Feedback | Letters to LJ, May 1, 2011 

Shortsighted!
If publishers could prohibit libraries from loaning print books multiple times without paying more, they would (bit.ly/e0a7fO). Legally, they can’t—not with a purchase. Digital books aren’t purchases, they are licensed, and everything, including the content, remains under publishers’ control. They think libraries are a kind of benign piracy. They don’t value that libraries grow readers and without libraries their “installed customer base” would be much, much smaller. We should reject this and demand more—more protection against censorship, more privacy, more rights for readers. This is a terrible and shortsighted move. Oh, and guess what: the money we spend to re-up that license is money we don’t spend on another [HarperCollins] title....—Barbara Fister, libn., Gustavus Adolphus Coll., St. Peter, MN, and columnist, LJ Academic Newswire

Decreased market share
I agree that this is a shortsighted move by publishers (bit.ly/e0a7fO). Many print books, especially the older ones, are good for 100 to 200 circulations, if they were well constructed. However, there have been many a print book come to me in pieces after only two or three circs due to poor construction. I can see how they arrived at 26 circulations as a cap, because the majority of print books, with today’s trade print practices, are worn to pieces by the time they hit the mid-20s. This particular move, though, will hurt the larger libraries more than any others, and that’s also where most of the book sales come from, the very same larger population bases that support large libraries. I am thrilled when I have a book that has checked out 26 times in my library. We are a small, rural library, and our most popular items may see 15–20 circulations, but rarely so many for the vast majority of items. We serve a population of 11,000. As it is now, with shrinking budgets and rising costs, many libraries have already cut down on the number of duplicate copies they purchase for popular items. Now you are going to cap ­ebook loans at 26? Just because something can be done does not mean that it should be done, and this is a good example of a small beneficence that could go a long way toward increasing a publishers market share. Instead, the lack of grace will go a long way toward decreasing said publisher’s market share.—Joy Wandrey, Dir., Washington Cty. P.L., Springfield, KY

A small fee?
Could there be a small fee to continue lending beyond the defined limit by HarperCollins (bit.ly/e0a7fO), perhaps 10¢ or 20¢ for each additional reader? If the item is popular nationwide, that could create substantial income for authors and publishers, and we wouldn’t lose the book. The limit would force each library to purchase its own subscription for ebooks; perhaps that’s the point.—Martha Boetcher, Dir., Saugatuck-Douglas Dist. Lib., Douglas, MI

Patrons and libraries lose
As our company is moving into the world of ebooks, we are certainly watching [the ebook story] very closely (bit.ly/e0a7fO). It will be interesting to see what other publishers do and how libraries will respond to this change. The way I see it, if a library only has X dollars to spend on ebooks, then it doesn’t matter how you slice it, the library will only spend that amount. HarperCollins will not benefit because the revenue will not go up by limiting the usage, only the way the money is divided. Patrons and libraries appear to lose the most.—Bonnie Cribbs, VP Mktg., WT Cox Subscriptions, Shallotte, NC

Why? Money!
First, if [publishers] were so concerned with authors, why do most of their contracts require “all rights,” basically giving publishers carte blanche with the work, and ownership of copyright (bit.ly/e0a7fO). Secondly, it would seem that with the first sale works for books, and their recycling to used bookstores, thrift stores, prisons, overseas, et al., why would publishers be concerned with increased reading by many of an ebook, since their hard copies rarely get dumped except by bookstores that can’t return them for credit? My guess is money, and control, not for the authors but for the publishers. On the other hand, there may be a lawsuit by an author seeking royalties on each ebook circulated, in which case the publisher will need to settle with the authors on some system.—Paul T. Jackson, Ann Arbor, MI

Limits from licenses
This is just one of the many limitations that e-publications are placing upon libraries (bit.ly/e0a7fO). We contend with and juggle many different licensing agreements that limit access to journals and books already. This is a wake-up call that we, “libraries,” are licensing access to intellectual content. We are not acquiring or purchasing the text or content. There’s a huge difference, and HarperCollins’s licensing just makes that clear to all.—Miriam Kahn, MBK Consulting, Columbus, OH