In the first significant revision to lending terms for ebook circulation, HarperCollins has announced that new titles licensed from library ebook vendors will be able to circulate only 26 times before the license expires.
Mention of the new terms was first made in a letter from OverDrive CEO Steve Potash to customers yesterday. He wrote [emphasis in original]:
[W]e have been required to accept and accommodate new terms for eBook lending as established by certain publishers. Next week, OverDrive will communicate a licensing change from a publisher that, while still operating under the one-copy/one-user model, will include a checkout limit for each eBook licensed. Under this publisher's requirement, for every new eBook licensed, the library (and the OverDrive platform) will make the eBook available to one customer at a time until the total number of permitted checkouts is reached.
Though the letter leaves the publisher unnamed, HarperCollins confirmed today to LJ that it is the publisher referred to.
The publisher also issued a short statement: "HarperCollins is committed to the library channel. We believe this change balances the value libraries get from our titles with the need to protect our authors and ensure a presence in public libraries and the communities they serve for years to come."
Josh Marwell, President, Sales for HarperCollins, told LJ that the 26 circulation limit was arrived at after considering a number of factors, including the average lifespan of a print book, and wear and tear on circulating copies.
As noted in the letter, the terms will not be specific to OverDrive, and will likewise apply to "all eBook vendors or distributors offering this publisher's titles for library lending." The new terms will not be retroactive, and will apply only to new titles. More details on the new terms are set to be announced next week.
If a lending period is two weeks, the 26 circulation limit is likely to equal roughly one year of use for a popular title. For a three-week lending period, that stretches to a year and a half.
For librarians—many of whom are already frustrated with ebooks lending policies and user interface issues—further license restrictions seem to come at a particularly bad time, given strained budgets nationwide. It may also disproportionately affect libraries that set shorter loan periods for ebook circulation.
While HarperCollins is the first major publisher to amend the terms of loan for its titles, two other members of the publishing "big six"—Macmillan and Simon & Schuster—still do not allow ebooks to be circulated in libraries, much to the consternation of librarians.
Likewise, many in the profession have pointed out publishers are overlooking the value added by librarians in promoting books and fostering book culture, a role detailed by librarian Katie Dunneback at the recent Tools of Change for Publishing conference.
Sarah Houghton-Jan, Assistant Director for the San Rafael Public Library, CA, and a blogger who has long voiced dissatisfaction with the ebook status quo, responded to the news:
Consumer market eBook vendors like Barnes & Noble and Amazon don't let publishers get away with the amount of nonsense that we get stuck with through library eBook vendors. I fault the publishers for not realizing what a huge mistake they are making by not realizing that new formats are opportunities--not threats to be quashed. I fault the library eBook vendors for not standing firm and saying "no" to asinine demands. And I fault the library profession for, to date, not standing up for the rights of our users. Our job is to fight for the user, and we have done a poor job of doing that during the digital content surge.
By contrast, Christopher Platt, Acting Director, Collections and Circulating Operations, The New York Public Library, said that he could see the move as "a great first step and an interesting development." Nevertheless, he said he would prefer an industry-wide solution rather than deals unique to a specific publisher. "We naturally gravitate to publishers that are easy to work with."
Additional publisher anxieties The OverDrive letter also spells out concerns from publishers over geographic and territorial rights, and lending practices tied to card issuance, seemingly a sign of companies new to dealing with libraries in terms of electronic content (database publishers have long dealt in FTE or residents served).
OverDrive likewise says publishers are concerned about the size of consortia and shared collections, and "seek to ensure that sufficient copies of their content are being licensed to service demand of the library's service area, while at the same time balance the interests of publisher's retail partners who are focused on unit sales."
I don't see how a digital version of a book is different from a print version? Why didn't publishers bar lending of print copies of books? Or, limit the circulation?
This needs to be challenged. It's nothing more than a ploy to get more money.
Posted by VEDow on February 25, 2011 01:03:32PM
This is wrong, I will be encouraging my libraries to avoid Harper and Collins books. 26 is very low, a hard cover book will last a lot longer than that before it is worn out. It is hard enough to get the librarians to support the ebook programs because who needs a librarian to handle the electronic stuff. Or a building to put it in.
Posted by Marcie on February 25, 2011 11:12:38AM
If publishers could prohibit libraries from loaning print books multiple times without paying more, they would. Legally, they can't - not with a purchase. Digital books aren't purchases, they are licensed and everything, including the content, remains under their control.
They think libraries are a kind of benign piracy. They don't value the fact that libraries grown 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 short-sighted move.
Oh, and guess what: the money we spend to reup that license is money we don't spend on another of your titles. You guys do the math.
Posted by Barbara Fister on February 25, 2011 01:23:15PM
This will hurt the publishers but they don't know it yet. They will lose sales by cutting us out. Readers don't buy all the books they read, but they have always bought enough to pay the bills. We buy books, too. If nobody can share a book, nobody cares. That's not piracy, that's "social networking" before it got trademarked.
Posted by Gerry on February 25, 2011 01:39:51PM
We will probably just avoid HC books. And when our patrons ask us why we are not purchasing the ebook they want, we will tell them exactly why, and also provide the names, address, and emails of places that they can register a complaint.
Posted by Theresa on February 25, 2011 11:50:07AM
Well, well, well. Everybody still loving those e-books? It was just too good to be true, folks. That seals it for me...I'll never buy a Kindle, Nook, or whatever else they come up with.
Posted by Maggie on February 25, 2011 11:57:31AM
I agree with Gerry. Shame on Harper Collins for such a short sighted move. Limiting public access (and therefore public awareness) to their reading material through libraries will only hurt their bottom line, not increase it.
Posted by Vanessa on February 25, 2011 02:01:54PM
As our company is moving into the world of ebooks, we are certainly watching this very closely. 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
WT Cox Subscriptions
Posted by Bonnie Cribbs on February 25, 2011 02:06:33PM
I wrote a law review article on the use of license agreements
to restrict library lending of ebook which came out a few
months ago: "Digitization and Democracy: The Conflict Between
the Amazon Kindle License Agreement and the Role of Libraries
in a Free Society", 40 U. Balt. L. Rev. 3 (2010).
The article is available at
http://law.ubalt.edu/downloads/law_downloads/Law_Review_Laughl
in_01.pdf
Posted by Gregory K. Laughlin on February 25, 2011 02:06:53PM
Our library has had copies of books that have circulated WAY more than 26 times and are still in great shape. We have also had titles for 20+ years if it is a classic or a popular item.
I say we boycott titles by Harper Collins. See how much "extra" money comes from this poor decision.
Posted by Tina on February 25, 2011 02:13:20PM
The publishing industry needs to look at companies like
Netflix. If they really want to stay relevant they need to
move to a model where the entire catalog is available to an
unlimited number of borrowers simultaneously and they charge
the libraries based on average circulation numbers over some
period of time. No more copy limits, no more circulation
limits, no more DRM. Trying to treat virtual objects like
physical objects and then enforcing the same arbitrary
limitations on them just makes you look like a greedy jerk.
Posted by Ian Anderson on February 25, 2011 12:15:19PM
"Why didn't publishers bar lending of print copies of books?"
They didn't need to, it's self-limiting. How long does a copy of a really popular title last before it starts to need major repairs or replacement?
Posted by sharon on February 25, 2011 12:15:47PM
This is shameful. Large publishers know how library funding is suffering and this is grubbing for money on an intangible, therefore indestructible item. I'm appalled.
Posted by Rebecca on February 25, 2011 12:18:54PM
Someone should start a facebook protest. It social networking worked for Eygpt.
Posted by Chris on February 25, 2011 12:21:54PM
Boycott HarperCollins, both print and eBooks. With the pending budget challenges facing libraries across the country, costs have to be trimmed somewhere. Might as well start here.
I'm not sure which Senior Vice President of Marketing at HarperCollins thought this up, but they didn't think it through. Print titles can survive into perpetuity when properly cared for; carry with them a discard value to the library; and bolster collections beyond short-term popularity. Limiting the license to 26 checkouts limits the value of the material and makes it less competitive than related print.
As a businessman, I get it. If I looked at my industry and saw a 47% swing from one media to another and around $13 billion dollars being in play over the next 3 years, I'd want to protect my profits too. But this isn't the way to do it. No library would accept a 26 check-out limit of a print book. No library would purchase print books that could not be utilized inside the library even where not checked out.
It amazes me that many libraries pay full price for eBooks, whose production cost is nothing for each copy beyond the first one, under an unlimited checkout policy. With budget cuts looming, it seems like a good time to draw the line in the sand. Unless these limited licenses come at a substantially reduced rate, there is no acceptable argument for paying for them.
Now is not the time to waste your collections budget. Spend it elsewhere.
Posted by Johnathon on February 25, 2011 02:35:25PM
Are you kidding me? Why on earth would I buy from HarperCollins now? I don't buy physical books or DVDs or any other item for my library that GETS TAKEN BACK after 26 circs! So HarperCollins is "committed to the library channel." Yeah, and I have a bridge to sell you too.
Posted by Patty on February 25, 2011 02:41:40PM
Perhaps a boycott would send a message to publishers who want to cap ebook circs. What if all the Overdrive libraries said no thank you and stopped purchasing HarperCollins ebooks? Aren't there something like 13,000 libraries contracted with Overdrive?
Posted by Barbara on February 25, 2011 02:47:03PM
Could there be a small fee to continue lending beyond the defined limit, perhaps 10 or 20 cents 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 their own subscription for ebooks, perhaps that's the point.
Posted by Martha Boetcher on February 25, 2011 02:47:46PM
Perhaps time for all the Overdrive libraries to boycott HarperCollins ebooks. If 13,000? libraries stop purchasing perhaps they will hear that--the silence of no more clinking coins. If HarperCollins gets to do it, certainly every publisher will all follow suit. Draw the line in the sand now.
Posted by Barbara on February 25, 2011 02:54:19PM
First, if they were so concerned with authors, why do most of their contracts require "all rights" (basically giving publishers carte blanc with the work, and ownership of copyright.)
Secondly, it would seem that the first sale works for books, and their recycling to used bookstores, thrift stores, prisons, overseas, et al, why would the publisher 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 publisher. 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.
Posted by Paul T. Jackson on February 25, 2011 12:58:47PM
Yep this and other restrictive items like fixed pricing by the Agency 5 publishers. Have gotten me to look elsewhere for reading materials. You Have Lost a Customer! Me! and I have to thank you! You have forced me to look at independent writers and other reading sources I would have never bothered taking the time to look and research before.
Thanks again for your non-customer considerations of price fixing and adding even more draconian efforts to tighten our leashes.
Well this dog has left the yard with no plans of ever coming back. Abuse me too much and I skitter on out of here.
.
Posted by orb9220 on February 25, 2011 01:03:28PM
This is just one of the many limitations that e-publications are placing upon libraries. We contend with and juggle many different licensing agreements that limit access to journals and books already. This is a wake-up call to the fact 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 Harper Collins licensing just makes that clear to all.
Posted by Miriam Kahn on February 25, 2011 03:11:46PM
Well, I for one just won't be buying or borrowing a Harpers Collins books anymore. Hey, Harpers Collins! If you're reading this, just know that you're not really protecting your authors, you are harming them, because this means more people will pirate your books.
Posted by Jenny Bo Benny on February 25, 2011 03:11:43PM
We typically weed books damaged, through wear and tear, after 30-40 circulations and purchase replacement copies. How is this really any different?
Posted by Eurydice on February 25, 2011 03:12:30PM
I'm definitely up for a boycott, this is ridiculous. They would never be able to do this with print books, but ebooks are such a big threat to their business that they have to try every avenue to stamp them out. Thank you HarperCollins, you just made my book selection a little more easy - since your titles are no longer in the running. I totally agree with the previous commenter who said that for every title the library has to re-up that is one less new title they will be able to purchase. Obviously, they are no longer able to do even simple math.
Posted by Fireflywishes on February 25, 2011 01:28:28PM
I usually check the first book of a series out of the library to see if I like it enough to buy the entire set. Not going to be buying any more series from HarperCollins, and am strongly considering returning the 2 HC books I bought from Amazon on Tuesday since they have a 7 day return policy. If a publisher won't support libraries, I won't support that publisher with my purchases.
Posted by Peggy on February 25, 2011 03:31:22PM
Is this at all based on the number of patrons a system serves? A large metro library system is going to hit 26 circs long before a small rural system. 26 seems like an awfully arbitrary number.
Posted by Eric Bateman on February 25, 2011 01:45:13PM
Send a protest to feedback2@harpercollins.com. Let's start a boycott of all books published by Harper Collins and its various subsidiaries. And include Macmillan and Simon & Schuster. Any publisher not supporting libraries does not deserve the support of readers.
Posted by Pat on February 25, 2011 03:46:34PM
The question is: how do we move from licensing to ownership of a "first copy?" We, the consumers, need to demand changes in this business model. Libraries are not the only ones being poorly used.
Posted by Crystal Williams on February 25, 2011 01:52:45PM
This is another reason why traditional publishing is on its way out.
HC sees the end of their business model. Controlling the flow of
information is no longer feasible. Authors don't need companies like
HC anymore. Once more of them realize this we will have one less
middleman with his hand out.
Posted by matt on February 25, 2011 04:43:51PM
This is outrageous. Libraries need to stand firm against these publishers.
That means... do not buy ebooks from these publishers. Apparently, their
decision was motivated by wanting to make sure that they and their
authors are properly compensated. If they receive no compensation
because of this new business model, then they will have to make a
change.
Posted by George on February 25, 2011 04:46:51PM
This foolish micromanagement of how end-users actually use their product worked so well for the record business, didn't it?
I'll bet that some characters in Taipei, Manila and Kuala Lumpur see another fine business opportunity on the horizon.
Posted by Old Rockin' Dave on February 25, 2011 04:56:42PM
I agree that this is a short-sighted move by the publishers. Many print books, especially the older ones, are good for 100-200 circulations, if they were well-constructed. However, there have been many a print book come to me in pieces after only 2 or 3 circulations due to poor construction.
I can see how they arrived at 26 circulations as a cap, because the majority of print books with todays trade print practices are worn to pieces by the time they hit the mid-20's.
This particular move though, will hurt the larger libraries more than anyone else, 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 with 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 e-book 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 beneficience that could go a long way toward increasing a publishers market share, and instead the lack of grace will go a long way toward decreasing said publisher's market share.
Posted by Joy Wandrey on February 25, 2011 02:59:04PM
I realize that publishers exist to make money and that authors need publishers to make money so that they can make money and keep writing books.
However, 26 circs seems to be a little low. If this is there intent, then they need to reduce the price of a license.
Posted by Allison Stewart on February 25, 2011 04:59:09PM
Libraries should take a look at what publishers they are spending money on. With our shrinking budgets many of us could choose to not purchase titles from Harper Collins unless the title is requested by our patron base. I know in our library out of the large book order I do only five or six titles are in high demand.
Posted by Rebecca on February 25, 2011 05:05:18PM
Physical books fall apart (and need to be replaced), so the publisher has a revenue stream for popular books. eBooks are forever and will never, ever need to be replaced, so there's no revenue stream down the line for publishers or authors. (That sounds like a stretch, doesn't it?) So it really seems like this is about where we are now, budget-wise, in terms of preserving the ability to continue loaning popular books by keeping them in our collection.
I don't think it's reasonable to not stock Harper titles entirely. But ask for a trade-off -- maybe libraries can get a refund for unpopular ebooks that don't circulate.
Posted by Ambaum on February 25, 2011 05:08:23PM
This could only function if the cost of each license was low enough to compensate. If the cost to license a title for 26 checkouts cost the library 1/4 as the average paperback book, then such a restriction may work for both the publisher and the library favor, as it introduces an ability to weed e-books, by not renewing the license. We as informational professionals need to recognize that licensing with limited terms may be the future, and perhaps, instead of fighting it, we should push for lower cost for limited licenses. If publishers want to limit checkout, they must lower the licensing cost.
Posted by Jacob Browne on February 25, 2011 05:47:10PM
A normal hard copy book would have at least 40
issues before being discarded and then going
into the second hand book trade. Publishers
need to make a living but this is unreasonable.
Posted by Kerry B on February 25, 2011 03:55:55PM
I buy ebooks for a public library that spends about $270,000.00 per year on emedia titles. I can't imagine (with our four person collection development staff) how we would track expired licences on individual titles and remove catalog records from our ILS if we decided not to re-up a title. Budget issues aside that alone would make me stop purchasing titles from that publisher. It wouldn't make me purchase more print copies either it would just be a straight loss for HarperCollins.
Posted by jane on February 25, 2011 06:40:56PM
I've been using Harper-Collins text books in my university classes for years. This decision just motivated me to permanently switch the text book that my students buy. So, Harper-Collins, you just lost about 700 annual text-book purchases to Oxford University Press.
Posted by Philosophy Prof on February 25, 2011 06:55:41PM
JUST_SAY_NO!!!!!!! That is the only way we will ever fight this insanity.
Posted by Leslie on February 25, 2011 07:00:15PM
As I select the e-books for the system, as well as control the materials budget, I will not be purchasing any e-books from Harper Collins.
Posted by Laura on February 25, 2011 05:16:18PM
I believe that the 26 circ number was meant to equal one year (of 2-week loans.) I also agree with the poster who mentioned that tracking expired licenses etc. would be a nightmare. HarperCollins would be better off not selling at all through Overdrive if this is their major concern.
Posted by Aliason on February 25, 2011 08:40:45PM
My library has seen a huge increase in the demand for ebooks since
Christmas due to the fact that so many people got readers as gifts. Just
like print readers, people can't afford to pay for all the titles they want to
read and they are turning to their local libraries to provide "free" books.
By limiting our circulation of ebooks, the publishers are only hurting
themselves in the long run. By increasing the cost to libraries they are
going for short term profits over truly growing their business.
Posted by Eric P. on February 25, 2011 09:20:43PM
@Eurydice: How is it different? When libraries weed they do it at their own discretion as needed for their collection and their community. Different libraries have different needs. But WE do the weeding! NOT the publisher or the vendor who sold us the book. We do not need publishers dictating our local weeding policies. And if they do need to place circ caps then why 26? That is pretty short. There are sometimes 30 or more people waiting for hot books at the eNYPL. So there you go. We pay a whole lot more for ebooks, but no discounts. We ought to get more mileage than 26 circs. And if we are just leasing the book and don't own it, then it should have a nice deep discount on it or maybe "buy two" and get extended circ time.
Posted by Barbara on February 26, 2011 05:27:08AM
HarperCollins is squeezing every turnip it can for blood now that bankrupt Borders owes them $25 million.
Posted by Barbara on February 26, 2011 05:30:44AM
I don't usually agree with ANYTHING done by Harper Collins, but I do see the case for some restriction. Amazon has set it up so that Kindle books can't be used at libraries at all. Amazon wants a payday on every transaction, and other publishers want to avoid the e-book library question altogether.
An e-book could stay in circulation forever which is not the same as a print copy. I could see restricting the license. This is done far more blatantly with CD's that come with textbooks where the license cannot be transferred preventing a student from selling his or her book with the CD at the end of the year. I don't know about a 26 loan limit. It should be something that reasonably resembles the amount of time a hard cover copy would remain in circulation.
Posted by MarionNYNY on February 26, 2011 09:55:48AM
Wrong move HarperCollins. In the end it is only going to bring you negative publicity.
Posted by D. Day on February 26, 2011 12:15:41PM
What is confusing to me is that when a library buys a paper book, they generally get about 40% off the list price. But when a library buys (or, ahem, excuse me, leases) a copy of an e-book, they pay full list price if not more! So if HarperCollins is capping circulation on e-books, will they be giving libraries a discount??
Posted by Annica Stivers on February 26, 2011 10:56:12AM
This is again one of those insane notions that someone sittingi n a big
publishing office comes up with. These folks have no idea how rich they can
become by allowing books to be read and loaned among consumers. Digital
media CANNOT be contained. These folks are just begging to be put out of
business.
Posted by Ateeq Ahmad on February 26, 2011 01:06:37PM
It seems an obvious move, from their points of view, for every other publisher to request a similar deal. This makes ebook "ownership" much more expensive for libraries. I know my library system already sinks huge amounts of undocumented support costs into helping our users navigate the procedures and technical problems that arise when using DRM content on a large variety of devices. It's not uncommon for us to spend an hour on the phone walking a patron through some unusual licensing error or other technical problems with things like file associations, etc. I wish we could charge publishers for those expenses. That might make up for the insult of a 26 circ limit.
Posted by Sean on February 26, 2011 06:47:04PM
it doesn't matter how long it takes the real thing to wear out. E-books should
never "wear out" cause it costs the publisher diddly squat to format and
distribute them- no factory, no raw materials- and they're still overcharging for
it. Not only should they never wear out, they should be 1/2 their price!
Posted by Carrie on February 26, 2011 07:03:45PM
What about consortiums? We have 64 libraries in ours.
Does that mean one third of our libraries can have one
circulation before we replace it?
Posted by Matt on February 26, 2011 09:39:54PM
I am going to boycott Harper Collins on my ereader. This is a penny wise/pound foolish decision on their part.
Posted by gwen on February 26, 2011 09:48:36PM
This works out to be a one dollar rental fee per circulation of an eBook, plus hosting fees. So Harper Collins wants to rent eBooks under the pretense of working with libraries?
Then eventually why will libraries even be needed as middle men in an eBook rental model?
Posted by Linda on February 26, 2011 09:54:20PM
I was checking out ebooks on my county library's OverDrive site earlier today, and they held the license for two copies of one current best seller I was interested in reading. There is a waiting list of 47 people ahead of me for that book. You are given 5 days to download the books after email notification of availability, then 2 weeks to read to book before it expires and is released for the next user. It could be over a year before 23 of those on the waiting list got through with the book, and if I was still interested I might get the chance to borrow it. Then, to make things even more like a lottery, you can only have 5 books at a time on your waiting list. I fail to see how library lending is such a threat to big name publishers, unless frustration drives people to seeking a pirated copy.
Posted by KH in NJ on February 26, 2011 10:15:54PM
this is just big publishers trying to profit from tech-derived features of this medium; it's contrary to libraries' missions, and reaaly it wouldn't be that different from lending print copies.
I just wonder if those publishers are, at the same time, contemplating paying for libraries' services provided to them under the form of titles promotion and book reading friendliness - not to mention preservation for the future!
Posted by Paula Sequeiros on February 27, 2011 05:18:53AM
Are these actions by Harper Collins stupid? Yes. Surprising? No. Corporations
are run by two kinds of people - risk taking optimists and risk averse
protectionists. When companies are growing and thriving, the optimists hold
sway. When companies are struggling and tightening their belts (which is
when they most need to take new risks) the protectionists hold sway. The
bean counters at Harper Collins are sitting in meetings and saying "There's
danger out there in the ebook world. We're losing profits. We have to protect
ourselves. We've done an extensive study, that shows the average paper
library book was circulated 26 times before it was replaced by a new copy.
Therefore, we should implement a "26 times loan expiration" on ebooks."
Harper Collins is trying to "bolt the barn door after the horse has fled". This is
a classic example (and there are millions) of struggling businesses looking
backwards, and protecting themselves against the past. Will this policy last?
Probably not. Because traditional publishers like Harper Collins are dying.
Most of them will be gone soon, in 5 years maybe, certainly in less than 10.
Borders, Harper Collins, etc. are last century's businesses, trying to impose
last century's rules, on a new world. That they're dying is not important,
because they're not necessary. In fact, the reason they are dying is because
they are not necessary.
In the not-too-distant future there will be many authors self-publishing
ebooks on the web (there are already some pioneers). Apple and Amazon and
Google will help them distribute, but even those guys aren't necessary to the
process. The music industry is showing the way for books, and I expect books
will follow a very similar model. More and more authors will follow the
example of bands like Radiohead, and publish their work directly to their fans
from their websites, bypassing the middlemen. We'll go to Stephen King's or
Douglas Coupland's website, pay $5 via Paypal or Visa, and download their
latest books. Those authors will make more money ($5 per ebook) than they
would have if Harper Collins had published their work ($2 per paper book),
we'll pay much less ($5 per ebook versus $19.95 per paper book). The
missing $14? That's what Harper Collins stands to lose.
Harper Collins justified being paid that $14 because it could print books - it
owned big presses and distribution networks. The other stuff that they also
provided - editing and marketing - were add-ons, things they did to make
their books look better and sell better. Their competitive advantage (like it
was for newspapers) was having big presses. Presses don't matter any more.
ebooks don't have to cost $19.95, because the expensive manufacturing
process is unnecessary. With ebooks Harper Collins not only has no
competitive advantage, they're actually at a disadvantage. Harper Collins'
books will costs more than pure e-publishers' ebooks because Harper Collins,
has to buy and maintain their big presses and warehouses, which drives up
their costs. The fact that Harper Collins is a paper-print publishers makes it
harder for them to compete against e-publishers, which makes their survival
all the more unlikely.
Harper Collins is breathing its last gasps, which is what this "26 loan limit"
really is, a death rattle. It's trying to force its own "printing press" competitive
disadvantages onto a new e-publishing world that doesn't need them or want
them. Businesses survive when they provide added value worth paying for. The
only businesses that can impose unnecessary tariffs and get away with it are
monopolies. Harper Collins is no monopoly, it has no reason to exist, which
means it won't for much longer.
Posted by John Ranta on February 27, 2011 05:44:33AM
As libraries encounter more and more difficulty in communicating with vendors, a new approach might be considered. Atacking through and with stock holders. I'm sure that someone can devise a strategy that involves stock and stock holders.
That is if libraries can collaborate at the macro level. Buy out the SOBs or create your own companies. IT may be too late the latter.
How many libraries in North America?
Posted by Punch Jackson on February 27, 2011 10:36:26AM
Why is it that the only major publisher that seems to get it
is Baen? They actually maintain a free ebook library, and
don't use DRM.
Posted by Mark H. on February 27, 2011 12:20:42PM
One unanswered question in all this is whether the authors who publish with HarperCollins have agreed to this. I would like to see, for example, Michael Chabon, Neil Gaiman, and Barbara Kingsolver (all HC authors) stand up and speak up for libraries.
Posted by Donna Mettier on February 27, 2011 04:20:16PM
Not impressed. Slippery slope:
http://is.gd/snorer
Posted by John Kirriemuir on February 27, 2011 04:30:34PM
As an author, I think this is a necessary move that is long overdue. I hope other publishers follow suit, and quickly. When copyright has expired, that is one thing. But I cannot understand why, when it comes to intellectual property, intelligent people feel justified in demanding something for nothing. Why should a single copy of a work become infinitely available to anyone who wants it? Under such an arrangement, who could afford to write and publish books? Under this emerging model, with publishers setting lending limits, libraries can exercise an easy, simple option: simply buy (or license) another copy of the ebook.
Posted by Ken on February 27, 2011 04:38:46PM
Authors have no say in this, so it's disingenuous for publishers to invoke them in their rationale. This is also so disappointingly unimaginative. Why didn't someone predict that this move would be enormously unpopular? Are they really that out of touch? Or so removed from readers that they just don't care?
Posted by Barbara Fister on February 27, 2011 05:22:38PM
So does this mean that if I buy an ebook and let 26 of my friends read it I have to buy it again?
Posted by Buford Page on February 27, 2011 06:49:19PM
Why did Harper Collins make it so complicated?
There are two basic ebook models - Pay-per-Title or Pay-per-Loan. Buy, or Rent. They should have just gone with a nice and simple 'Pay-per-Loan' model instead of a cross between the two. I'd be happy to pay 50 cents (even a dollar!) per loan and let borrowers decide which books only get borrowed once and which books get borrowed a hundred times.
Silly Harper Collins!
Posted by PamL on February 27, 2011 08:54:01PM
Libraries should consider this an opportunity to evaluate their purchase/lending/collection building practices. Large sums spent on genre fiction and ten week wonder best sellers only to be sold off for a pittance in "Friends of the Library" book sales six months later are a waste. Is it rude to ask what has happened to collection building? And please don't tell me something as shallow and inane as "Well, it's all on the web anyway."
Posted by gary daily on February 27, 2011 07:24:18PM
Self published content FTW!!!
Posted by Shawna V on February 27, 2011 11:41:36PM
I don't really agree with this move by Harper and Collins either. As a librarian, I have to say, (where I work at least) we most definitely embrace new technology. Any good library should because that is where people are increasingly going to for what they want these days. If we didn't, we would become obsolete very quickly I think. We are trying very hard to provide a good range of downloadable, current titles but what is going to give when we have to keep renewing the lending licenses- the ebook collection or the print collection? And guess what? We pay publishers for both. Libraries are not magically going to have any more money to spend than we do already, we will just spend it on different things.
Posted by Amy on February 28, 2011 02:03:04AM
As a library user rather than a library professional, I say boycott all 3 of them and don't buy their print or digital catalog. There are a lot of books I want to read, but not all of them are available at my public library, and if I want to read a book enough, I'll find a copy somewhere. I love my Nook, I love the ease of online downloads and look forward to where this technology goes. I think seriously the book publishing industry needs to look at how music and cinema handled this and do a better job, but instead they appear to be simply making the same mistakes that those industries did and looking just as greedy. And look- Netflix and Itunes are still in business. It's not going away.
Posted by Nancy on February 28, 2011 06:28:12AM
Popular children's books circulate many more than 26 times. We do pay a bit more for library bound and prebound books, but they may circulte 100 time.
Posted by Peggy Williams on February 28, 2011 08:57:18AM
Publishers are soon going to make it impossible for people to read. Talk about business models that self destruct....
Posted by kathy on February 28, 2011 07:05:10AM
This just looks plain greedy. HC saves the cost of printing the book, saves the cost of distribution of the book, doesn't give a discount AND NOW wants to limit the number of times it can circulate to such a low number?! They are asking to be boycotted.
Posted by Martha on February 28, 2011 07:21:18AM
I am – well, I was going to say appalled but that sounds so dramatic! – say instead “very concerned” that more and more, media seems to be being sold (rented?) on the basis of rights/licensing rather than actual ownership. Software, then music, and now books – currently from one publisher but others are likely to follow this lead if it is not challenged. When did this ever get discussed, addressed, approved? It has just insidiously wormed it’s way into the marketplace.
And I can’t think of any way to fight this except by NOT buying their materials, which cuts EVERYONE’S throat.
What’s really galling is that what publishers are so jealously guarding and demanding the most guaranteed payment for is their LEAST expensive option for selling and distributing. No physical item production costs, no shipping, no returns, no replacements. They are already demanding list price (on Overdrive, which our library uses) for nothing but a file. Isn’t that enough???
I am totally opposed to piracy and file sharing, but faced with this sort of thing, one can’t help realizing why so many users these days think it’s an acceptable alternative.
Posted by Diane Bronson on February 28, 2011 09:24:42AM
If what Barbara Fister writes can be backed up by data, then this shouldn't even be an issue. I think a boycott is a mistake as it means people can only buy books to access them which is exactly to the publisher's benefit. A public boycott would work but not one by libraries. We need data that shows that free content drives sales of paid content. I think right now that's a mixed bag; yes for films, yes for some artists, no for music in general.
Posted by Peter Atkinson on February 28, 2011 10:51:04AM
Ah. Planned obsolescence. That's why so many print books we buy are falling apart prematurely also?
Posted by Pam on February 28, 2011 11:17:32AM
As a school librarian, one of my hopes was that e-books would be one way to encourage reading among the new generation of "screenagers", students who find paper books uninviting. As has been said by other commenters, this is short-sighted thinking on the part of Harper & Collins (and other publishers, if they follow suit). I see e-books as a way to broaden the base of readers, not diminish it, and it is these readers who will be more likely to purchase their own copies of favourite e-books in the future.
Posted by Heidi Piltz on February 28, 2011 11:34:35AM
I'd like to see OverDrive drop this publisher. If you are not happy about this restriction please contact Overdrive and ask them to do this on behalf of their customers. Perhaps this is the srongest message we can now send to Harper Collins.
Posted by Eileen on February 28, 2011 11:47:40AM
I must admit, I am very ignorant about ebooks. I love the feel of a book in my hand and doubt I would ever get used to a tablet and scolling.
Included in my ignorance is the license aspect of these ebooks. If I puchase an ebook from a distributor does it expire? I assume the rights are the same as buying music online or CD? Could I donate my copy of an ebook to a library?
If I cannot, I doubt I will ever consider purchasing an ebook reader or the ebooks themselves.
Posted by Marvin Nash on February 28, 2011 12:11:17PM
Libraries would refuse to buy a book that came with a license
agreement, so why do they accept DRM and weird licenses with
electronic content? Publishers are worried about infringement,
sure, but that's why there's the copyright act.
Posted by Ryan on February 28, 2011 12:14:42PM
HarperCollins' decision to limit their ebook lending will not help their ebook sales.
Why? Because libraries are not the only ones lending ebooks. With both the Nook and the Kindle providing the option to borrow and lend ebooks for two weeks, we see a growing number of websites that provide convenient platform for readers to exchange ebooks. Today you have websites such as BookLending.com, Books for My Kindle, Books for My Nook and eBookFling.com (not operating yet), where you can borrow and lend ebooks easily and for free.With a growing number of exchange platforms and users, these restrictions will become meaningless. You can stop tens of thousands of libraries, but you can't stop millions of ebook readers that would like to borrow and lend books to each other.
Posted by raz godelnik on February 28, 2011 12:17:52PM
Ebook buyers DO want to OWN the ebooks they purchase, and ebook sellers are making tiny little adjustments to allow them to "loan" the books they purchase to friends. Libraries are ebook buyers, too, and we want to OWN the electronic materials we purchase. We have always recognized that when something becomes very popular we have to buy more copies to keep up with demand. We will do the same with ebooks. When the "holds" list gets too long, we will buy more copies. Publishers who limit total circulations for ebooks are unfair to readers and libraries.
Posted by Pat L. on February 28, 2011 01:22:38PM
please boycott Harper Collins and encourage your networks to do the same. If
publishers are allowed to set their own policies without pushback, we will surely
soon see pay per view models, or worse, outright bundling and embargoes of
useless and uninteresting content that we must purchase regardless of our
interests. Ultimately, this reduces choice ands...oh wait, we don't own our
content anyway. We already lost this battle with journals and database
aggregators. We're now losing it with ebooks before the format mainstreams.
SEEK OUT AND PURSUE NEW PURCHASING MODELS AND NEVER SIGN WITHOUT
REVIEWING AND REVISING CONTRACTS!
Posted by Dan on February 28, 2011 01:49:55PM
OK so my regional public library network subscribes to something like 1,500
ebooks through OD. That, by the way, is across 150 public libraries. If they
even have what you want, just go ahead and try to access it. You can't.
Because very likely it's already checked out. Most ebooks on our system have
waiting lists, some of them greater than 26 patrons. In theory unless the
network bought a whole lot of copies, you're pretty much screwed. Just for
fun, I did a search to see how many were immediately available--less than a
third of the total. Oddly, even a good book like Huckleberry Finn was on a
wait list--heck you can get that on Google Books any old time you want but
no not through our library's ebook vendor. Compare this to inter-library loan
for print--you bet that across 150 libraries, someone will have what you're
looking for, and it will be on the shelf and upon your request will be in your
hands with a day or two. So there is a lot that is not working with this ebook
stuff vis a vis libraries.
All of this brings up a largely unsaid aspect of ebooks--for the most part they
are not being purchased--ok, licensed--for an individual library (Im' talkin
public libraries). Mostly they are for networks/consortiums. So they need to
be thought of differently, very differently. Both libraries AND publishers are
stuck in their print-age thinking about this stuff.
Posted by Ashford on February 28, 2011 03:29:33PM
Media librarians: Find a way to communicate directly with patrons like me,
who use your Overdrive service. We will be up in arms.On Overdrive search
lists, I would like to see a brief entry at the point where a noncooperating
publisher's title would appear, stating that this publishers does not license
books to libraries. Or in the case of HarperCollins, caps circulation.
This is what comes of negotiating through an intermediary, Overdrive. If a
statewide or nationwide library consortium negotiated directly with publishers
of ebooks and audiobooks, wouldn't they have much more clout?
Many books are published only because the publishers can count on the solid
base of library purchases. That is clout. In the ereader/mp3 age, we are all of
course sensitive to the survival needs of publishers and authors.
Posted by Barbara Michalak on February 28, 2011 03:55:14PM
Not only paper books last longer than 26 reads, but AFAIK libraries do have the rights to fix the book including replacing bad pages with photocopies, rendering the age of paper books to potentially unlimited.
Posted by S P Arif Sahari Wibowo - http://www.arifsaha.com/ on February 28, 2011 03:55:15PM
As the world becomes more and more digital, if digital books are limited in public libraries, then eventually - sooner than we expect - we will no longer be a society with free information to all it's citizens. The gap between the elite and the masses will broaden. The person with less money will not be able to self educate. The people with less financial resources will not be able to be as informed as the more wealthy. Only the wealthy will have unlimited access to information. This is a serious danger for a Democratic Society and way of life. It is the wrong direction for America!
Posted by marie harmony on February 28, 2011 04:37:04PM
As the world becomes more and more digital, if digital books are limited in public libraries, then eventually - sooner than we expect - we will no longer be a society with free information to all it's citizens. The gap between the elite and the masses will broaden. The person with less money will not be able to self educate. The people with less financial resources will not be able to be as informed as the more wealthy. Only the wealthy will have unlimited access to information. This is a serious danger for a Democratic Society and way of life. It is the wrong direction for America!
Posted by marie harmony on February 28, 2011 04:38:55PM
My guess would be that libraries will just not choose HarperCollins books, so readers won't see them, and won't decide they like the book enough to buy it themselves in electronic or paper form. Bad for HarperCollins all around.
Posted by Kevin on February 28, 2011 05:06:55PM
26 checkouts is a ridiculously low number. Apparently they didn't talk to any staff who work at actual libraries but as someone else said they want more money. We have books that have been checked out 60 or more times and are not very old. I suggest a boycott of HarperCollins is in order or the situation will only get worse.
Posted by Marian on February 28, 2011 05:56:51PM
I've seen boycott sites and upset librarians; I'm not sure that avoiding HarperCollins is a great idea.
There are so many e-resource and electronic content vendors that I'd like a low cost per use model from, at least this is a fresh idea...
If my public library could have the whole collection of popular titles and only pay a small fee (based on what it was worth) each time someone used one, I might like it. Libraries that use rental collections for their popular titles may understand.
Posted by Lady C on February 28, 2011 05:46:24PM
I don't know why all these people who are into e-readers have gotten their panties in a bunch. In my experience, people who use e-readers are just into gadgets and like playing with toys. I've heard it said many times from these e-reader aficionados that they never read anything before but now they can't put their e-readers down. Gee, I wonder why? You can tell from the comments here from these folks that they are not literary at all. How many times have I counted the misuse of its/it's, your/you're, etc. in these posts? Too many too count.
People. If you like to read, pick up a real book and stop playing with toys.
Posted by Andre MackIntire on February 28, 2011 09:15:38PM
HarperCollins Puts 26 Loan Cap on Ebook Circulations -
This company, and others who follow it, are dooming themselves to irrelevancy. I do not understand this kind of attitude.
Posted by Lillian Santiago on February 28, 2011 09:29:42PM
A ridiculous move from HarperCollins. My guess: someone at HC, likely a corporate suit who hasn't been th the library since his Grade 10 english class forced him to, got scared when someone suggested ebooks could be duplicated, and made a knee-jerk reaction without considering the consequences. Obviously, this publisher is well behind the times, extremely greedy, or both.
Posted by John on March 1, 2011 10:59:59AM
FYI, I read the a great book on e-book from my library and then bought
a hardback for my 22 year old grandson. Everyone won.
Posted by Elinor VANDERGRIFF on March 1, 2011 01:51:58PM
26 circulations for a hardcover is a joke. 100+ is common for our fiction bestsellers. What about the books that never circulate? Will HarperCollins be reimbursing libraries for the fact that their books are uninteresting or unpopular? Doubt it.
Posted by Michael on March 1, 2011 01:48:12PM
The replacement of books in libraries is based on the condition, not the number of checkouts. Many popular books are checked out 100+ times before the book has to be replaced or repaired.
Libraries have guidelines that require that we consider longevity of materials purchased to insure we are being good stewards of public funds. This change will ensure that H-C future e-books will not be available to many communities on the virtual shelves of their libraries.
Posted by Laura Speer on March 1, 2011 02:37:04PM
One argument I haven't seen yet (although I'm sure it has already been made) is that HC is assuming 1 circ = 1 read. What about the user who checks out 3 ebooks for their gadget of choice, but doesn't get around to reading the 3rd (which just happens to be an HC title) before it has expired? That user just burned up a circ without actually consuming the product. Why should the library be punished for that? Imposing this artificial shelf life is a (bad) joke.
Posted by Andrew W. on March 1, 2011 03:50:53PM
I'll think twice before purchasing. --school librarian
Posted by tess on March 2, 2011 08:44:02AM
Gee, I wish our customers were Marcie's customers, who clearly are a lot more careful in how they handle library materials. That said, I agree that limits on circulation are short sighted. I wonder if when it is time to 're-up' the license and the title isn't 'new' anymore, if there will continue to be restrictions on the number of circulations.
Posted by Kay on March 2, 2011 08:31:54AM
I am completely disgusted at the blatant "Mr. Burns-Esque" stance being taken by HarperCollins, DESPITE suddently not having the cost of printing, storing and distributing physical copies of a book - an older title at that.
Profit margins are *that low* on digital editions eh guys? Really? No, really? /shakes head
And you want to rip it out of libraries too? That's awfully public spirited of you.
To think, some people actually wondered why this whole DRM pocket lining fiasco was a bad idea when it was first introduced on other products...
If this lunacy continues, I will never again pick up a HarperCollins book.
Posted by Alex on March 2, 2011 11:52:59AM
Just for a point of reference. Our library teen section has 2 copies of Stephen Chbosky's "Perks of Being a Wallflower". One copy has been checked out 88 times and the other 95 times. These books are now 10 years old but are not in bad enough shape to be replaced. Teens are definitely rougher on books than adults so where they are getting this 26 number from amazes me.
Posted by Joe on March 2, 2011 10:15:09AM
Schools that use non-fiction ebooks for class research papers will never buy ebooks repeatedly. Under the new policy, a teacher with 5 students in 5 different classes working on the same topic will have exhausted the uses of the book before they have completed their research papers. There must be some other solution.
Posted by Karen Perry on March 2, 2011 03:18:57PM
This is just another result of the culture that worship bean counting and the bottom line. If bean counters had their way, libraries and book stores would only stock cookbooks.
Posted by Randal Offense on March 3, 2011 12:58:48PM
the ebook is an important thing in my life.
Posted by steve on March 6, 2011 02:35:23PM
I hope libraries retain the right to sell the "second-hand" copy after the 26 loans.
Posted by Andy Jenkinson on March 7, 2011 02:29:38AM
So I guess the music producers should jump on this bandwagon - every mp3 you download should degrade in quality over time to mimic the effect of repeated playing of a vinyl lp.
Posted by John Dow on March 7, 2011 11:37:09AM
I will never buy a HarperCollins ebook again in my life time.
Morons.
Posted by Marc P de Groot on March 9, 2011 12:12:08PM
Wow, this is just crazy! The same rules that apply to paper books should also apply to the ebook version. I will also be encouraging my library to stand up against this craziness!
Posted by Denise on March 14, 2011 06:59:04PM
I agree with Theresa in my heart, but I have a problem with your comment as
well.
First, all this talk of boycotting HC has been reactionary and expected. In the
end, a publisher with the financial clout that HC has will win because they have
markets outside of libraries.
Second, asking our patrons to do our dirty work is just plain wrong. While I like
the spirit behind filling the HC staff e-mails with angry patrons' complaints, it's
also something I would hope you agree we shouldn't do.
Posted by Joe on March 14, 2011 08:25:22PM
As a public librarian I have to say that 26 is an extemely low number. Many of our popular items circulate over 100 times before they have to be re-ordered. Personally I will not be using Harper Collins e-books any longer.
Posted by on March 16, 2011 10:19:49AM
This is a very sad move on the part of the publisher, and a dangerous precedent
for the future of books and libraries. As Marcie points out above, this is due to
the way eBooks are licensed, rather than purchased, but it should not be allowed
to proliferate. Libraries and reading are the cornerstones of a civilised society -
something even profit making companies should appreciate and support.
Posted by T Aitken on March 16, 2011 10:47:43PM
As a writer/publisher, I'm grateful. What HarperCollins is
doing here is telling us what they think ebooks are really
worth. I've adjusted my book's price accordingly:
http://y42k.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/harpercollins-tells-us-
what-ebooks-are-really-worth/
Posted by Ray Charbonneau on March 21, 2011 01:05:20PM
I fell in love with some of my favorite authors by checking out books at the library. Afterwards, I sought out other titles they had written to buy for my personal collection. Libraries allow readers to "test drive" books they might not otherwise pick up. As more and more authors are debuting with eBooks, since the print industry makes it so hard to break into the business, I see the need for libraries even more as a way to attract readers. I fully intend to check with my own publisher and see what their policy is on eBooks at libraries. (Oddly enough, I was thinking of this today before learning of this article.)I would love to see my first book, which is only being offered in eBook format right now, available at my local library. To me, that says you've arrived as an author more than a slot on some best seller list.
Posted by Tamara A. Lowery on March 22, 2011 06:18:08PM
A great new step? What nonsense!
Posted by Chris Furst on March 29, 2011 02:13:07PM
It is sad to say but I understand why the ebook publishers are limiting the uses of ebooks. A regular book will have a limited shelf life based on how often it is used. A popular book may only have a shelf life of a year before a new one needs to be purchased to replace the worn out one. To determine how many checkouts that would be is key to the fairness of this new rule. To limit the checkout period to 26 checkouts or 1 year only is perhaps not quite fair. A book that is only read by a few would not be worth the purchase in ebook form if it only had a shelf life of 1 year. There are many variables that need to be studied when looking at these new rules. Hopefully ALA will be able to come up with some valid documentations after they study the issue and will be able to broach these publishers and negotiate fair licensing agreements for everyone involved.
Posted by Tammy on May 4, 2011 09:33:44AM
I don't think Benjamin Franklin would approve, I certainly don't and would like to know where and how to file a complaint and or boycott.
Posted by Shelly on May 7, 2011 11:53:51PM
WARNING : this web site has been hacked into and compromised. DO NOT CLICK ON ANY X boxes or links on the 'Concordia University' overlay that obscures the webpage. This typeof malware is designed to make an end run around pop-up blockers. It will divert you to the criminal's website. The only safe response is to CLOSE THE BROWSER to escape this!
Posted by D. Ecks on May 18, 2011 08:41:04PM
My understanding of the mission of public libraries is to make published materials of all types available to the people in communities where the libraries are located. Arbitrary limitation of access to published materials is diametrically opposed to this mission. Traditionally there has been no limit on the number of patrons who can use any material in the public library. Is there any reason why only twenty-six patrons of the library should be able to use a given book? Do twenty-six patrons enjoy greater rights to access than all the other patrons of the library? How will the twenty-six patrons be chosen?
Posted by Julie Goldberg on August 30, 2011 01:24:50PM
Hi,
I'm a researcher of all stripes, and I would like to know if your company can make available its publications available at various university libraries or public libraries online instead of having to pull the book from the shelf. I'm curious about your business with that, so please email me and provide whatever information you can at your convenience.
Thanks
Posted by aj on September 27, 2011 02:24:44PM
The publishers are idiots. If libraries can't afford to replace books after a year (certainly not six months) they'll stop lending them. Publishers seem to think that will make everyone buy the books instead.
No.
If readers can't get a book for free through a library, a minority with the right technical skills will find some other, illegitimate way of doing it. The majority who don't know how will simply be deprived of those books.
It will not translate into increased book sales.
Posted by Nick on November 10, 2011 08:32:56AM
Ebooks are different from printed books. Easier to transmit and store. Protected ones, can't share or trade or sell as used books, so my original price should be much less.
Writers need copyright protection (while they live), but the role of publishers for ebooks needs evolution. Editing and promotion are valid services, but printing is not needed, and stocking and shipping are trivial database and Internet issues so the publisher is giving less value.
Maybe a finite number of checkouts is reasonable (26? 52?) but each publisher should be free to ask what they want - libraries need to voice what their policies are.
When I look for an ebook on my library site, they're all checked out, except for romances and childrens' books. I dearly miss being able to easily browse the stacks and discover a new author or genre/subject category.
Posted by Michael Powers on January 27, 2012 08:35:19PM
