I was reading that Harper Collins only allows libraries to loan its books for 26 times before they expire and have to be repurchased. While I agree it’s fair not to let them loan out the books forever, 26 seems low. Thoughts?
If a library can buy one book and loan it out multiple times, then so should ebooks.
Libraries cannot make copies of books to loan out multiple times, so should ebooks.
My view is to treat it as you would a real book, with the benefits and constraints that it entails.
Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk
They could gradually simulate wear and tear in ebooks. A few greasy fingerprints, some dogeared pages, maybe a coffee stain?
The issue is that a physical book will eventually wear out and have to repurchased. An e-book remains in pristine condition no matter how many people’s grubby fingers have electronically thumbed through the pages. This, at least, is the argument for why a limit on the number of times an e-book could be lent out could be justified.
I will be more careful abut checking out ebooks. I often check out library books and decide the book isn’t interesting enough to read. I feel bad knowing I caused the ebook’s life to expire quicker. 26 checkouts is a ridiculously small limit.
I’d be curious to know how often that limit is reached. Back when I was involved in public libraries the percentage of the collection that would have been checked out 26 times in even a decade would be relatively small.
I don’t remember any statistics on how long a frequently circulated book lasts.
That said, insisting that electronic books be treated exactly like physical books is long term stupid.
Define ‘stupid’
It’s stupid like insisting that albums be confined to 20 minute sides, 'cause that’s what fits on an LP.
Rules that force new technology to behave like old technology in order to maintain revenue streams based on that old technology is doomed to failure.
Librarian checking in…
I think there are a few factors at work here and this is a big one. The vast majority of books selected by a public library will never reach 26 circulations. It just doesn’t happen. For most books, the public loses interest before they’d ever fall apart.
BUT! The books that many libraries are choosing to populate their eBook collections with are the most popular titles out there. The print copies of these books would definitely reach 26 circulations, often within the first year. Combined with the current novelty of eBooks, it isn’t a matter of “if,” it’s a matter of “when.”
That said, while the video in the linked article is cute, 120 circulations is a pipe dream for all but the top 1% of the top 1% of books. I don’t know where the average is, but if I had to guess, 26 wouldn’t be far off.
This is sad. I’m a huge supporters of libraries, but this is a case of your friends doing more damage than your enemies by with a huge dumbness dump.
Today’s reality is that HarperCollins offers the best deal for libraries. Two of the Big 6 publishers don’t make their e-books available to libraries at all and two more make only limited titles available. The sixth, Random House, recently upped their fees, tripling them in some cases. HarperCollins’ policy is now a year old, BTW. That you’re first commenting on this now shows that it’s not really an issue.
Libraries today buy large numbers of a few bestsellers, limited numbers of other books, and none at all of most books. Library budgets are hurting everywhere because of state cutbacks. This started long before the current economic crisis, but that’s putting the nail through their hearts. Libraries are closing branches, cutting hours, eliminating staff, and needing to shift from books to other types of media.
Some changes have to be made to accommodate e-books. I don’t know what the best policy is; I don’t think anyone does. That world is too new and it changes daily. Unfortunately, the reality is that renewing the license for 26 more views is cheaper than buying a second hardcover and a majority, probably the vast majority, of books bought by libraries will never need more than a single renewal. Bestsellers are exceptions, but they should be treated as exceptions. How many bestsellers are there in a year’s time? 200, maybe, 100 from the Big 6. How many books do the Big 6 put out every year? Say 1000 each. Those 100 books subsidize those other 5900. Most of them will get bought by libraries; most of them you’ll never hear of. What is the right number to get cheaper e-book sales to equal print sales? I don’t know. My guess is that 26 really isn’t that far off.
Nor does it matter. It’s only temporary. Over the next few years the publishing world will change repeatedly and by 2020 I guarantee that several different models for e-book sales to libraries will have come and gone.
There’s only one certainty: e-books are not print books and cannot ever be treated identically.
ETA: written before seeing Justin Bailey’s post in preview.
It seems like a no brainer to me. The book can be checked out an unlimited number of times, but each copy can only be loaned to one patron at a time.
So what would a good limit be? Should it be the number of times loaned out? Should the limit be for a set period of time? Or what?
I was surprised to hear 26 is a high number.
As long as they’re only loaning out one purchased copy of the ebook to one person at one time (or whatever simultaneous number everybody agrees to) then they should just let them be loaned an unlimited number of times.
-
Most books will never get to that number and it would help encourage libraries to buy back list stuff. It is already a hard decision to buy a book that is important to have, but won’t be often used. It is even harder if it turns out that a local schooling putting it on their syllabus for a couple years means it will essentially be deaccessioned.
-
For those that get to 26 quickly the throttle isn’t really the number of times it can be checked out but the number of people who can do so quickly. The pressure is to make sure that 500 people can be reading the latest Harry Potter at the same time (to use an insanely huge number), not to make sure that those 500 people would be able to read it sequentially.
There should also be a way (for all I know there is, I’ve never used ebooks from a library) to use the electronic copy of the book in the library without it counting against any circulation limit that exists.
So you’re saying that since one e-book can be used indefinitely without needing replacement from handling or damage it has much more value and should bring a far higher price than a print book, right?
I thought so to. After thinking about it - if the average checkout time is two weeks (which think it is at my library), 26 checkouts would take a year, assuming no lost days (which dropping off/picking up would cause, even on a reserve).
Even for a best-seller, most of the bloom is going to be off the rose after a year.
Not particularly. My argument would be that the infinite lifespan of an ebook doesn’t really lose the publishers much in the way of sales opportunities because relatively few books are ever replaced due to wear and tear.
I’m also not arguing that the publishers shouldn’t be allowed to try and make such deals with libraries. Just that doing so is long term stupid for the same reason that DIVX was long term stupid. And it would be long term stupid if Apple and the music industry said “because once you have a digital copy of a song it will never wear out like an LP or cassette did we’re going to charge you 15 dollars a song to compensate for a lifetime of listening pleasure.”
Sure, they can insist on the equivalent that cars only be allowed to go 12 miles an hour because that is how fast buggies were, but it is still long term stupid.
I only saw six of the nine best picture nominees but my ranking would have been (best to worst):
- Moneyball
- The Descendants
- Midnight in Paris
- The Artist
- War Horse
- The Tree of Life
- Hugo
- Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
- The Help
Yes, I was so unenthralled by Hugo that I am willing to claim that one movie I haven’t even seen (The Tree of Life) is better than it.
This is yet another argument that the Internet has overturned the laws of economics. Something that provides more value is going to be priced higher. The countervailing argument has always been that lower prices are more than made up for in volume. That remains more of a slogan than a fact.
I’ll be happy to move this to the right thread if you tell me what that thread is.