and everything syncs with my phone too.
Will never buy another Kindle so long as Amazon withholds library books.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I picked up an Onyx Nova 3 (not the color edition, I have no idea for that) and now I can use any reader I want on my eink device, including Libby and Hoopla's own readers.
I have only ever purchased eBooks that were PDF files. Are we now in a world where book store uses their own format and requires you to download their app? I have no idea what Libby and Hoopla are. I have apps that can read .txt, .rtf, .html, .pdf, and even a proprietary .doc/.docx reader.
Re: (Score:2)
Epub files are just zipped HTML formatted pages with style sheets and images included. You can change the extension from
You can also edit the HTML pages and change the style sheets - something that Calibre can help you with - the
Re: (Score:2)
Good to know, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
I would of loved this 20 years ago. But while I still retain written words better I just cannot find the time or inclination to spend the time reading any longer. It seems so much more efficient to spend 8 hours a day working at something not 100% engrossing and listen to a book for 8 hours a day concurrently. I think their is a lot wrong with this approach, but it sure is seductive (my auto correct wanted to change this to "sedative", Chrome's AI is officially smarter than I am I think).
Private company (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Do try to keep up, Twitter is a separate company from Amazon, the works are often owned by the authors, some of whom are not happy about this and no one is arguing that Amazon has to carry books they don't want to.
Re: What did we say about private businesses? (Score:1)
Do try to keep up. Amazon is a private company and has the right not to sell to libraries or anyone else and here we have a number of people bitching about that. What's that word I was looking for... hypocritical? Yes, that's it. Have you caught up, yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Do try keep up, it is the authors that are the private owners of the works that Amazon is refusing to honour the wishes off. What is it about you people who don't believe in private ownership?
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the same authors who chose to use Amazon for distribution? What stops them from using someone else? Have those poor authors been tied to a rack and tortured into only using Amazon? Are they not allowed to sell digital copies directly on their own?
https://news.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]
https://news.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]
Last feeding of you.
Re: What did we say about private businesses? (Score:1)
Did you even read your own links?
You posted two authors who back up what *I* said.
They *chose* to use Amazon to publish. No one forced them to give their publishing rights to Amazon.
Do you even know how book publishing works? You literally give the publishing *rights*away in exchange for money. Amazon has the right to do whatever the fuck they please once the author has made that decision. They were not forced to do so.
Sheesh, what's wrong with you? Ignorance of how the publishing industry works or you
Re: (Score:2)
Copyrights are entirely created by the government for public purposes. There's nothing odd about altering the deal any further in order to better benefit the public ... other than that Congress is firmly in the pocket of private industries with regard to copyright, and doesn't care about the public at all.
Re: (Score:2)
> Is it not their property and why don't we loudly support Amazon choosing to not sell their property to libraries?
Of course it's not their property - when they choose to sell a book they forgo having any additional say about what happens to it. I can lend my copy to anybody I want and so can a library. This is physical reality, regardless of any statutes that try to claim otherwise.
Everybody who was bitching about DRM 20 years ago saw this coming. Amazon has no interest in seeing more people read unl
They're Patrons, not Customers. (Score:2)
(Amazon)"It's not clear to us that current digital library lending models fairly balance the interests of authors and library patrons"
Patron: A person chosen, named, or honored as a special guardian, protector, or supporter.
I don't see customer included anywhere in the above definition. Helping a supporter, implies you're going to do exactly that Amazon, not pull another revenue stream out of your ass for Greed and Fucks sake.
Amazon were selling my book without my permission. (Score:2, Interesting)
..and while I've managed to cut off my publisher supplying it to them, they're still selling second hand copies on their site despite my requests to stop.
Re:Amazon were selling my book without my permissi (Score:5, Interesting)
Genuine question: Do you believe you should have any legal right to restrict who can sell second-hand copies of your book without your permission?
Re: (Score:3)
OK, so then the question is should anyone have the legal power to restrict licensing of a work to be non-transferrable in that way? After all, this isn't how things normally work, it's just an artificial restriction based on a favourable interpretation of copyright law.
Re:Amazon were selling my book without my permissi (Score:4, Informative)
I suggest you read up on the First Sale Doctrine [wikipedia.org]. And maybe have a grown up explain the big words to you.
I wonder (Score:2)
Perhaps this is because Elmer Fudd got upset when Elon Musk briefly displaced Elmer as the world's richest person.
Re: (Score:2)
> when Elon Musk briefly displaced Elmer as the world's richest person.
It's 'Lex Luthor', please.
Re: (Score:2)
No, seriously - he looks just like Elmer Fudd. The head, the smile, the expressions...
And yet, no one will care (Score:2)
Just another article about sleazy Amazon shafting people. Like this one [9cache.com]. Not to mention all the articles about how Amazon stiffs its own workers [9cache.com].
And yet, for all the supposed "uproar" of how bad Amazon is, instead of doing the simple thing and not buying from them, excuse after excuse will be trotted out. "It's so easy to order from them." "They're the cheapest" (not always). "I can get it one day" (as opposed to going to the store and getting it in less than an hour). And on and on.
And now this. Why
But remember, it's APPLE who's at fault (Score:2)
Apple's agreement to try and pay publishers more and not let Amazon undercut everyone was apparently illegal collusion, and so they lost their antitrust case. Because they were in a position to abuse monopoly power in the book market?
Amazon has always been the victim here, how dare you. Of course they've got a better way for libraries to exist: you pay them, and they don't burn the library down. You have to buy all the books from Amazon still, but at least you get to keep the building.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple was at fault. They engaged in blatant collusion. And it had nothing to do with trying to help publishers; Steve was worried that the Kindle (especially higher end color LCD touchscreen Kindles) would undercut the iPad. Thus, the iPad had to have a strong presence in e-books without relying on actual or potential competitors. Publishers were easy to exploit in this way, and it's not like Apple hadn't had practice with the record labels. That's it.
As far as I can tell, it didn't work, but the iPad also
Amazon is not Alone (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It is not just publishers, a few years ago a group of authors and their toadies attacked a community of people who where lending their books to eachother (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120807/21080519958/legit-ebook-lending-site-taken-down-angry-twitmob-writers.shtml).
How Fitting, They Call Their Reader Kindle... (Score:2)
"Borrowing" ebooks makes no sense! (Score:1)
Intellectual property is not a physical object. Copyright was envisaged as a mechanism that gives property-like rights to information, and this worked to an extent. We can use it for publishing and selling physical copies pretty easily. When a publisher makes a copy, it belongs to the author. This can then be sold, and we have a physical copy that you can use like any other physical object. The usual limitation on physical objects now apply to that copy. If I have it, then nobody else can. Lending makes sen
I tried Libaries (Score:2)
But they are getting quite expensive to renew your membership and their selection sucks compared to everyone else.
Torrents sites + LibriVox is great. And Audible looks fairly affordable and they seem to have a great selection as well.
Honest question (Score:2)
Explain to me why anyone supports Amazon in any way at all. Seriously, they're like a parody of a Superman Villain.