US Libraries Are Battling High Prices For Better E-Book Access (axios.com) 39
Librarians are fighting a nationwide battle against high e-book prices, which so far has yielded minimal results. Despite efforts and temporary legislative victories, strict renewal and loan policies imposed by publishers keep e-book costs high, limiting the number of popular titles libraries can offer and leading to frustration among patrons. Axios reports: Publishers typically require libraries to renew the license to each e-book every two years, or after 26 loans -- policies that libraries call prohibitively expensive. This restricts the number of e-books -- particularly popular bestsellers -- that they can lend out to patrons, who are angry and baffled by the limitations. Readers love the free (to them) apps that allow them to borrow countless e-books and audiobooks: Libby (the dominant one, run by OverDrive) and hoopla. But some libraries say that the cost of renewing their contracts with OverDrive and hoopla are prohibitive, so they're dropping the apps -- hoopla in particular.
The Association of American Publishers argues that it must protect the rights of copyright owners -- that is, authors -- to be fairly compensated for their work. hoopla and Libby say they're just the middlemen. "It's really not up to us, to be honest," Ann Ford, a vice president at hoopla, tells Axios. "It's the publishers that make the rules." Libraries have a "unique and determinative public mission" that should entitle them to more favorable e-book purchasing terms when using public funds, says Kyle Courtney, a lawyer and Harvard librarian who drafted model e-book legislation for states.
"These are nonnegotiable contracts, and the libraries have been trying to get a deal for years. We need the coercive power of the state sitting behind us at the table saying, 'We need a special slice of the pie.'"
The Association of American Publishers argues that it must protect the rights of copyright owners -- that is, authors -- to be fairly compensated for their work. hoopla and Libby say they're just the middlemen. "It's really not up to us, to be honest," Ann Ford, a vice president at hoopla, tells Axios. "It's the publishers that make the rules." Libraries have a "unique and determinative public mission" that should entitle them to more favorable e-book purchasing terms when using public funds, says Kyle Courtney, a lawyer and Harvard librarian who drafted model e-book legislation for states.
"These are nonnegotiable contracts, and the libraries have been trying to get a deal for years. We need the coercive power of the state sitting behind us at the table saying, 'We need a special slice of the pie.'"
Nothing new, unfortunately (Score:2)
Libraries have paid a premium for print books too, for as long as I can remember.
Re:Nothing new, unfortunately (Score:5, Insightful)
Libraries have paid a premium for print books too, for as long as I can remember.
But at least once a print book has been purchased, the library doesn't have to keep forking over more money for it.
Re: Nothing new, unfortunately (Score:2)
And only one person can read it at a time.
If you compare prices, e-books are cheaper than print books, and I bet you Libraries could arrange permanent single e-book licenses for prices much closer to printed book prices.
Re: (Score:3)
If you compare prices, e-books are cheaper than print books...
No they're not. To quote the article: " 'For popular trade e-books, libraries often pay $55 for one copy that expires after 2 years (or $550 for one copy for 20 years),' per the American Library Association."
...and I bet you Libraries could arrange permanent single e-book licenses for prices much closer to printed book prices.
Okay, confirmed... Now I KNOW that you didn't read the article or summary, because the lack of such a pricing model is literally what it's about.
But to be fair, that article is damn near impossible to read, because it looks like someone accidentally clicked on the bulleted list outline formatting butt
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Nothing new, unfortunately (Score:4, Interesting)
And only one person can read it at a time.
I guarantee you that if more than one person is found reading a given "copy" of an eBook, there's a bunch of fines and legal proceedings waiting in the wings for that library. Note: I say "copy" because the number of copies and format shifts needed to be made to get the contents of just one page from the storage device to the reader's eyeballs (let alone their brain), is well above just one. Those acts aren't being charged for (yet) but you can bet they would if they could.
I bet you Libraries could arrange permanent single e-book licenses for prices much closer to printed book prices.
The most profitable thing in existence is selling permission. It requires minimal effort from those selling it, and if done properly makes those buying it legally liable for upholding the restrictions. That's DRM in a nutshell.
Most libraries are being fleeced as are consumers who jump on board the eBook train. One of the biggest sellers of eBooks, Amazon, doesn't even let authors / publishers distribute an eBook on their platform without Amazon's DRM. Yes, it can be removed, (If you're willing to jump through hoops to do so.), and there are other eBook sellers out there, but we're a far cry away from where all physical print media has been for centuries by default. I.e. You bought that copy, it's yours.
Libraries are a pillar of democracy. (Score:3, Interesting)
Every e-book sold should pay a tax to the library system.
Re: Libraries are a pillar of democracy. (Score:2)
That's commie talk, citizen.
Sadly incompatible (Score:3)
Traditionally libraries could get many books for cheap, due to secondhand resale; and books being in a library wouldn't eat into sales because a lot of people would buy their own for the convenience, nor was there anything publishers could do to stop it. Libraries can grant access to ebooks very efficiently and conveniently, so I can see why publishers would hate that.
Re:Sadly incompatible (Score:4, Insightful)
That and, as a user, if am getting an ebook I will either buy it directly online, or simply download it for free from "somewhere". That weird limbo where you're still forking the credit card but paying only to get temporary or limited access just doesn't work when the two other options are much more convenient (And one of them being for the cheap cheap price of FREE).
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, I don't like that checking out an e-book places me on a technological treadmill I'd prefer not to be on. This usually requires that I get/have a tablet or smart phone with it's own set of minimum software requirements and subsequent loss of privacy. The loss of privacy comes when you have to register your tablet/phone with Google to download the Hoopla App. This is something I've never had to do with Physical Bo
Re: (Score:3)
Lots of people buy books, read them, & then never look at them again. We should encourage donating physical books to public libraries so that others can enjoy them.
Also, libraries are far more than book
Serendipity (Score:2)
It's a good idea to encourage people to come in to borrow physical books on a regular basis just so that they encounter serendipitous opportunities to enrich their lives further.
One could make the same argument to enforce company-wide return to office on grounds that work from home represents lost opportunity for serendipitous conversation around the microwave [slashdot.org]. If you want Serendipity, look up Stephen Cosgrove.
Re: (Score:2)
The state does get something. They get the book.
Libraries and authors are not enemies.
Re: (Score:2)
The state does get something. They get the book.
Not if all copies become unusable before the copyright expires. Fires happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo, people forget how artificial and unnatural copyright laws are. Someone tries to grab your stuff, you are morally justified to fight back, alone or with a million of your best friends who decided to form a city and hire police force. Someone sees you doing something and does the same thing, you have some unhealthy control issues if you complain. If it has to be a thing, make it truly time limited like 20 years and have generous exceptions like libraries can stock 5% of total copies in circulation.
Re: (Score:2)
I *am* an author. And hell yes I want a maximum wage.
But then, you're too stupid and brainwashed to see what's in front of your eyes: almost all authors, and, hell, 98% of the population never comes near $1M/yr. We need maximum wages on the WEALTHY.
Because, as the famous bank robber of the '30s replied, when asked why he robbed banks, "That's where the money is".
OMG, No Way! (Score:2)
Axios reports: Publishers typically require libraries to renew the license to each e-book every two years, or after 26 loans -- policies that libraries call prohibitively expensive. This restricts the number of e-books -- particularly popular bestsellers -- that they can lend out to patrons, who are angry and baffled by the limitations. Readers love the free (to them) apps that allow them to borrow countless e-books and audiobooks
People like free stuff? A-maxing!
I find the argument fascinating - Libraries want cheaper e-books so that more people can enjoy the publishers products which inevitably cuts into the publishers sales of their books? Why would a publisher object?
Public libraries were established to make printed books available to people that couldn't afford to purchase their own books several hundred years ago. Book publishing has moved on, books are a relative bargain compared to, say, 250 years ago when Ben Franklin helped
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe libraries shouldn't carry ebooks at all. Let the publishers make print editions available for libraries (at least) and prohibit libraries from spending public money on wasteful temporary ebook licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Why join the navy? (Score:2)
Mandate that personal copies be transferable (Score:2)
If I “buy”, “purchase”, or otherwise legally procure individual access that is not time-bound to a digital copy of media, whether it’s a game, a book, or a movie, it should be legally required to be transferable to another owner. Simple as that. I’d love to take it a step further to say no more “purchases” that are actually just rentals in disguise, with a 1600 page EULA to read through, but I’d settle for transferring ownership for now.
Once we have that
Re: (Score:2)
This can be done with virtual objects, but unlike physical objects where copying them (currently) requires significant effort and creates unique imperfections that allow for identification and distinction of the copy from the original, c
Then they'll sell 10-year rentals (Score:2)
If I “buy”, “purchase”, or otherwise legally procure individual access that is not time-bound to a digital copy of media, whether it’s a game, a book, or a movie, it should be legally required to be transferable to another owner.
The day after that bill gets signed, publishers will switch en masse to selling 10-year rentals. With how MMOs and other live service video games routinely get sunset nowadays, users won't notice a difference.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, which I view as an improvement. For libraries, they can lend for longer. For end users, they would become more aware of the value of purchasing something with no such strings attached. For publishers, they have an additional means by which to monetize their content on the basis of longer terms.
Calling B.S. (Score:2)
The Association of American Publishers argues that it must protect the rights of copyright owners -- that is, authors -- to be fairly compensated for their work.
I wonder if the bit about authors was part of the original statement or inserted. My guess is that the authors don't get a say and probably don't get compensated more for the expensive library version than they do for a bookstore copy. If anything, the library copy should be sold at a discount rather than a premium.
So use physical books? (Score:2)
I'm confused. Can't they just buy physical books? Do people refuse to use physical books or something? Once you buy the book, it's yours forever until it's damaged beyond repair or maybe never returned.
Digital books are okay and I see the coolness of having them on different devices or otherwise having access to all your books via your phone but from a library standpoint, I guess I just don't see the problem with having physical books. This is especially true if the publisher if gouging you on renting the e
Statute of Anne (Score:4, Interesting)
The Right to Read (Score:1)
It sounds like we are in progress on The Right to Read [gnu.org].
Books (Score:1)