Some library consortia have decided to forgo the purchase of HarperCollins ebook titles effective today in the wake of the publisher's decision to set a license limit of 26 checkouts per title and also amid concerns about what may be next. In addition, an American Library Association task force is convening this week in Washington to begin addressing the question of equitable access to electronic content.
Joan Kuklinski, the executive director of the Central/Western Massachusetts Automated Resource Sharing consortium (C/W Mars) which serves 155 libraries, decided last week to suspend, effective today, the purchase of any new HarperCollins titles for the digital catalog, calling the publisher's policy "counter-intuitive" to the consortium's "strong policy of resource sharing."
"The library model has always been you purchase and own it for perpetuity, and I don't think the format should matter as long as rights are being protected," she told LJ. "No one tells a library they have to pull their books off the shelf after a certain number of circulations so why should this be different? They are looking at consortia as a threat, and it's totally the wrong approach," she said.
Checkout limit called 'patently ridiculous' On March 4, 23 directors in the Upper Hudson Library System (UHLS), a cooperative association of 29 public libraries in New York's Albany and Rensselaer counties, also voted to no longer purchase HarperCollins electronic titles starting today, with some directors calling the 26 checkout limit "patently ridiculous."
"It was pretty clear that the group felt strongly that this was a move that would hurt libraries and library users," Timothy Burke, the executive director, told LJ. "It works contrary to what library consortiums are supposed to be doing. We are trying to stretch that taxpayer dollar, and we understand the profit motive, but sometimes I think they lose sight of the purpose of libraries and consortiums and what we are supposed to do."
The Pioneer Library System, a partnership of nine public libraries based in Norman, OK, has also decided against HarperCollins ebooks, saying on its website that it "cannot, in good conscience spend our limited budget, to repeatedly purchase eBook titles from HarperCollins or any other publisher who enforces checkout limits."
Adri Edwards-Johnson, the coordinator of the Virtual Library, told LJ that the checkout limit was too arbitrary and too low for a product that has no wear and tear. To illustrate the point, she made a video (right) that shows print editions of HarperCollins titles in the library's collection that have circulated more than 26 times and are still in good condition, but which, under the ebook policy, would have had to have been repurchased numerous times. For example, an edition of Metro Girl by Janet Evanovich still on the shelves has been checked out 65 times.
"There's a huge lack of transparency in this process," she said.
Carrie Ottow, chair of the governing board of the Oregon Digital Library Consortium, which has 20 members representing about 80 public libraries, told LJ that the consortium will not be purchasing any more HarperCollins ebooks until the full board has a chance to consider the matter at its next meeting on April 7.
"We don't want to purchase any until we can discuss the implications, especially for the catalog, since if titles expire it will create a huge issue," she said.
"We decided not to purchase any more titles until there's some movement on access and price," Tom Cooper, the consortium's president, told LJ.
Terms of collective purchasing arrangements next target? In its February 24 letter announcing HarperCollins new policy, OverDrive, the digital book vendor to most public libraries, said that the "size and makeup of large consortia and shared collections" was a concern to publishers and their retail partners, and this vague phrase has spread almost as much concern among consortia directors. They fear that it may lead to limitations on the size or nature of collective purchasing arrangements that are the lifeblood of consortia.
Burke, of UHLS, said that if the right to use an ebook depends on who or where a purchaser was, it could undermine regional access.
"There was just enough information in the letter to really concern us but not enough to know what course of action the publishers would take. It would be a real blow to smaller libraries, which really do rely on resource sharing," he said.
Sarah Houghton-Jan, the assistant director for the San Rafael Public Library who blogs as the "Librarian in Black," echoed this concern:
"Consortium collections are the only thing making digital collections feasible for those of us in public libraries with consortium lending agreements. From discussions with OverDrive about our consortium's contract, it looks (unconfirmed) as though they are going to flat out refuse any cooperative buying and lending models-or charge an arm and a leg for them."
David Burleigh, OverDrive's director of marketing, said the company is not proposing any new rules or restrictions.
"We were communicating concerns we have heard from suppliers, including movie studios and music labels, many of whom have yet to participate in digital lending through libraries," he said. "We will continue to educate them and advocate on behalf of public libraries."
Kulinski, of C/W Mars, said her ebook budget, after subtracting Overdrive's $1000 monthly fee, is about $25,000. Few, if any of their members, could afford to access this service on their own, she said.
HarperCollins wrote in a March 1 letter that it remains "committed to libraries and recognizes that they are a crucial part of our local communities," but Kuklinski said she would not reverse her decision until HarperCollins reverses its decision. "I hope if other library consortia do the same we might have some influence on the publisher," she said.
Meanwhile, Roberta Stevens, the president of ALA, made a plea on Facebook that the organization be given time. The Equitable Access to Electronic Content task force meets in Washington this week, she said, for a working retreat to begin formulating a comprehensive response to the changing ebook market.
"I do not take your concerns about changes in the e-book pricing approach lightly," Stevens wrote. "However, due to the far-reaching and long-term effects, the task force deserves time to gather information and examine the complex issues involved in equitable access to electronic content, including e-books. We will receive their report at the Annual Conference [June 23-28 in New Orleans], and I look forward to our using it, as an association, to formulate actions that will ensure we have 21st century libraries to meet the needs of our users."
Reader Comments (18)
NorthNet Library System (NorthernCA) Overdrive Collection
Development committee will review plan to eliminate HC etitles this
week.
Posted by Loren MccRory on March 8, 2011 12:26:21AM
How can "purchase and own it for perpetuity" and "Overdrive's $1000 monthly fee" be reconciled? A DRM-locked ebook is not really owned in perpetuity, since you're always beholden to the DRM gatekeeper and/or file format. Looking back, libraries shouldn't have been led to believe that they were buying these ebooks to begin with. But now is a good time to consider whether a rental model makes long-term sense for a library.
Posted by James C. on March 8, 2011 02:09:23AM
You have to take into account the fact that a physical book
needs to be replaced, covered, tagged and barcoded,
accessioned, affixed with a security label and so forth.
eBooks don't need all this manual human labour. So making
libraries purchase after 26 times, at a Discounted price, is
a fair meet halfway for publishers & libraries, noting that
publishers aren't not for profit organisations.
All this 'save our taxpayer money' and 'go against anything
that demands more money' aggression by libraries could have
potentially more hazardous consequences. I fear it could
halt the ebook revolution altogether, and ebooks would
decline in popularity etc..
Posted by Toni A on March 8, 2011 03:23:53AM
Would it necessarily be a problem if the ebook revolution halted and ebooks
declined in popularity? If publishers want to use ebooks as a tool to kill off public
libraries, maybe we should be hoping that the ebook revolution will be
abandoned sooner rather than later. Why would we want to promote ebooks at
all costs?
Posted by Zoe on March 8, 2011 05:31:02AM
Look beyond your nose. As important as libraries are, the world of books and
reading is much larger than we are. The "eBook revolution" will continue with or
without us. We need to propose a better model instead of being beholden to the
publishers and/or trying to extend the print model to digital (it ain't happenin').
Posted by Dave on March 8, 2011 03:10:58PM
Why do publishers want or need to treat ebooks differently than hard copies? If we buy a book it is ours forever but an ebook only for 26 uses? That's bad on so many levels. Maybe next year they will want more money so then they'll reduce it to 20 uses? I do respect the need of publishers to make money but do they have to do it on the back of public libraries?
Posted by Donna Worth on March 8, 2011 03:15:10PM
I just finished reading an old, beat-up, and still usable copy of a novel first published in 1977 after borrowing it from my local library. It clearly has been borrowed and enjoyed far more than 26 times, and it exposed me to a writer whose work I might not otherwise have found but now look forward to following and recommending to others. If this book had been subject to the 26-times limit, our library might not have had it available--and the publisher might not be facing additional sales to readers like me--readers who want to own rather than "rent/lease" books we cherish. Makes me think that Loren MccRory's comment (above) about now being a good time "to consider whether a rental model makes long-term sense for a library" could be as easily applied to publishers.
Posted by Paul Signorelli on March 8, 2011 04:07:44PM
I agree with James C. You really can't own an e book that has DRM controlled by the provider. I think that if they had presented this as a lease plan to begin with, no one would have said boo.
Posted by Jan E on March 8, 2011 06:04:20PM
If publishers treat e-books as the new "cash cow" and fail to nurture the market we won't have to worry about the e-book market growing. I think we can agree that the whole publishing business is flawed in many ways but I see the push-back by libraries as an exercise in protecting out customers.
Posted by Dan on March 8, 2011 06:14:00PM
If there was a way to gather statistics on how many technologies (records, cassettes, VHS, VideoDiscs, computers, etc.) the library purchased, fostered, and helped people learn, I wonder if companies would realize we aid their business. Yes, libraries "cut into the bottom line" with only one purchase. Yet, how many people, after visiting a library and overcame their 'fear' of technology went out and bought a *insert technology here*? A sale the company may not have made if it hadn't been for a librarian taking the time to work with the person. I believe the same holds true for e-books/e-readers. Allow librarians to become familiar with the product, convey that knowledge to people coming in asking questions, and eventually, more sales could take place. By cutting off a FREE source of training and experimenting, I know people who won't think about purchasing an e-reader.
Posted by Daniel S. on March 9, 2011 12:57:14PM
One thing to remember with e-books. The publisher does receive money from the purchase, but it must be shared with the author, editor, and all the staff who helped to bring this e-book into being. Harper-Collins has big named authors and the bigger the name the larger portion of sales the author may get. It may be that the price demanded by these authors and their agents is what is driving this move to limit the naumber of check-outs.
Posted by Meg M. on March 9, 2011 02:34:06PM
I agree with Zoe. Libraries are not here to promote new commercial products for the economic benefit of the creators...tht'a the job of marketers. Among other things, we are here to permit access to resources that individual people can't buy on their own. If ebook evolution goes against libraries, well, let's sabotage it and turn into another direction, like free e-books (which are a lot outside of Google Books) orlet's ret5urn to something medieval: printed books.
Posted by Miguel Figueroa-Pagán on March 9, 2011 05:02:06PM
We recently sent a letter to HarperCollins telling them that we were going to cease purchase of their e-titles until their unilaterally instituted policy was rethought.
We had held off any action waiting to see if HarperCollins was going to migrate to an arrangement that was more like buying a "license." Our feeling was that if they dropped the price to an appropriate level that actually reflects the value of 26 circs, then we might be willing to go along. For instance, I may be able to be talked into purchasing a license after every 26 circs, if that license was $3 to $5 (in theory). But expecting us to pay full price for the book and not allowing us to use it as we are allowed to use content delivered via print media really makes very little sense. Their solution for ebooks is not a good analog for their print products.
Believe me, I think publishers and the makers of the I.P. deserve to be compensated and to be compensated well. But we have to stop trying to cram e-media into the old paradigms for print.
SVP
Director
Mid-Continent Public Library.
Posted by Steven V. Potter on March 13, 2011 04:58:34PM
As I watched the YouTube recorded by the librarians from Norman,OK I wanted to shout out "You go Girls!" What smart ladies who put forth a reasonable and well-thought out argument. As a school librarian, my district has just begun looking at the possibility of ebooks. This move by Harper Collins, with other publishers sure to follow suit, has certainly caused us to pause and rethink the viability of moving to ebooks. Not only is there the cost of the devices to consider, as these librarians showed with their circulation statistics, librarians and patrons take great care to make the books last well past 26 checkout/patron's use. If I had to replace my copies of the widely popular books in the "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" or "Percy Jackson and the Olympians" series after 26 checkouts, I could not afford to have multiple copies for the students to checkout. Many schools purchase Follettbound or Permabound or other similiar rebound books which provide a lifetime guarantee for the very reason that our budgets are limited and we need to get the most bang for our bucks. Sorry Harper Collins, but limiting ebook usuage is not a smart move.
Posted by Chris on March 13, 2011 03:57:28PM
Your video makes me wonder if the publishing companies/book sellers you buy your print books from will now start making inferior quality books so that they too can force you to buy more copies of popular titles ... won't they want to join the bandwagon of getting more money from libraries since HC is obviously trying to do so with ebooks?
Posted by awriter on March 16, 2011 08:44:13AM
The Relativity of Scarcity
Yesterday, consumers fell for it. A major cola company started selling the people bottled tap water in the 80s. Bottling and selling water is now a billion $ a year industry.
Today, publishers want to sell multiple copies of the same digital file and perpetuate an outdated business model (i.e. the printed book).
Don't believe the hype. The e-book revolution is a sham.
Posted by Wheeler Hall on March 16, 2011 01:07:37PM
Harper-Collins is acting just like the record companies -- they don't fully understand the digital content and fear that "change" will directly impact their bottom line. Of course, maybe they just see digital content as a new way to make money (sell the license and not the book). With properly applied DRM an ebook is no different than a traditional paper book with the obvious exceptions (no paper, no ink, does wear out, no associated printing costs, etc). Thus, an ebook should be treated exactly the same as a traditional book. HC is either ignorant or greedy. Either way I encourage everyone to boycott not just their ebooks but traditional books as well.
Posted by Voice Of Reason on August 22, 2011 01:04:58PM
In a time when book stores are going out of business, blogs and internet news are becoming more and more popular and Wikipedia is becoming many people’s main source of information, it’s no wonder that publishers are getting “creative” on how to keep profits up. This article refers to this cap on check outs as “counter intuitive” and I could have picked a better word for it. yes it is true that print copies of books sometimes give out and need to be replaced, but not after 26 check outs, I wonder if the reaction would have been as strong if the limit had been 56 check outs or 86. I also wonder if the publisher will counter with a larger limit or if this is an all or nothing kind of standoff.
