Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

So not only does traditional library lending incentivize book buying among avid readers, but electronic library lending can incentivize digital book buying, which, as you pointed out, is even more convenient than traditional book buying, because it can be accomplished anywhere the reader has access to both an Internet connection and an electronic device ranging from a laptop computer to an iPhone

I really appreciate the message here, but holy run-on sentences, Sarah.

(Just trying to be honest, since grammar is something y’all here rip on book authors for).

Hopefully, your educational and heartfelt letter will actually reach his desk, to be read by him, not some office dweeb! Let us all know if he responds.

Great letter. I hope he reconsiders.

I am also appalled at the comment about NY Public Library and non-resident library cards. I currently patronize, and am now a volunteer at, a library that is not in my county. The library in my town is old, the people are rude, and the books I want are never there. I am now using a brand new, friendly, and easy-to-use library in the next county, and it’s worth the 30-minute drive. Thank God they don’t have the policy the NY Public library has adopted.

Perhaps he’s - not exactly right - but got some sort of point?

So imagine e-reading is up and running properly, and most readers have access to some sort of wireless reading device. And today ‘Harry Potter and the Unexpected Sequel’ is published. I can do the bookshop thing, but if I’m happy to e-read it I can either, on the stroke of midnight, download it for a heavily discounted £4.99, or download it free from the library.
Unless I reread books (and personally, I do) why would I pay? Even if I do reread books, I know I can borrow it again, anytime I like (because ebooks don’t get lost or go OOP) for free. 

Of course, that’s not the entire argument: it leaves piracy out of the equation - but I do think the man has a point. Presumably with e-books there’s no limit to the number of copies a library can issue, and no limit to the number of books they can stock. Nothing goes OOP, ever.

If you’re trying to run a MacDonald’s franchise, and beside you a state-run competitor is legally giving away the identical product for free, where does your profit come from?

Would there not be an argument that we need to rethink the idea of the library for the digital age? If I borrow a DVD from the library I pay £1.50 a week. (I think: I don’t actually borrow them.)
Perhaps there should be a fee - small fee, because otherwise people may chose to read pirated versions - each time you borrow an e-book?

Great letter Sarah!

I couldn’t agree more, and hope that he takes your advise and reconsiders his stand for his company.

Great letter!

Marianne said:

Of course, that’s not the entire argument: it leaves piracy out of the equation - but I do think the man has a point. Presumably with e-books there’s no limit to the number of copies a library can issue, and no limit to the number of books they can stock.

I don’t think this is the case. My library doesn’t have e-book lending yet, but I was under the impression that there are limits on how many “copies” can be out at any given time.  My library has 3 copies of one of my books. So three people can read it at any given time. They can request it on line and it will show up at their door. If they don’t finish within the timeframe, they can renew it on line as well. I’m thinking a similar system would be in place for e-books.

I’d love library downloads. Almost as much as I’d love a universal reader.

Ebooks from my library can only be borrowed by one person at a time and they have a waiting list the same as print books.  Also, when I re- borrowed an ebook that I had read digitally before from this library, I was able to borrow it but unable to read it because I was told by my Sony reader and Adobe Digital Editions I did not have permission to do so.  (No such problem the first time)

After much discussion with the library tech peeps I was informed that it was not their software, nor Sony, nor Adobe but something the publisher did to restrict the same person from downloading the book too many times.  ?????  So no rereading of ebooks?  Can this be true or was I getting a snow job from an uninformed and probably frustrated help tech?

So imagine e-reading is up and running properly, and most readers have access to some sort of wireless reading device. And today ‘Harry Potter and the Unexpected Sequel’ is published. I can do the bookshop thing, but if I’m happy to e-read it I can either, on the stroke of midnight, download it for a heavily discounted £4.99, or download it free from the library.
Unless I reread books (and personally, I do) why would I pay? Even if I do reread books, I know I can borrow it again, anytime I like (because ebooks don’t get lost or go OOP) for free.

The solution to that is simple: have a small wait before allowing libraries to lend the book. Many digital editions don’t release until later anyway. Libraries are already “giving it away for free,” so unless you’re arguing that libraries shouldn’t lend any books, your argument doesn’t hold water.

Great letter, Sarah. The publishing industry, at least a large part of it, is displaying the same alarmist, anti-technology attitude that sunk (sank?) the music industry. If they don’t learn the lesson from what happened there and embrace technology rather than try to stand in its way, they’re going to suffer the same fate.

Marlanne:

I’ve got a foot in your camp. I get the fear here and I bet some of it comes from authors. My first thought was “small fee” as well. I also think someone could clean up “renting” digital books for maybe one or two bucks for a one week stretch. Maybe someone is already doing this and I just don’t know about it.

I also see the other side of this. My feeling is that if the number of digital copies that can be out at any given time is comparable to the number of hardcopies that it might work. I also like limiting the number of times someone can check out the digital copy although this obviously does not apply to hardcopies. Seriously, if you liked it that much can’t you show the author some love?

On the absolute win side, with digital lending there is no issue with overdue, lost, or stolen books.

I already have many books on my Kindle that I wouldn’t read again so I know if I had read them free originally I would never have paid for them. Good for me, sucks for the publisher and the author. Free is great. We all love free. But if we want more new books, somebody has to make some money on the old ones. Milk, cows, and all that.

So yeah, I have no idea what the solution is. I hope someone smarter than me can figure it out because I love me some digital.

Presumably with e-books there’s no limit to the number of copies a library can issue, and no limit to the number of books they can stock. Nothing goes OOP, ever.

Speaking as a librarian at a large urban library who deals extensively with downloadable books (audio and e-books), The is indeed a limit to the amount of books we can issue and stock. It’s not a physical limit, as we don’t have to worry about shelf space for them, but a financial one.

Just like buying a physical book, we order x number of licenses (copies) of an e-book, for which we pay a substantial amount.  Once all the copies are checked out, you have to put your name on the hold list and wait for the next available one. In our library people get e-books for a few weeks and then the file becomes unreadable and the license reverts back to the library for the next borrower. It’s exactly like coming to the library for a physical copy of the book, and if there are no copies on the shelf you put your name on the holds list and wait.

In an ideal world we’d be able to buy multiple copies of every book ever published (both print and electronically) but as library funding keep getting cut, we can barely afford to buy any books at all right now. (I’m just slightly bitter about library funding decreasing in a time when libraries are being used more than ever)

One the plus side, a patron can’t accidentally drop an electronic library book in the bathtub or leave it on the bus or check it out and never return it, thus depriving future readers of that copy.  An e-book can have more enduring value in a library than a print book in terms of damage, theft, and general wear and tear.

An e-book can have more enduring value in a library than a print book in terms of damage, theft, and general wear and tear.

Libraries pay for them. They pay a LOT for them.
You also pay for libraries. With your sexxy tax dollars. So in a roundabout way, YOU HAVE PAID for library books.

If a physical book is popular at the library, it will wear out after being lent repeatedly, and the library will have to buy another copy. This is not true with digital books. If the library had to pay to renew their license after a set number of lendings, then the financial equation would remain level with physical books, otherwise, I can kind of see Sargent’s point (not in its entirety, but I do think publishers and authors have legitimate concerns about just how lending is going to work in a digital world). Here in the states we don’t pay a fee per lending, but in other countries (the UK for example) I’ve been told that they do. Perhaps libraries shouldn’t pay upfront for digital books, but should pay a small fee to the publisher/author for each lending?

Personally, I’m guessing that something like this will come down the pike in the not-so-distant future. A massive online-based digital lending library that rents books for a small fee.

Thank you Sarah - for the original letter and for the LIBRARY BOOKS: NOT FREE comment.  The library system I use in Canada is moving into ebooks, and although there is limited choice at the moment, I can see it as a growing market, especially in smaller communities where libraries are bound by physical space as well as dwindling finances.  Much as I loved the Bookmobile that used to show up in my neighbourhood once or twice a month, it is not as practical a solution to library networks trying to cover several hundred kilometers as an eLibrary.

Not only are the books paid for, but, as has been pointed out, there is no loss, no damage, no books returned smelling so foully of cigarette smoke that they have to be left outside for a day just in order to be reshelved.  There are innumerable arguments FOR ebooks, and the only ones against them appear to be based on mis-understanding about the DRM(?) technology which allows you to read the book and then ‘return it’. 

iTunes and others do the same with renting out movies and tv shows - once downloaded, the purchaser has 48 hours (or whatever) to view.  Then it is no longer available.

And frankly, I don’t buy a lot of books (a lot being a relative term - we packed over 100 boxes of books the last time we moved), and I do expect to be able to go to my local library and take out a favourite book every week for the rest of my life if it is available.  The joy of a library is access to something I do not wish to purchase, store, or own, but do want to read.

Boo to Macmillan.  They’ll eat their words.  Hope they have ketchup.

Kalen said:

If a physical book is popular at the library, it will wear out after being lent repeatedly, and the library will have to buy another copy.

I see the point, AND I wish you could see the mending area at our library! Often bindings on books split completely in two while there’s still a “new” sticker on the book.

We’ve seen a real decline in the quality of binding in books that have come out in the past few years. Older stuff that we discard for having yellowed pages still has perfectly firm binding, but new bestsellers fall apart after only a couple of check-outs. Our vendor rep claims that this is due to publishers wanting to keep the hardback price low while still paying a famous series author more money for new installments.

But I think the idea of libraries having to re-buy an e-book if it’s still popular could work, since the librarian in charge of that collection could decide whether to buy it again or not. Having to pay per check-out would be a budgeting nightmare, because you would never know how much a given book cost.

If a physical book is popular at the library, it will wear out after being lent repeatedly, and the library will have to buy another copy. This is not true with digital books. If the library had to pay to renew their license after a set number of lendings, then the financial equation would remain level with physical books.

The key word here is “popular.” 

For the very popular books, it holds true. But the vast majority of books, especially mass market paperbacks, simply can’t be replaced no matter how grody the actual copy is, or how much the patrons wish it would circulate.  This is because by the time the library has the budget to replace a well-worn, disgusting copy, you just can’t buy the new paperback any more. 

(Check out Wendy the Superlibrarian’s post on Jodi Thomas’s The Tender Texan here— http://super_librarian.blogspot.com/2009/10/librarians-dirty-secret.html—a book that circulated 67 times in the last 6 years, having been on the shelf for 18 years.)

My guess is that the library shelf-life is greater than the in-print purchase life for the vast, vast majority of books. And recall that once the rights have reverted to the author, the publisher simply can’t renew the library’s license, so it’s not as simple as just spending more money.

In publishing, which do you suppose is the norm?  You got it—FAR more books hit the “can’t buy it for love or money” stage than will ever encounter the “bought again and again” stage.  It seems to me to be a terrible mistake to base policy on the 0.1% chance of a library’s future purchase, which they can only exercise for the 1% of books that do not fall out of print.

LIBRARY BOOKS ARE NOT FREE.

I feel like I’ve been taken to the woodshed *ducks head*.

I think everyone is aware that libraries pay for books. I used to be a sales rep for a textbook publisher, though, and guess what? We spent very little time in libraries because that was not where we made our money. And piracy is real, not the boogey man. I know many people who’ve lost their jobs because of profit lost to piracy.

Authors and publishers live and die by bookscan numbers. An author’s success is not judged by the number of times her book has been read but by how many copies have been sold. If a library has three copies that are never read or three copies that are worn slap out it’s the same amount of money for the author.

I love libraries. I am pro-library, both in theory and execution. I am pro-digital lending, too, since I know those licensing fees are indeed expensive and go up significantly for multiple users. I’m just saying I get why the publishing industry is so terrified of all things digital. They need to embrace it instead of fight it so hard, but it’s always scary when someone is messing with your paycheck. And an individual publishing house can’t do much to change the existing algorithm:

Bookscan numbers=good=$$$
Bookscan numbers=bad=no $$$

The entire industry, top to bottom, needs to collectively move out of the stone age before authors will stop being terrified of digital rights, lending, and sales.

I don’t know. If Bookscan brings liquor I might let them in. I’m can be bought with a good martini.

Hmmm. Maybe that’s why Bookscan has such a stranglehold. I’m not the only one….

As an author published by Macmillan (St. Martin’s Minotaur,) I would love to have my books available in digital versions at libraries. I think Dena covers the cogent issues of use and licensing very well—thank you, Dena the librarian! Books in libraries—dead-tree, audio or digital—mean money in my pocket. Plain and simple. When I started out, library sales were what kept me afloat.

As a library user, I already download audiobooks from the Portland Public Library, available through Overdrive. I know I’d be all over ebooks if they were available as well. The convenience for a busy mom living out in the Maine countryside cannot be overstated.

As a volunteer at my local library, I suspect digital editions would INCREASE the variety of titles offered. A large number of romance titles, cozy mysteries and manga are available only in mass market paperbacks that cannot stand up to circulation. Our library won’t buy them because they’ll fall apart! A licensed digital edition would enable us to expand our offerings.

I strongly suspect that library patrons are among the least likely population to indulge in piracy. Indeed, I think having legally available digital editions that are free to the reader would decrease piracy. After all, no one is going to be rereading my books over and over every week as it they’re the latest from the Killers or Coldplay.

Having to pay per check-out would be a budgeting nightmare, because you would never know how much a given book cost.

They do it in other places . . . and I’m not saying it’s the only solution. I’m just saying it’s one possible solution.

It’s not just publishers and authors who are going to have to make adjustments as we enter into the digital age. Some solution is going to have to be found, or I’m afraid more and more publishers will have a policy like Macmillan’s.

Great discussion, guys, and great letter, Sarah.  I just have one question/comment about NYPL not letting non-residents get cards.  How is the NYPL funded?  If its paid mostly for by local property taxes as is the case in most public libraries (all public libraries in my state of Illinois), it is entirely legitimate and makes sense for them to limit services to the folks who pay taxes for the library.  I pity the person with the sub-par local library but there is a remedy….contact the governing body for the library and complain and work work work for an increase in taxes to make the library better.  Better/more professional staff, more books bought from publishers, money for programs to promote reading (look at Wendy the Superlibrarian’s annual programs with local authors).  All these things including a nice, well-lighted, comfortable library building cost tax dollars.  Sorry no free books to libraries, no free salaries to library staff and no free gas and electricity for the building.  It all costs.  Taxes pay for it and most libraries save the “goodies” (sometimes AV, sometimes a limit on holds for nonresident borrowers, sometimes digital resources) for those who pay for the library.

How is the NYPL funded?  If its paid mostly for by local property taxes as is the case in most public libraries (all public libraries in my state of Illinois), it is entirely legitimate and makes sense for them to limit services to the folks who pay taxes for the library.

I know that the San Francisco Public Library offers cards to non-residents. It’s free to anyone who’s a CA citizen and there’s a fee for out-of-state people.

I’m completely pro-library. My mum was a librarian and one of my earliest memories is being in the library as a toddler. I’m also completely pro-ereading. *Waves my Sony in the air*
I do, of course, understand that libaries have to pay for books, and that this is funded through tax.

My contention is that the man may have a point.

I want to read a book. Imagine I can phone my local Waterstones, and they will deliver a pristine copy to my door within 5 minutes for £6.99. Or I can phone my local library and they will deliver a pristine copy to my door within 5 minutes for free. The difference is, I can keep the Waterstone’s copy, but the library will take their’s back after 20 days. 
Your argument is that people will, reasonably often, be prepared to pay the £6.99. If not for that book, for the next.

Now, I can see that with actual paper books - because there is something tangible to have, to display, to share. But I’m fairly sure I wouldn’t pay for a virtual book when I could legally and fairly get the same book for free.
(I take your point that it’s not actually free, but free in the ‘I don’t have to pay anything extra’ sense of the word.)

I’m not arguing there’s anything immoral about libraries lending ebooks - I just can’t see how the publishers make money that way. Your assertion is that they make money because readers, who have read MacMillan Author’s Book Ten, and loved it, will go out and purchase that author’s back list. But why wouldn’t they just get them for free at the library too?
And yes, okay, the library pays for their copy, but if they can lend that copy infinite times, the return per book must be small. (And I was wrong about them being able to lend as many copies as they liked. I apologise. I am talking through my hat, and know it.)

I don’t think it’s a problem now, because most people don’t read ebooks. But if 90% of the poulation read that way, would it be a problem?
Perhaps it’s not, perhaps the numbers work out. But to me, it’s not an ethical issue about whether books should be available this way - of course they should - but a practical question of whether the existing paradigm (is that the right word?) of library lending works in a post-print world.

And if not, why not change the system? The important thing, as you said, is that:

... libraries exist to allow access to information for a community for free.

I do, seriously, know I don’t know enough to know if that’s a valid argument. And clearly there are other relevant factors - like piracy, and like the fact relatively few books are irreplacable: if a book I want isn’t available, I may read something else from the library rather than pay for it at a bookshop. I understand that.

But I can’t be certain that Mr Sargent must be wrong. (Do I get a gold medal for fence-sitting with that sentence?)

And…

When you borrow a library book, one would hope you bring it back so someone else can read it, too.

O/T entirely, but I was returning my library books yesterday, and the librarian confided in me that my eldest daughter has a £14.40 fine on her overdue books. Clearly this quaint notion that you ‘bring it back’ has escaped her completely.

A note about a couple things mentioned here, at least from how things work at my library system, for what it’s worth:

—as I’ve seen people saying what might be interpreted as “non-residents don’t pay for the library” (or I could be reading it wrong): non-residents still pay a fee to get a library card.  In my town, it’s $33/year, in the larger city I got a card at so I could borrow ebooks it’s $40/year (Best. $40. Ever. Spent.).  I know a lot of places in the States have statewide or county-wide library cards though I’d think that would be because of how the libraries are funded.

Though I totally admit that we get a lot of non-residents who think they shouldn’t have to pay for it at all (and boy, are they ever fun to deal with).

—as for having to reorder copies, that’s really only with the most popular books, if the numbers get really low.  For example we might have ordered 7 or 8 copies of the Harry Potter books when they were new, but not reorder until we have 2 copies left, and then only order one more.  In most cases, it’s more that a lot of the original copies we ordered get pulled from the collection because they haven’t been checked out in more than a year and we need shelf space for new books.  I’d check and see how many Nora Roberts and James Pattersons we have kicking around at the moment where the copies are 5+ years old, but the branch I’m at has non-typical circulation as it’s teeny-tiny.

—if this is what people meant, depending on where you are, it may not be legal to charge patrons a fee for borrowing.  The Ontario Public Libraries Act prohibits libraries from charging cardholders specifically to borrow materials.  I remember it coming up in an article I read about an Ontario library that wanted to charge $1 for borrowing a DVD, as they get lost/destroyed/stolen so easily.

I know other countries have models where libraries pay a small “royalty” for the number of checkouts, though, which is a different thing.  I’m kind of curious how this works though—if libraries are paying the same as they used to for the actual copy as well as “royalties”, or if they don’t pay as much up front, but make it up and more with the “royalties”.

There’s also the side issue that there are some books I’d really like to read that I’m not going to buy, period, whether available from the library or not (mainly because of prioritizing my spending), but I’ve rambled enough.

So it seems the publishers believe that if they don’t sell the books to the library, that the patrons will come and buy the books.  Well, for me that just isn’t the case.  I read a LOT.  And 99% of it comes from the library.  I don’t have a budget to buy all those books.  I’m happy that my taxes go to the library so I can get books there. 

I agree with Sarah - books in the library are good for sales.  Not having them there is bad for sales.  Consider when I DO buy a book…

WhenI buy a book, it’s usually one that I’ve read and re-read and I decide I want my OWN copy, because every time I want it from the library I have to get on the hold list again!  So, yes, you can check it out over and over again at the library, but it is a shared copy, so you have to wait.

Honestly, my “buy” threshold is pretty high.  But I have to think, across the board, that providing access to books means more sales. 

Oh, and there IS a delay between hardcover release and library availability, at my library at least.  It seems to take a couple of weeks the release date to get the books ready to circulate.

As another librarian and book lover, I have a few response to some of the comments.
Book lover first:

I also like limiting the number of times someone can check out the digital copy although this obviously does not apply to hardcopies. Seriously, if you liked it that much can’t you show the author some love?

I think this would not make any difference.  I have a number of mass market paperbacks at home that I re-read every year.  I just re-read The Blue Sword for the something-th time this past weekend.  The author got nothing for this.  HOWEVER, I also just purchased an additional copy of the same book on Amazon in order to send it to my niece who is turning into quite the book reader.  People who read share the love and discovery with other people who read.
Librarian, now:

I want to read a book. Imagine I can phone my local Waterstones, and they will deliver a pristine copy to my door within 5 minutes for £6.99. Or I can phone my local library and they will deliver a pristine copy to my door within 5 minutes for free. The difference is, I can keep the Waterstone’s copy, but the library will take their’s back after 20 days.

This is not really realistic as eBook lending goes.  You will not be likely to get a copy from the library within 5 minutes.  Most popular titles have long waiting lists.  Our library has 5 holds on The Lost Symbol right now and only one licensed copy.  With each user taking it out for 3 weeks, the last person on the list will have waited nearly 5 months to take it out.  If paying 6.99 for the title right now is something you can afford, you’ll probably pay. 
Thanks for taking up the cause, Sarah!  This is an awesome thread!

Nice letter!

MacMillan does sell a ton of textbooks and science titles.  Hit the students and hit ‘em hard.  Today’s students may very well be able to break DRM, the young whippersnappers!

More fun facts from libraryland

I am a librarian at a large urban library.  Digitally, we use Overdrive.  I can’t imagine why a person can’t recheck out an e-book.  We can do it immediately, if no one is waiting or the licenses are all in use.  If you use netlibrary they’re kind of hinky.  That could be the problem.

Public libraries may be city, county, or statewide.  In our case, the library is funded by the city.  Any many library cases, the library may not give cards to those outside their city.

We do have a financial agreement with the county library and the state library to provide cards-for-a-charge for citizens in the state.  New York state (or is it PA?) used to be a statewide library system so all state residents get a card at no charge.  It varies by system.

Subscription databases and digital books require a contract.  Access can not be gained willy-nilly by non-card holders.  In fact, they demand a card.  Subscription databases charge by number of card-holders or size of city or number of usage licenses.  In many cases for a city this size, that subscription can be hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Kind of a rant to Mr. Sergent: WHAT IS THIS MAN THINKING???

Libraries often pay MORE for a physical book.  That’s right.  Especially in the case of science books.  I can’t blame the publishers.  We cut a little into their income.  OK, for the most part that’s fair.  (Science books and journal prices are unconscionable).

IF we have money to replace a book, the physical book publisher gets another chunk of money.

We buy tons of bestsellers.  The publisher (and our vendor) is under obligation to get that physical book to us before the street date so we can finish processing and have it out that day.  (Harry Potter was a fun exercise in logistics) Oh! to have digital books that way!

We replace tons of book bygone bestsellers and classics - if they’re in print.  Ka-ching, more for the author/ publisher.

Lots of readers “sample” the book in our collection and then decide to buy it.

Unless Mr. Sargent was talking specifically about Macmillan textbooks and science.  He is so out of touch he may have to take his massive CEO golden parachute and go jump.

spamword:  enough54
Enough with me and my lengthy rambling posts!

If I buy an ebook for $10 and distribute to what - 100’s? 1000’s - of people illegally or I get that same ebook from my library (at no cost to me, though the library paid probably at least $10 for it), how much does that difference really affect the booksellers? My $10 up front is nothing, and there are still a whole lot of illegal copies out there.

I also get that piracy is a big issue that needs to be addressed. I just don’t see how keeping ebooks out of libraries will make much difference there.

Random points:

People may fall in love with an author after trying a library book and buy her back list because once you know you love an author, you want to have the books. Or because the library only has a few of her very large back list. Or as gifts.

For the books that libraries do replace because the books are popular enough to wear out and still available for purchase - for every one of those that they don’t have to replace because ebooks don’t wear out, it’s another new title they can buy with the same money, offering more selection to patrons and exposing a larger variety of books to said patrons.

Laurel - I’m wondering if sales are quite a bit different in the textbook market than in fiction or even most non-fiction. School libraries do stock textbooks, but I’m guessing most public libraries don’t, or at least not too many. But I thought that library sales were a pretty big number for other types of books. Do you know if that’s true?

Finally, worrying that some day, when 90% of readers read electronically, a model embraced today, when relatively few readers read electronically, might no longer work seems short-sighted. Adopt an ebook lending model today that works in today’s world and in the predicted near-term future. As the ebook market changes, change ebook lending as necessary to keep things working for all involved parties.

OT
For more info about consumers - both electronic and in-person - see the October briefing at http://www.trendwatching.com.

Maybe this guy is such an out-of-touch CEO/chach bag that he has no clue.

Jenifer:

Textbook sales is radically different from fiction, you’re right. Just guessing, though, I would bet that library sales for fiction are not a huge piece of the pie. B&N will deliberately over-order for the holiday season assuming the worst that can happen is they will return overstock to the publisher (another stupid publishing practice that is also practiced in textbook sales). This could mean hundreds of copies of a Dan Brown title, most of which will likely sell, where the local library will order 3-5 based on budget constraints.

There are so many things wrong with the business model in publishing that resistance to e-books seems small in comparison. At the end of the day, though, publishers are just like everybody else. They want to protect the bottom line. Refusing to loan e-books just probably isn’t the best way to do it.

When I can, I try to buy new. Especially from mid-list authors. Somebody put hours of blood, sweat, and tears into that book and if I enjoyed it it’s only fair that they make some money. Books aren’t like other entertainment mediums; they don’t get big money from advertisers like movies that have trickled down to TNT or per play royalties from radio stations. That being said, libraries have always been part of the publishing picture and people still made money.

Something new is coming with e-books. I don’t know how it will happen but it will be good for readers. If publishers are smart, it will be good for them, too.  If they aren’t there will be a new crop of publishers ready to take the reins, like some of the companies who are already concentrating exclusively on e-pub. It’s a cool time to be a reader!

There are so many things wrong with the business model in publishing that resistance to e-books seems small in comparison. At the end of the day, though, publishers are just like everybody else. They want to protect the bottom line. Refusing to loan e-books just probably isn’t the best way to do it.

Too true!

I would imagine that even the smallest libraries would buy at least one copy of smash hits like Lost Symbol, and there are a whole lot of libraries in the US. My library (Ann Arbor, MI) currently has 130 copies of the hard cover book, 10 large print, 8 audio (w/17 more ordered), and 4 abridged audio. In addition, they have 20 ebook copies and 4 e-audio. It’s considered a moderately sized (but consistently top-rated) library system with 5 branches and approximately 8 million lending transactions last year. There are many larger systems that would purchase at least that many copies.

In addition, they purchase copies (sometimes multiple) of many, many books that are less in demand.

I’d love to know roughly what percentage libraries play in book purchases for fiction and more mainstream non-fiction, but I’m guessing it’s larger than a drop in the bucket. Especially after you consider bookstore returns.

What any of that has to do specifically with allowing lending of ebooks, though, I’m not sure. I think I lost track of my point somewhere and am too tired to find it again.

You are so lucky. At my last public library (teeny town, no bookstore unless you count the Christian one or Walmart, which I don’t since I already have a Bible, am not into Amish romances or spiritual self-help, and Walmart is the devil) there were brand new titles from best seller authors that were only available through inter-library loan.

Very lucky, for sure!

no bookstore unless you count the Christian one or Walmart, which I don’t since I already have a Bible, am not into Amish romances or spiritual self-help, and Walmart is the devil

You have quite the way with words. :-D

Completely agree, SB Sarah. Libraries encourage reading, and that ultimately sells more books.  I would think publishers would be more worried about the threat to sales represented by the falling number of young people who read for pleasure.  Most avid readers I know developed their habit pretty young, aided and abetted by those pushers known as librarians.  The more books a library lends, the better for publishing, as far as I can see.  If readers, or would-be readers, can’t get the books they want IN THE FORM THEY WANT from a library, they might buy them—or they might watch TV or a movie instead (or if they are a committed reader, they’ll read an old favorite).  Then they don’t try a new author, or a new genre, and many potential sales are blocked.

On a tangential note, just because the e-book and piracy issues keep getting conflated and too many people are talking through their hats, consider the findings of Brian O’Leary, author of “Impact of P2P and Free Distribution on Book Sales.”  His preliminary findings are that only best-selling authors actually lose any sales because of piracy; mid-list and debut authors sell MORE copies of books that are pirated.  I’m not saying that makes piracy any less wrong, but it’s another area where panic is causing a lot of unnecessary stress and probably misguided effort.  I ripped these ideas off from author Carolyn Jewel, who actually contacted Mr O’Leary and read his report.  She also found out that he’s in discussions with RWA to use their data in his ongoing analysis.  You can read all the smart stuff she has to say about it on her blog.

@Dena: I know how you feel—it’s how I feel about reduced funding for community colleges when they are more in demand than ever, due to this crappy economy.

I am blessed by having THREE library cards—one for St. Louis Public Library, one for St. Louis County Library, and one for what’s called the “Consortium”, a group of small community libraries in my area which pool their resources. I do have to stop by all three libraries periodically to verify my address, etc. so that they know that I’m still qualified to have a card (by residency and reciprocal agreements between my library system and the others).

That said, each system does have limits on the number of books I can have.  At the moment, it’s 5. Some books are available for a varying amount of time, usually a minimum of 14 days, and a maximum of 21, and they’re almost always renewable.  Only one reader can have a book out at a time, and the library owns a limited number of each title.

I mostly download audio books, as I don’t have a good ebook reader, but I do have an IPod.

I STILL check out paper books and buy them too, when I can afford them. John Sargent needs an education in the reality of library patrons!

Just to throw out another variation on who can be a borrower from a given public library: in Ohio, all Ohio residents can get cards for free from any public library.  The libraries with which I’m familiar also have clauses to allow students attending local colleges whose permanent addresses are out of state to get cards, though I don’t know if that’s part of the rules or just something most libraries do.  Now that I think of it, this may have something to do with the fact that they all get some funding from the state, and in the case of some small libraries all their funding may come from the state level.  (Although after what our governor did to our budget last summer, lots of libraries that never had local levies before have one on the ballot for next week.)  Non-residents of the state can be charged for a card.

I have a hard time imagining not being allowed to go to any library I’d be willing to drive to often enough for it to be worth it and get a card, especially if I weren’t even allowed the priviledge of paying for one.  I’m managing with three plus the alumni association card for my alma mater’s university library for now, but I’ve got my eye on a fourth if there’s ever something I want that can only be found there by the release date.  What with the agreements that the biggest system has with some neighboring systems, any public library that won’t accept one of those four is probably far enough away that I’d rather just ILL it.

I think libraries should be able to lend e-books.  No different to the paper books.  I spend a lot of money on books each year but, like others have said here, I also use the library to try books out by new authors etc.  If I like them, I’ll buy that book and/or I’ll buy backlist and/or new releases.  And, just as importantly, I’ll tell people about them.  And those people may buy too.

And in Marianne’s example above, if the book in question was an author I knew and wanted, I’d definitely choose buying myself versus getting the library book for free.  Either in paper or e format.  Because I know I’ll want to re-read it.  If it were a new author, I might choose to wait for a library book (and there likely would be a wait) but depending on who had recommended to it and how keen I was, I might not.

I want to be published one day and I’ll want my books in libraries because I want people to read them.  Some people can’t afford to buy many or any new books but I still rather they were reading my books and (hopefully) telling people about them, blogging about them, etc which may translate into sales for me even if the initial borrower doesn’t buy a book. I agree with what Sarah said that you can’t punish someone for not being enough of a sale, because that person might be pushing you to all and sundry after loving your book even if he/she can’t afford it personally.

Piracy is a big concern but I tend to think that the sort of people who pirate consistently aren’t likely to buy the book under any circumstances.  Most people will pay and respect the rights if they can do so in an easily accessible, non DRM nightmare, I own what I buy, fair priced way.

I believe piracy is directly linked to availability: if I can have a book within the next month or so, even if I have to wait a bit for it, I’ll do it because I believe the authors and everyone involved with the book should get a reward for their job. But if I have to wait so long I forget the title or why I wanted to read the book in the first place, because at my library there is only 1 paperback copy of the book which becomes AWOL after the 3-4 lending; and I find on the internet a copy, I’ll probably take it. (I know it’s wrong wrong wrong, sorry). If they allow my library to purchase ebooks, waiting lists reduce, and I’m sure my turn will eventually come, I wait and read their copy, which I’m sure would contain no mistakes, or bad translations, etc. You can’t really fight technology, just use it so piracy will not be needed/profitable.

You don’t borrow files, cds, or dvds, you borrow books, music or movies. The format doesn’t change the “lost sale”. IMO, this publisher would rather do away with library lending, but can’t say that, especially to national selling newspaper

At this point, I can only conclude, publishers will be fighting e-publishing with everything they’ve got. Eventually they will have to accept the new technology, just as the music industry has had to. Best way to save a company, cut the executive salary, bonuses, And the 8 million dollar advance(s) for a single title(referring to Ted Kennedy’s book here) .

It’s been a banner week for Mr. Sargent over at Macmillan-

. This new, “updated” contract for Macmillan group does a couple of things:

1) REQUIRES digital rights from the author (I don’t know why an author would refuse to allow digital rights but some do, most notably JK Rowling)

2) Standardizes the royalties on e-books at 20% to the author. Current floor on e-book royalties is 25% and frequently they are higher.

On DTC (direct to consumer) sales, Macmillan is pushing the royalties a bit higher than previously- 10% rather than the previous 5%.

The e-book thing really bugs me. While Amazon maintains they are losing money at $9.99 ebooks, many exclusive e-pubs offer books their books for lower. I can only assume they turn a profit as most of us are unwilling to pay someone to go to work. There is no print or shipping cost and no book returns to count against royalties. It’s easy to track the sale. Much lower labor cost and the market is growing.

I hope the agent pushback is tremendous on this. Or authors go union.

I’ve read just about every digital romance novel my library has to lend and hope your letter sinks in to the powers that be.  Why are so many publishers hung up on the medium?  Through the ages people recited stories, then they were written on paper, now they are digital.  Stories have always been shared, the medium has changed.  Not moving to digital is tantamount to saying that he doesn’t want to share the stories anymore.

When DA had the OMGFucklong! comment thread attached to their Readers’ Rights post, I thought, Wow!  There’s some pretty strong feelings here!  I’m a newish e-book reader, and I didn’t really get why there was such outrage.

Now here we are today, and once again, four comments into the discussion on e-books, piracy is mentioned, and I’m feeling the outrage.  Why does the fact that it’s an e-book automatically mean there’s a bigger chance of piracy?  WHY would an e-book reader have to pay a charge that a p-book reader would not?  WHY would a library patron have to rent an e-book when she can borrow a p-book?  WHY are e-book readers less trustworthy than p-book readers?

Especially since, according to Maili on the DA post, most pirated books electronically available were scanned from print books.  Having e-books available to borrow does NOT mean they will immediately be pirated by the cheap, thieving e-book borrowers.

Some people have admitted to pirating books, only because they couldn’t get them any other way.  The pirates all seemed to be agreeing that, if there weren’t so many obstacles in the way of a reader giving a publishing company their money, they wouldn’t be pirating.  They would prefer to buy a legal e-book.

Having books available in more formats means more readers, and more sales.  I have discovered authors in libraries, and gone out and bought their entire backlists, often in multiple copies.  Hello, Lois McMaster Bujold!  How do I love thee?  Let me count your books, and buy them, give them to my friends, and buy some more!

I’m now an e-book reader because of space issues.  I cannot buy more physical books.  I don’t have anywhere to put them, unless I become a hoarder.  Having become an e-book reader, I really like reading books on my reader.  It’s infinitely more comfortable to read from than a p-book, especially a hardcover p-book.  And I LOVE that I can carry several books around with me at any given time, without throwing my back out.

And now I’m getting incoherent, so I’ll stop.  I wish the people who are afraid that e-books are going to cause the end of the publishing world as they know it would get over their Ragnarok! We’re All Going to Die! thinking, and start looking for ways to make the inevitable changes work for everybody.

Thank you to all the other librarians who commented and I concur.  Libraries pay for the books, they aren’t free.  Circulation of ebooks whether via Overdrive or Netlibrary do force a return.  I just wish they’d figure out how I could return it early and a good pricing model for unlimited, simultaneous checkouts - I mean it is an electronic file afterall.  Fines to use ebooks is annoying, minimally, and simply wrong.  Oops, I meant fees not fines, but effectively, the same thing in this case.

Taxes - do pay for the library, typically, and usually part of property taxes.  What frustrates me is that a mileage will pass to fund the library and then the county/state/bleeping government will redirect the funds to something else.

Ann Arbor, only an hour away.  I’m so thankful for MelCat (Michigan’s electronic library catalog and inter-library loan system) or else I’d never be able to find what I want at my little library in DeWitt.  I just hope the gov. doesn’t trash it.  And stopping my political rant here.

Finally, as a reader, if I’m going to try out a new author, I want 2 things.  First to try him/her for free, that way if I didn’t like the book, nothing lost.  If I love it, then I’ll try to get my hands on all their books.  Second, if the author writes in a series, I want to read the first book first.  Libraries are MUCH better at having book one in their collection than a bookstore.  Ex. I was given book 6 in Eloisa James’ Duchess series.  Well, I want to read book 1, so I use interlibrary loan to obtain it.  I LOVE IT!!  So, much so, I now own every one of James’ books except the 2 about to be re-released, which I’m thinking will be great Christmas gifts.  I also had a book given to my written by Debbie MacComber that is in a series.  Same scenario, except I didn’t care for it.  So, I’m not going to buy all her stuff.  So, maybe the publisher lost the sale of one book because of the library, but another scored big.  Anyway, same thing for me whether it be paper or electronic.  I currently prefer paper as I spend all day on the computer and I like to share my favorite books with others.

Good heaven, this aversion to sharing books makes me wonder if we even would HAVE libraries if they’d been invented under our modern understanding of intellectual “property.”

Like many here, I check out books in the library to see if I would like to buy them.  Those I’d read again, I buy.  Those whose authors I like, I buy more books from also.

And loaning library e-books will the same limited system it is right now; you loan one of your three e-books by that author, someone reads it and returns the file.  The next person gets the file.  That’s always been the weirdly (wonderfully) communist way libraries create knowledge in the middle of a market in which knowledge is a product people sell.  And yet this sharing activity drives people to buy books!  Handy.

I’ve also wondered—if you had more Harry Potter readers than ebook copies in a library, whether a small revenue stream could be set up—pay a smaller-than-purchase price to get a “rent” copy right now that you would otherwise wait in a long “free” line for, which would expire at the end of your reading term but also offer to let you purchase the book at a reduced price (since you’ve already partially “bought” the book by “renting” it).

If publishing bigwigs would do their jobs and set up some sensible monetizing strategies for e-books, they might even make MORE money from them.  Sheesh.

I know other countries have models where libraries pay a small “royalty” for the number of checkouts, though, which is a different thing.  I’m kind of curious how this works though—if libraries are paying the same as they used to for the actual copy as well as “royalties”, or if they don’t pay as much up front, but make it up and more with the “royalties”.

Here in the states we don’t pay a fee per lending, but in other countries (the UK for example) I’ve been told that they do. Perhaps libraries shouldn’t pay upfront for digital books, but should pay a small fee to the publisher/author for each lending?

I’m assuming you’re both talking about PLR, and ouch. The library itself doesn’t pay PLR. The library patron doesn’t pay PLR. The goverment does (at least in the UK).

There’s a cap of £6600 per author in the UK, and you have to apply for it. From the website, I get the impression it actually bypasses the publisher altogether and goes straight to the author, but I’m not sure about that.

There are several mutual international agreements which means if you’re from a country with PLR and your book is in a library in another country with PLR you can claim it there, too. I believe it also counts towards certain sales figures, too.

(The PLR website is unexpectedly interesting: Did you know Nora Roberts was the second highest loaned adult author in the UK 07/08?)

If you were talking about a fee per ebook for a patron, I have no idea since I’ve yet to encounter a library that will loan me eBooks here! There is a fee for things like Audio Books, CDs and DVDs, so it wouldn’t be unusual. It’s normally a couple of quid, depending on how recent an item is, for a loan length similar to a book (as opposed to a video rental store or iTunes, which only let you have something for a few days).

...whether a small revenue stream could be set up—pay a smaller-than-purchase price to get a “rent” copy right now that you would otherwise wait in a long “free” line for…

@Windowshoppist
Our library system has something like this (or at least they did I haven’t paid much attention lately) with hardcover bestsellers. We have a free waiting list and a read now list. I think it’s a dollar a book. Also on recent releases that have a long waiting list the library loan period is shortened from 3 weeks down to 10 days on the free list books.

I’ve also wondered—if you had more Harry Potter readers than ebook copies in a library, whether a small revenue stream could be set up—pay a smaller-than-purchase price to get a “rent” copy right now that you would otherwise wait in a long “free” line for, which would expire at the end of your reading term but also offer to let you purchase the book at a reduced price (since you’ve already partially “bought” the book by “renting” it).

The Ann Arbor library offers this type of “rental” now for popular print books & DVDs. They offer many under normal lending terms and buy extra copies that impatient patrons can pay $1/week for. I don’t see why such a system couldn’t be developed for ebooks, but if it requires considerable additional work for library staff, they may not have the staff/budget.

Some people have admitted to pirating books, only because they couldn’t get them any other way.  The pirates all seemed to be agreeing that, if there weren’t so many obstacles in the way of a reader giving a publishing company their money, they wouldn’t be pirating.  They would prefer to buy a legal e-book.

I’m all in favor of ebooks, but I’m still afraid this applies much, much more to readers who would reply to a post on a site like this or Dear Author, which I think covers a small percent of people. I think that more easily available ebooks means a lot of people would buy books instead of stealing them, and it means that more people would steal them. I have no idea where the balance would end up.

Still, as with so many other areas of life, I think we should not use that logic to punish those who abide by the rules.

~Moreover, LIBRARIES are paying for the book. Libraries BUY their books. They aren’t free from the publisher. And often, the library pays more for the digital copy than we do as consumers because it’s not as discounted.~

So exactly on the point. The book is purchased—author and publisher are paid. The library provides a service to those who want—or need—to borrow a book rather than purchase it. It’s already been purchased.

At the end of the allowed time, the book is returned—if paper—or erased (would that be the right term) from the borrow’s device.

Everybody wins.

One thing that seems to be missing from this discussion is whether we have the right to do with eBooks as we please.  With a print book, I can purchase it and share it with my friends.  If I don’t feel the need to own it forever, I can donate it to the library.
With an eBook this is extremely restricted.  I can buy it and sometimes can get it licensed for x number of devices.  But I can’t give my license to anyone else if I don’t need to own it forever.  I can’t give my used eBook license to the library to supplement their few copies.
This model of digital ownership makes me very wary.  Right now, a library can go to a bookstore and to Amazon and purchase any print title or music CD or DVD and add it to the library’s collection.  This is not possible with any eContent that I am aware of.  Sure, we can purchase a Kindle and load it up and loan the kindle with the books on it, but that would not work in many libraries.
I hesitate to say that this new model of content ownership is devious and anti-library, but it sure feels like this could get really bad for libraries if it isn’t nipped in the bud soon.
I have this quote hanging on my desk at work:

The libraries of America are and must ever remain the home of the free, inquiring minds.  To them, our citizens - of all creeds and political persuasions - must ever be able to turn with clear confidences that there they can freely seek the whole truth, unwarped by fashion and uncompromised by expediency. - Dwight D Eisenhower, 1953

Jen - I don’t know if it’s true in all libraries, but my local library cannot go to the bookstore or Amazon to buy books. They have a catalog (or perhaps multiple catalogs, I’m not sure), and ever item they purchase comes from the catalog. Not all items are available there, even if they are available in bookstores.

And the local library doesn’t generally buy ebooks/e-audio directly. They work through a company like overdrive to manage that aspect of lending. So they can’t just go onto a website like Samhain’s and buy an ebook that they like either.

In addition, books donated to our library almost never end up in circulation. They’re sold by the Friends of the Library, and proceeds from those sales go back to the library.

Isn’t it amazing how many different models there are in the US for libraries?  We fund them any old way we can and it differs wildly from state to state, county to county and town to town.  And how great it is to have access to so many books all in one place to be able to read.  Reading some of the stuff publishers of journals and books are saying now, we’d never be able to set up any type of library—pool our money, buy some books and share…it must be communists!  Certainly its a violation of my rights to make as much money off of writers and readers as I, the middleman, can. 

All of us commenting here at least have access to a computer, maybe at your public library again but probably your own computer so we have some money to spare.  Libraries were “invented” when books were expensive and salaries were low so owning more than a copy of the Bible and maybe a book with Shakespeare was beyond the means of most people.  Libraries still allow us all to stretch our budget.  They allow folks with no money, out of work, students, to read what they absolutely can’t afford to buy. They allow us to learn and allow us to enjoy.  We read romances but libraries have stock reports, books on the Artic and on the Amazon, encyclopedias, novels no longer in print, books 1, 2, and 3 in a series where I can only buy book 4.  And libraries are the main buyers of some kinds of nonfiction.

As was pointed out their funds are being cut in hard times when people need them even more. Its nice to see fiction writers here stick up for libraries.  Lets all make a point of saying good things about this wonderful institution and letting whatever funding bodies support them know that cutting some thousands out of a resource used by so many if NOT they way they should go in these hard times.  Cut their secretaries or landscaping or whatever, not the library book budget.

Random, take or leave it though thought: 

It seem to me your letter was way too long to be effective.  Heck, I was interested in your point of view and I stopped on paragraph 3.  The people at the other end aren’t actually interested in your POV or doing a whole lot of reading (ironically).

A couple of short paragraphs like those below might be more effective, at least from a word count POV.

The shorter version:

Your position on libraries and digital works seems to be self defeating. Libraries offer a legal, regulated, and revenue generating method for people to sample your books.  I’ve bought books that I wouldn’t have ordinarily thanks to borrowing in an e-format.  And what’s worse, if people aren’t given easily, legal ways to use content digitally, they start to pirate it, aka music and movies.

You’re losing out on profits and control by saying no to libraries on e-formats.  Good luck with forcing people to buy your books in hard copy in if they don’t want it that way and can’t preview it either: I suspect you’ll need it in the end.

Again, just a thought.  You’ll probably get a response anyway because you’ve got a great blog going on.  ;)

way to go Sarah.

Nicely put Sarah.