A couple of nasty things happening to libraries

[thewayne]

Macmillan Publishing is trying to screw up the way that ebooks work - they want to restrict libraries to purchasing ONE COPY of new ebooks for TWO MONTHS after the book comes out! From the CNN Op Ed: "Librarians to publishers: Please take our money. Publishers to librarians: Drop dead.

That's the upshot of Macmillan publishing's recent decision which represents yet another insult to libraries. For the first two months after a Macmillan book is published, a library can only buy one copy, at a discount. After eight weeks, they can purchase "expiring" e-book copies which need to be re-purchased after two years or 52 lends."

It's crazy. Libraries don't pay just full retail price for books: we pay MORE. And ebooks, we pay more than that even! And then, as she says, we pay it again, just so we can continue lending it. Macmillan apparently thinks that each library getting only one copy of an ebook is OK because, since ebooks are digital, a person in the LA County library district, where one copy of the ebook is servicing 1.something million patrons, someone could borrow that ebook from a library in, let's say Vermont, where a library might serve a thousand patrons.

One problem with that: libraries don't lend ebooks outside of their lending area. There are services that they subscribe to, like the Alamogordo library buys in to Libby as do many libraries, but Alamo is still paying for its copies within Libby - Libby is just a distributor. I can't borrow books - physical or electronic, from the Phoenix Public Library, because I'm not a Phoenix or Maricopa County resident.

Macmillan is being idiotic and leaving a lot of money on the table.

Opinion piece by a Vermont Librarian: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/opinions/libraries-fight-publishers-over-e-books-west/index.html

The American Library Association's condemnation: http://www.ala.org/news/member-news/2019/07/public-library-association-condemns-macmillan-publishers-library-lending-model


In libraries and audiobook news, an embargo is being launched against publisher/distributor Blackstone. For six months, many libraries are ceasing new purchases. Blackstone is entering into a new agreement with Amazon, and wants all libraries to get their material through Audible. The problem is that there's lots of issues with licensing. It's just like if you lose a paperback that you checked out from a library, they're not going to charge you $7. They can't go to B&N or Amazon and buy a replacement, it has to come from a publisher or jobber to be licensed correctly so we have the rights to lend it indefinitely.

Big freakin' mess.

One of the reasons I quit doing film programming for science fiction conventions was they started going to Blockbuster and just grabbing videos off the shelf for the film program. Not correctly licensed, and they could have gotten in BIG trouble with distributors for that, and I couldn't be part of it.

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/80658-citing-embargo-libraries-plan-boycott-of-blackstone-digital-audio.html

Comments

[elf]

Libraries may need to go the route they considered when ebooks were new and nobody had figured out licensing: Buy a double-handful of Kindles, have 10 or so different accounts, load different ebooks on the kindles, and loan out the physical ereaders. Get a stack of older refurbished ereaders of various types, and they might have loaner devices that could have epub or mobi, and even use ebooks from Smashwords or indie publisher websites.

A person isn't borrowing one book, but a few dozen - but at least the library would have several copies available to loan out. And they could use Amazon Prime's loaner library for several of them, allowing up to 10 different books per account to be loaded into the devices.

This'd take a great deal of hassle in juggling book purchases between accounts and tracking which devices contain which bundles of books, but they wouldn't have to deal with buying limited-use ebooks. Shouldn't run into licensing problems because, just like loaning a physical book, they're not making an unauthorized copy. And unlike the "grab Blockbuster movie for convention showing," they're not doing public presentations; there's never been a problem with "grab Blockbuster movie and invite six friends to watch it."

[thewayne]

Many libraries do lend ereaders, I have no idea how that works.  I work for a uni, and we don't.  Main campus lends/rents iPads and laptops, I don't have a clue how those policies work over there.  It might come to that: bend the rules as far as possible and see where the breaking point it.

[dewline]

Well, this is Distressing.

[thewayne]

It most certainly is.

I was reading about some rather horrible library shenanigans regarding library funding up in Canada. Aside from the "just Google it" answer to why we need libraries, contrary to belief the internet is not the font of all information.

[dewline]

Not by itself, it isn't!

[silveradept]

I'm coming to the conclusion that the best course of action on this is for the Librarian of Congress to exercise their power over copyright to say that anything that people would think of as a book (or a media thing that could be theoretically gotten physically) is a book and must obey all the rules and exemptions regarding books. No more of this "it's a license!" bullshit for books, shows, software, etc. It must be made available in a way that can be bought permanently, and with any pricing discounts available, and cost no more digitally than the list price of the corresponding physical item for everyone.

It's pretty clear that publishers need to be brought to heel and forced to give libraries the same terms and prices as the consumer.

[thewayne]

There's a reason why, with the exception of ebooks, I buy movies, music and software as physical media.  When it comes to ebooks, I buy epubs or in formats that I can break or strip the DRM and convert it to epub.  I refuse to rent software, with the exception of something like antivirus and security software which requires pretty much daily updates.

[thewayne]

I've never understood the concept of an ebook license expiring after it's been "read" so many times.  I'm glad that my library isn't involved in that, it would hurt my brain.

[silveradept]

It's supposed to simulate the physical books wearing out and deteriorating over time that would trigger the purchase of a new physical copy, but the publishers set them far too low for both time and circulations to mimic an actual physical book, and they still insist that we overpay because we're buying them to lend to others and therefore taking away their sales.

[thewayne]

I know a famous author (whose name rhymes with Snackpole) who once, if he had his way, would have banned used bookstores as they represented lost revenue. No idea if he still holds that view, I don’t encounter him often and have decided to avoid discussing the book industry with him.

I guess there is some sense to that, but you’re right: a number like 52 is far too low. It should be at least 2-4x that.

[silveradept]

Yes, and if I'm renting something, I should pay less than the cost to own it, rather than several times more. With "pay per use" models, though, it's clear there isn't enough money in the world to actually satisfy patron demand, unless they are offered at maybe a penny per use and even then that might be too much.

So, really, it should be "here's your all you can binge subscription for a flat fee" or "here's the fee it costs for you to buy and own a copy to put on your own servers and use your own control methods for."

And if that method is "once you authenticate to the library that you're a user, binge on," then a publisher that wants to complain can be smacked in the face with the First Sale Doctrine and told to go away.

[bibliofile]

Thanks for the heads up on this. Gah.