In the wake of sustained criticism following HarperCollins's decision to limit to 26 the number of times an ebook can be lent—as first reported by LJ on Friday—both OverDrive and Harper took steps to repair the damage.
Today OverDrive released a statement on its Digital Library blog indicating that "[u]ntil we have time to review the effect of these new terms with our library partners, HarperCollins eBooks will not be listed in our Library Marketplace." Instead, librarians "will be able to review and order HarperCollins eBooks from a separated catalog."
OverDrive CEO Steve Potash directly tackled librarians' criticism that the company "failed to stand up for you and your readers," defending his company's role in moving ebooks and e-audio into libraries, in supporting the EPUB standard, and in developing mobile apps for library ebooks.
Potash also pointed out that he has been working with librarians for ten years now to make ebooks accessible in public libraries and that he will "continue to innovate, invest, and advocate for libraries so readers will have the best options for accessing digital books, anywhere and everywhere."
HarperCollins responds After stating on Twitter that the company is "reading your posts & listening to our authors," HarperCollins has followed up with a statement of its own (reproduced below), expanding on the brief remarks initially provided to LJ. The letter contends that HarperCollins's previous policy of "selling e-books to libraries in perpetuity, if left unchanged, would undermine the emerging e-book eco-system, hurt the growing e-book channel, place additional pressure on physical bookstores, and in the end lead to a decrease in book sales and royalties paid to authors."
It also notes that a repurchase of an ebook license later after a book's release would come at a significant discount to mirror the lower price of a paperback edition.
Given that HarperCollins ebooks have often been licensed to libraries at a discount (in contrast to titles from some other publishers, which can cost upwards of 150% of list price), some librarians have cautiously agreed that the cost per circulation may be in line with expected value, a point HarperCollins stresses in its letter. For example, a $7.99 romance title at a 20% discount would come out to just under $0.25 per circulation; a $27 first-run hardcover equivalent comes out to slightly more than $0.83 per circulation after a fixed 26 loans. In addition, ebooks require no extra handling—labeling, adding theft-prevention, shelving—before they're ready to circulate, amounting to further savings.
Though there have been just over 60 responses, the vast majority indicate either that "no discount would be enough," or that a discount of 50% or more would be necessary to consider such terms.
However, a growing number of librarians believe the cost per circulation argument sidesteps the underlying rights issue. As indicated by calls for an ebook user's bill of rights and other agitations for legislative or judicial recourse, many feel that a fundamental shift toward licenses and away from ownership leaves libraries open to a potentially endless series of license term revisions.
Over the last few days we at HarperCollins have been listening to the discussion about changes to our e-book policy. HarperCollins is committed to libraries and recognizes that they are a crucial part of our local communities. We count on librarians reading our books and spreading the word about our authors' good works. Our goal is to continue to sell e-books to libraries, while balancing the challenges and opportunities that the growth of e-books presents to all who are actively engaged in buying, selling, lending, promoting, writing and publishing books.
We are striving to find the best model for all parties. Guiding our decisions is our goal to make sure that all of our sales channels, in both print and digital formats, remain viable, not just today but in the future. Ensuring broad distribution through booksellers and libraries provides the greatest choice for readers and the greatest opportunity for authors' books to be discovered.
Our prior e-book policy for libraries dates back almost 10 years to a time when the number of e-readers was too small to measure. It is projected that the installed base of e-reading devices domestically will reach nearly 40 million this year. We have serious concerns that our previous e-book policy, selling e-books to libraries in perpetuity, if left unchanged, would undermine the emerging e-book eco-system, hurt the growing e-book channel, place additional pressure on physical bookstores, and in the end lead to a decrease in book sales and royalties paid to authors. We are looking to balance the mission and needs of libraries and their patrons with those of authors and booksellers, so that the library channel can thrive alongside the growing e-book retail channel.
We spent many months examining the issues before making this change. We talked to agents and distributors, had discussions with librarians, and participated in the Library Journal e-book Summit and other conferences. Twenty-six circulations can provide a year of availability for titles with the highest demand, and much longer for other titles and core backlist. If a library decides to repurchase an e-book later in the book's life, the price will be significantly lower as it will be pegged to a paperback price point. Our hope is to make the cost per circulation for e-books less than that of the corresponding physical book. In fact, the digital list price is generally 20% lower than the print version, and sold to distributors at a discount.
We invite libraries and library distributors to partner with us as we move forward with these new policies. We look forward to ongoing discussions about changes in this space and will continue to look to collaborate on mutually beneficial opportunities.
Josh Marwell President of Sales HarperCollinsPublishers
Reader Comments (34)
When I first heard of HarperCollins’ plan to charge for only 26 circulations I was as incensed as the rest of the library community, but as I consider the proposition, I think the plan has potential. Much like the bestsellers that many libraries lease during the peak interest period; this proposal could evolve into something that allows librarians to provide large scale access while titles are “hot” without cluttering up our digital shelves once the rush is over. I think HarperCollins should consider a dual pricing structure that allows permanent purchase with no limitations and a greatly discounted price tied to either number of circulations or to a specific time period. This could become a win/win for everyone.
Posted by Lisa Marie Loranc on March 1, 2011 04:32:08PM
I ran the stats today and my library has over 61,000 books that have circulated more than 26 times. Many of these are paperbacks. If the cheaply bound paperback can circulate 43 times without needing repair the arbitrary limit of 26 is unreasonable.
Posted by Paula Laurita on March 1, 2011 04:34:03PM
As a school librarian, I do not want a book I have purchased to simply vanish. It
would be impossible to keep track of disappearing books, removing catalog
records, etc... If Harper Collins would invoice us electronically with a "renewal
fee" at a fair discount price after say, 18 months, I would be inclined to deal with
that approach. I pay a hosting fee to Gale Cengage for electronic reference
books already. For those titles no longer in electronic demand, I could decline
the fee and those could disappear.
I much prefer a purchase for a period of time rather than a certain number of
checkouts.
Posted by Carol Brown on March 1, 2011 04:39:13PM
What Harper Collins is doing makes sense for them as a publisher that does not want to give away the store. The actual cost to libraries for each loan is still quite low, and with a re-purchase (at paperback prices) will even be lower. This pricing model is not unreasonable. Essentially libraries are leasing the book. And that is okay.
There are many, many positives with electronic books for public libraries. When magazines went electronic we all saved a lot of space and gave our users improved access at the same time. We are at a point of revolution in how people are going to access and read books. Amazon electronic books are outselling hardcovers by a three to one margin.
My suggestion is to have OverDrive set up a mechanism that will allow any library that wants to do so to charge a modest (let's say $0.99) per circulation to users. As a Nook user I will still jump up and down with joy if I can get that book on my reader for this very low price. I cannot see a great outcry from the public at charging a fee for use. (Now all you purists out there, please remember what century we are now in.) Any libraries that don't want to charge a fee, that is fine with me, and I'm not advocating fees for other items. This is just one that would be easy and makes sense.
Libraries do have a role to play here and the publishers recognize our importance in promoting their product. I believe Harper Collins has come up with a win for them and for libraries. Let's quit moaning and groaning and realize that this is a sensible, low-price solution.
Posted by Bob Raz on March 1, 2011 04:44:55PM
As an interested library user and LJ bystander from the audiobook community (not a publisher, btw), I'm wondering how this new scenario corresponds to Overdrive's and libraries' handling of audiobook downloads.
Also, Mr. Raz's suggestion of a nominal fee per ebook download corresponds in general to the way many libraries already handle DVD checkouts. Though the underlying reasons are different, the mechanisms are basically the same.
Posted by Judith West on March 1, 2011 03:41:53PM
Even as a 21st century librarian, I don't like the idea of charging patrons 99 cents just because it doesn't provide equal access for those who are unable to pay. I wonder where Warren Buffet would be today if he had been asked to pay as a student?
Having said that, I wouldn't mind if EVERY publisher instead of making us pay ahead of time, created a 99 cent per checkout rental fee that we could subsidize entirely (which is what librarians do, subsidize reading for their communities). It would be like creating a digital RedBox for books that are sliding down the long tail.
Now I am looking at this from an Academic Librarian's perspective. I don't know how the numbers would work out for a large public library. Would they need a sliding scale that would reduce price per read for 1000s of reads of a single title?
Posted by Joel Lutes on March 1, 2011 05:34:35PM
In Texas, Bob's suggestion to pass the cost to the user is illegal! We own over 2200 HarperCollins books. I didn't look at any of their other imprints. Many of these we have owned since the early 1990s and they still circulate. Circulation averaged over 33.7 circs for the small sample I took. We have numerous HC books that have circ'd over 100 times. Apparently many of you have never been to a small town library. We have over 2,000 items that have circ'd more than 100 times, with some LP almost 300 times.(God Bless Thorndike bindings!) Some REF books have inhouse circ'd more than 500 times. Everytime a patron has a slight interest in a real book, they look at it & may decide not to check it out(skimmers), but with an eBoook, they have to check it out to see if they really want to read it-counted as a circ. When a book gets worn, but still in demand, we repair it and send it back out, sometimes we rebind it, but very rarely do we ever buy a replacement copy. Our library rarely buys paperbacks, as we have thousands donated annually, that are added to our collection. Libraries have been buying copies of books for years from publishers, but they buy it once. In the 40 years I've worked in libraries, no publisher has ever taken a book off the shelf and forced the library to buy another copy. Take a look at some other stats. Ebooks have been around 10 years, and yet publishing and sales of real books has continually increased. You who have responded to this article also seem to forget not everyone is able to shell out $150+ for an E-READER. Libraries are still viable to the "have nots". So I will not be rebuying copies of old ebooks, I will buy new copies of new real books for the majority of my patrons!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Librarian in Texas in a Real Library on March 1, 2011 05:56:54PM
The idea of paying per view, even if the library pays it on behalf of the patron, is a new and troubling concept. The idea of a public library is that it acquires things of interest to the community for the community. It's not a rental scheme. It's not a Redbox. It's a library. We have done this for years and not had publishers say "oh, we have to protect authors! we have to protect booksellers!" (Um, Kindle hurts bookstores, libraries don't.) This is bogus. And by the way, I'll bet you anything they have not consulted their authors at large or the booksellers who sell their books.
What did you think of "We count on librarians reading our books and spreading the word about our authors' good works." Do they seriously think the value we add is that we read their books and talk about them? That we read books all day? They don't get it. At all.
Posted by Barbara Fister on March 1, 2011 04:56:13PM
If Harper Collins is saying that 26 loans (or whatever number they may decide) is equal to a paperback's use life in a library, surely the cost of re"purchasing" the title should instead be tied to the value of the old paperback at the end of its life? I.e. 50c in the resale bin, not to the cost of a new paperback.
I would also require some convincing that "selling" ebooks permanently to libraries undermines the current ebook ecosystem.
As an e-book reader rather than a librarian, I would not pay money for an item that could be taken back off me at any time, where the seller can change the rules at any time after purchase, and which I cannot do as I like with.
Posted by Claire on March 1, 2011 08:18:04PM
I ask librarians this: How many books does your library
purchase annually? Now then, when e-books are all you can
get, that becomes your ENTIRE collection. Only what was
bought this year. In my last library, we increased our
collection by about 10% annually (which matched our weeding
rate of 10%). This was ideal. This move, taken to its
logical conclusion, is that our collection would shrink by
approximately 90% (more money would go into e-journals as
they grow more expensive, compensating for the slightly
lower e-book price).
Further, HarperCollins happily sold libraries hard-copies,
to hold in perpetuity, when literacy rates were higher than
e-reader distribution. There was no worry about upsetting
the economy of book sales then. Nothing about this changes
that.
I believe libraries, their collections, and our relationship
with publishers will change. In fact, it must. I just don't
see this as the best way to change, for us or publishers.
Posted by Mark MacDonnell on March 1, 2011 07:09:45PM
While I don't think HC's approach is workable, I understand why they're trying this- and it's not just about sticking it to libraries. There needs to be a deeper discussion among libraries about the economics that makes paper book lending viable while ebook lending, as presently implemented by Overdrive, is unsustainable. By making ebook lending so easy, libraries are taking away the customers who are willing to pay. Those customers in the paper book world essentially provided a sufficient amount of revenue to cover fixed costs. Different libraries each purchased copies to serve their geographic service areas. Imagine Overdrive makes it as easy to borrow an ebook as it is to buy one online at Amazon/B&N. Where is the top-line revenue to support the business? If you instead move to an ebook only model to lower fixed costs, it's worth considering what that does/is doing to the world of print books. Lease/pay-per-view? May be workable, but once you lose control of pricing you may regret going down this path. Ironically I'd say the push to make convenience in libraries a top priority (think holds) is worth rethinking.
I think the experience from academic journal pricing helps to illustrate the dilemma behind geographic restrictions. The academic libraries were the ones substantially paying for the fixed costs of the journals. As libraries dropped the subscriptions in favor of document delivery/ILL, the costs were passed on to other remaining libraries, causing in turn more drops and astronomical prices. What I found most disturbing is that an individual library acting alone to keep subscriptions made no difference in the outcome.
Hopefully in this case discussions can result in some models that will work for both libraries and the publishing industry.
Posted by James C. on March 2, 2011 02:45:58AM
What HarperCollins forgets is that public libraries are beholden to the taxpayers who fund them. In my area, taxpayers will support purchase of a book or ebook one time. But they are already saying NO to the idea that we would have to re-buy something we've already purchased. One said to me: looks like it's just another way for corporate business to milk the taxpayer. So, HC and Mr. Murdoch: we will be following their wishes by not buying any ebooks with use limits. If you think the librarians are giving you an earful, talk to my local taxpayers and you'll hear it even louder. And who are these librarians who are thinking its a good idea? Employees of HC?
Posted by Skye Evans on March 2, 2011 08:06:00AM
I am always leery of limitations on certain types of media because it sets a precedent for future limitations. Are publishers like Harper Collings going to some day say that libraries can only circulate a print copy or a CD or a movie X number of times before it has to be removed from circulation?
Posted by Sarah Prielipp on March 2, 2011 08:00:41AM
After reading (and re-reading) some of the arguments on both
sides of this, I believe the patrons are the ones with the
final word, which is to say, they will make or break this
system. That being said, my family regularly checks out
books from our local library, no cost for any movie,
children's book, or one for my wife. If you were to assign
a fee to the transaction of the printed material (the hands
required to make that book, movie, etc. available to me),
and then pass that cost to me, I would not be so inclined to
visit my local library anymore.
I work in the state Illinois, with the libraries directly.
To change the fee structure, requiring every library to pay
a renewal cost on something of this nature is expecting
monies from an already declining subsidized local
institution. I understand the idea necessitating this but
is the charge actually going to the writers or to the
publishers? What does it take to publish an ebook vs a
written book? As I maintain the catalogs of 125+ libraries,
setting up fee structures and such, I thought this was
coming last year. There is definitely money to be made but
not by the libraries as they are there for their patrons,
not the publisher.
Just my two cents.
Posted by Chris R McClain on March 2, 2011 09:58:04AM
Think about what this means to the longevity of Harper's stable of authors. Libraries are not going to repurchase titles with middling to low circ. Libraries will be using their limited budget to purchase new titles. Authors of titles like that will see their work vanish off the electronic-shelves for good. Suddenly all those fears of new technologies making literature more ephemeral (if you are a HarperCollins author) are more real.
At a time of shrinking materials budgets and shrinking staff, Libraries might be able to find ways to watch the electronic title lists they offer and decide whether to reorder titles as they expire and justify that reordering...not all sizes and types of libraries are going to be able to. Were I a School Librarian deciding between a title I will have electronically forever and a title that will last a year, I would pick the forever title. As a Public Librarian I am going to seriously cut back on my electronic purchases of midlist authors whose books will vanish from my catalog or whose books I will have to repurchase...unless or until there is strong patron demand for that author.
Can we live with this? Yes. Is it good for libraries, patrons or authors? No.
Posted by Tim Capehart on March 2, 2011 10:14:28AM
I haven't gotten angry yet, as I'm still processing what this will mean for libraries.
I'm weighing the fact paper and glue books actually cost money to manufacture, whereas eBooks are simply digital files. But yes, I know nothing is generated for free, and publishers aren't getting these eBooks magically. There is some cost. But how does that compare to actual books that must be printed?
Also, there's the pesky fact so many libraries are already strapped, with so many closures and so many lay-offs. And if one publisher does this, will they all? And, what will this mean for library budgets?
Just considering a few thoughts as I watch things unfold. There are so many other questions I haven't even thought to ask, but I'll be watching this one closely.
Lisa Guidarini
Algonquin Area Public Library District
Algonquin, IL 60102
Nonfiction Reviewer, Library Journal
Blog:
http://thebooksthething.wordpress.com/
Posted by Lisa Guidarini on March 2, 2011 10:39:03AM
What does this mean to library budgets? How will I be able to project costs of my book budget when I will not know if I need to repurchase titles down the road? Also I agree with the previous post; what happens to the titles which will begin to disapear into the either? Is there no accessable archival copy held somewhere?
Posted by Eve Lawson on March 2, 2011 09:59:54AM
Cost is only being represented in terms of the actual "cost" of the book or e-book respectively. The associated staff time in terms of the underlying additional work required in a time of shrinking budgets and subsequently staff is a serious consideration.
Posted by Clara Hudson on March 2, 2011 10:06:54AM
So, as we move into a model of pay for reading instead of the tax supported public library, what happens to those who cannot pay? And if information is no longer accessible to all, then how do we have a democracy of informed citizens?
I would say that if the current model remained, those who have always bought the books, will continue to buy the ebooks. And those who have used the library will continue to do so. The fabric of sharing information and resources between libraries an communities will be shattered as we begin to charge and the tax supported public library will be drastically changed if everyone has to pay to read.
Boo Hiss on you Harper Collins. Don't disguise a desire to grab all the profits as generous. You should deal more directly with the issues of copyright and other issues and not ask us to restrict information in a democratic society.
Posted by Gail Sacco on March 2, 2011 12:03:00PM
I have to agree with HarperCollins on this one, at least in principle. Libraries shouldn't have the right to unlimited borrowing of a book, mostly due to the fact that the author deserves compensation for their work. Traditional books, if borrowed and popular, will eventually fall apart. E-books won't.
There's a difference between making the effort to go to the library and picking out a book and simply making a few clicks and downloading it on your phone, like Overdrive allows you to do. If readers want such easy access to books, then there should be a payment for it.
Why should readers get e-books for free, especially ones with copyright still intact? Unlimited, easy-to-do borrowing is basically a less grievous form of piracy to the extent that the author doesn't get paid for either.
Wouldn't you want payment for something you worked for years to create?
More thoughts on the blog: http://www.pfspublishing.com
Posted by Drew Patrick Smith on March 2, 2011 12:38:47PM
A hidden cost to books suddenly disappearing from virtual circulation is the staff time and tracking required to replace items, if in fact there is any sort of budget left to replace them. Also, what happens to holds on books that vanish with no warning?
Posted by Cathy Butterfield on March 2, 2011 02:25:16PM
Perhaps a .99 fee is small to you, but it adds up pretty fast, and people aren't going to want to dish out 5 bucks for five books they want on their reader every time they go to the library. At least, not the people who really can't afford to do that. I go to library's because their resources are free. I can rent books, DVDs, music, etc. at no charge and that is amazing. If my library charged me $1 every time I wanted to rent a movie, you can believe that I wouldn't rent half as much considering there are very few movies I really, really want to see. I think Harper Collins is justified in its move, and I think it is fair. But if libraries are going to start charging fees for people to use ebooks, especially with other things like gas being so exhorbitant, they might find that usage will drop steeply.
Posted by AGregg on March 3, 2011 11:32:20AM
What's missing here is the whole "after market" of books. The
job of libraries is to promote literacy. When we "weed"
something from our collection, we release it into the
marketplace of booksales, church bazaars, thrift shops,
charter schools, and on and on. Moreover, sometimes things
come TO use from outside as gifts. But under these kinds of
institutional and consumer licenses, every exchange --
exchanges that grow interest in books, and build audiences --
have a toll. I think THAT is a threat to the emerging eco-
system.
Posted by James LaRue on March 3, 2011 02:21:52PM
On the meta-level, thanks to LJ for providing qualitative coverage of this issue.
It's a really good thing that the frog finally feels the water heating up around her. The 3 conditions HC demands -- limited circs, an end to consortial purchasing, and meddling in library-card policy -- are only possible in an environment where in less than a decade books have become "content" that we "license" as opposed to intellectual property we purchase and curate for the long-term good.
We all know there are plenty of books bought by libraries that really should be gone by 26 circs, or frankly, well before that. But we need serious conversations about the long-term interests of our cultural memory. Publishers aren't going to do that work.
Posted by K.G. Schneider on March 4, 2011 07:10:05AM
i love the ebook. i use it all the time
Posted by steve on March 6, 2011 02:34:07PM
The problem is the irrational pricing model that Amazon and other ebook providers instigated. People are not going to pay $28.99 for an ebook - they want it at 9.99, because that is the price Amazon invented. Now everyone is scrambling to make this ridiculous model work by any means, even if it means messing with public libraries. Public libraries grow readers by being literacy resources in every neighborhood. The president of Harper Collins can now stand with the dumb politicians who want to close libraries to save money "for education."
Posted by Physical Books are Still a Good Technology on March 8, 2011 03:37:13PM
We, as librarians, are going to have to decide whether we
support the first-sale doctrine or not. The software
industry brought us licensing as an alternative to buying,
the publishers forced Amazon into a position where they act
merely as a pass-through, Netlibrary (with the full support
of the library community in its haste to not be considered
behind the times) locked libraries into all sorts of silly
rules having little to do with a digital environment, for
example not permitting new members of a consortium to access
books that had been purchased for the consortium before the
joining date, something we would never permit for physical
books.)
Now, Harper want to persuade us that charging, even a small
amount, per circulation is a good thing. For the time being
only for ebooks. What's to stop them from applying their
rationale to physical books? Their argument applies equally
well, i.e., it ruins the environment for book sales and
hurts author royalties. Of course it does. So does selling
used books. It's time for us to take a stand and insist on
the first sale doctrine. If they want to charge more for an
item sold to libraries, fine, we can then decide whether
it's worth the cost, but the charge per circulation is not a
road we should go down.
Posted by Eric Welch on March 9, 2011 02:00:16PM
@Physical Books
Don't blame Amazon. It all started with Barnes&Noble and
Borders who were heavily discounting popular hard covers.
Books listing at $30 or even $40 could be purchased for $15.
Publisher return policies have made a mess of the market as
well. The irony is that publishers made more money under the
$9.99 price scheme, which Amazon subsidized, than under the
new commission model which the 5 giants forced on Amazon.
Posted by Eric C Welch on March 9, 2011 02:34:29PM
@Bob Raz: it's a slippery slope. Us moaners and groaners know what century we are in: the century of $$$. (I'm surprised they're not charging for the air we breath...but wait, that'll happen soon. Leased oxygen...) And we also realize that leasing titles makes sense in some circumstances. But 26 times for one title? That's far too low for a large urban library (and even worse for surban libraries). Your first copy should be unlimited and any futher copies accessed or desired could be limited. That would be fair. When we lease a book from B&T we can circulate it in an unlimited manner for so many months (and sometimes even go over our time limit in some circumstances.)
Your defense of the owners of capital is interesting and telling. It's draconian at best; the slippery slope towards the destruction of the public good at worst.
Shame on Harper-Collins for putting profit before the public good.
They should be boycotted.
Posted by Robert Kelly on March 15, 2011 03:15:46PM
Just a side note: I've been moaning and groaning about e-books since they really hit the block a couple of years ago (e-books have been around for the last 10 years; all of a sudden, as a marketing ploy, Christmas 2009: BAM! Nook, Kindle, etc. etc. WOW!!! It's like Christmas! Wow: bright and shiny...)
The slippery slope towards a destruction of the public good - "first purchase principle" for example- is someting the cheerleaders for e-books forget.
Why purchase bytes for 9.99, often chained to a particular techonolgy, when you can purchase a REAL book with a cover, paper, glue and sometimes an author's signature. (How many ebooks come signed? Who cares, right? Exactly...) Don't even get me started on the quality of indicies in ebooks (why have an index when you have keyword search? Ever hear of "aboutness"? Look it up...)
E-books= a silly fad to be replaced by our next fair-haired girlfriend.
I'll shut up now...
Posted by Robert Kelly on March 15, 2011 03:26:50PM
What HarperCollins is doing is letting us know what they think
an ebook is REALLY worth. As a writer/publisher, I've
adjusted my prices accordingly:
http://y42k.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/harpercollins-tells-us-
what-ebooks-are-really-worth/
Posted by Ray Charbonneau on March 21, 2011 01:09:11PM
I think the problem with a set number of loans (currently at 26) doesn't fit in all situations. 26 loans would be fine for a good-sized school library collection (I would be delighted if any of our print titles went out 26 times). For an entire library system serving hundreds of thousands of patrons (such as NYPL), that number seems awfully low. Yet we pay the same for the content.
Posted by Eric Bateman on April 20, 2011 09:56:18AM
As a ref assistant and a former circ clerk, I am strongly
against this. Honestly, they're really that worried about
piracy? Most of my patrons aren't savy enough to figure out
how to use a computer, let alone figure out how to rip the
DRM off of a digital book. This is unfair. In its entirety.
If we did to physical books what is being suggested by Bob
Raz about charging 99 cents for an ebook, do you know how
many people would fly into a rage over it? And I'm not
talking library staff, I'm talking patrons. You try working
in a low-income/poor town. Say that we are only allowed to
check out Twilight (hard physical copy) 26 times. Then every
additional time afterwards I have to say to my patrons,
"Sorry, you've got to pay x-amount of dollars to check this
out" in addition to whatever late fees they may accumulate.
Hello! This is not what a library does! We are paid by the
county taxes of where we are located - at least that's how
it is in my state - by the residents of that county. We're
already in a bad economy. 99 cents may not seem like much to
people in larger urban areas, but it is to people who are
out of work and saving every penny they can.
This is just bull puckey.
Posted by Rachael H on February 3, 2012 11:59:44PM
Every one remembers that humen's life seems to be not very cheap, but some people require cash for various stuff and not every one earns big sums cash. Therefore to get some <a href="http://goodfinance-blog.com">loan</a> and just term loan will be a right solution.
Posted by HOLDERJean29 on February 16, 2012 10:44:30AM
