HarperCollins Wants To Limit Library Ebook Lending To 'Protect' Authors From Libraries
from the can-i-check-out-a-clue? dept
Colin was the first of a bunch of you to send in the news that publisher HarperCollins has bizarrely decided to cripple the ebooks they let libraries lend by adding a clause in their contract that says books can only be lent out 26 times before the license "expires." Why? Because they can, apparently, and don't realize how this will simply piss off people. Also, once again, I do wonder how supporters of a move like this can still claim that a digital copy of content is "just like" a physical copy. HarperCollins could never make such a claim with a physical book.Where it gets really ridiculous is HarperCollins' "defense" of the move:
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.Yes, seriously. They think they need to protect authors from libraries. That's -- to put it frankly -- insane. It seriously makes me question whether authors should be comfortable with HarperCollins as a publisher, when it seems to be making moves that clearly go against an author's best interest. The article does note that two of the big publishers -- Macmillan and Simon & Schuster -- don't allow any lending of ebooks, which is unquestionably worse. However, this kind of move doesn't make HarperCollins look good or like it has any recognition of the digital world. It should be a major turn off to authors who do recognize where the market is headed.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ebooks, libraries, protection
Companies: harpercollins
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This will make some people explode.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too a degree I can respect what they're doing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too a degree I can respect what they're doing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too a degree I can respect what they're doing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too a degree I can respect what they're doing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too a degree I can respect what they're doing
The reality is that technological progress has allowed us to _not_ have to replace content carriers anymore, since the content has been set free and is more long-lasting.
What HarperCollins wants is to pretend this didn't happen and create arbitrary rules to force artificial scarcity into a system. We should not accept this. It slows progress and now more than ever do we need a fast pace of innovation, with all these economic, political, ecological and other crises.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Too a degree I can respect what they're doing
I though all of this reading and writing was for enlightenment and entertainment. Any more artificial restrictions and we'll get neither from this once great medium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too a degree I can respect what they're doing
Should they put all books on a fixed shelf-life to make sure more durable editions don't unfairly rob the publishers? Should they limit the lifespan of DVD to that of a VHS? Should we abandon the printing press altogether since it really was unfair to the monks? Perhaps high-efficiency cars with better gas mileage should be artificially handicapped to avoid reducing demand for oil. And if we ever discover an infinite power source, we need to figure out how to limit it immediately so as not to upset the energy industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too a degree I can respect what they're doing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too a degree I can respect what they're doing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Too a degree I can respect what they're doing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gate Keepers
Problem. They have not kept up with technology just as so many other industries have, but its even worse for publishers I would think. Unlike movies or music anyone can be a "published writer" for free and from their own home, car, office, or your local library. All you need is an internet connection and a keyboard really. Now just because you write something doesn't mean that anyone will buy it (or even read it), but that's not the point. The alternatives to traditional publishing are already here and only becoming more popular.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More monopolistic behavior
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is hardly surprising...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boycott of HarperCollins has been organized
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Boycott of HarperCollins has been organized
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I remembered Nina when I saw this one.
The Invention of the Sewing Machine by Grace Rogers Cooper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fantastic move
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insane? Not quite...
Never attribute to insanity that which is more than adequately explained by stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Insane? Not quite...
Never attribute to malice, stupidity or insanity that which can be adequately explained by monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Insane? Not quite...
so... yeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Insane? Not quite...
As Chargone has suggested, I think that would come under malice... It could be that I've missed the point of the joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Insane? Not quite...
There is some overlap, certainly, but I still think it's a valuable distinction. I am not one who buys into an "all corporations are evil" mentality - but I do believe that the incentives in a capitalist economy can lead to harmful behaviour, which is why the free market cannot be completely unregulated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Insane? Not quite...
I agree with the distinction. Ignorant greed would seem to be covered by stupidity, though. Knowing that you're harming someone for purely selfish reasons would still seem to fall under malice.
But the main thing is that I wasn't missing a joke!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
depends on lifetime..
If the publishers insist on this charge after 26 loans, they will find that libraries simply don't renew. Don't expect that libraries will renew eBooks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scan ???
Also, if the landscape is changing for publishers, then it would seem to me the smart move would be to partner with as many entities (like the libraries) as possible. This way, you can still provide value to an author that would otherwise just self publisher and by-pass you. For instance, the publisher can ensure that your book(s) are available at the library under a master license agreement that includes all the publisher's titles, etc. and you don't have to worry about how to get your book at the local library, etc.
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scan ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Scan ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scan ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Surprise!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why HarperCollins decision to limit their ebook lending will not help their ebook sales
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.
Bottom line: Very poor decision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Price?
What is the typical lifetime of a book and average cost?
What is the 26 loan renewal price?
For example:
If a book is replaced in 3 years at $50 and the yearly electronic renewal is $15 (3x$15=$45) the library saves $5 - 10% is a significant savings.
Without numbers, what is fair in business is just an opinion.
However, publishing costs are virtually nothing for the renewal so this appears as gouging the customer.
But, not to worry, the market will make the adjustments. HarperCollins will be reduced and possibly eliminated from the business by firms that understand electronic publishing and trade in a fair manner. HarperCollins will not attract or be able to pay authors if no one will read the books.
And, in the end, when librarians simply will not order HarperCollins eBooks, this stupidity will go away.
It's already started: http://boycottharpercollins.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Price?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Price?
You may think it's all a conspiracy, with active clandestine manipulating of markets with no control from general supply and demand forces. But, I do not think all is controlled by a shadowy group of powerful men sitting at a large polished table in a lavishly paneled secret room.
Keep well, safe, and happy in your doomsday bunker in Idaho.
Kidding aside, vague, accusatory allusions of conspiracy don't cut it in public debate forums. Please explain what you are implying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Price?
I think they were referring to your statement that the market will make the adjustments.
"You may think it's all a conspiracy, with active clandestine manipulating of markets with no control from general supply and demand forces."
I think they probably meant that suggesting the market will fix the problem is to put too much faith in the phenomenem of market forces. For one thing, it assumes that such practices won't be used as precedence for legaslation. For another, there is no reason to presume that competitors in the market will make a better choice. The big four record companies have had enough cash to keep the invisible hand of the market at bay for a long time, similar may happen in book publishing.
Maybe we're overly cynical and pessimistic. I hope so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Price?
The whole problem is that a library can now buy an ebook from X-1 of X places and not have to pay a license fee. Harper Collins have basically added an additional, ridiculous annual fee for the simple fact that they have shareholders. Technically there's no reason for it aside from greed.
From the explanation on the boycott site:
It's true that library materials don't have an unlimited shelf-life, though many libraries still circulate books that are well over a hundred years old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Usual price of book rental is 5 cents
Harper will sell a lot less books, other publishers will sell more. There is no real reason to buy e-books from U.S. publishers anymore. Any publisher, in any country in the world, can now prepare and ship an e-book to a U.S. customer or library for the same price.
India, are you listening? India has some of the best technical education in the world, and it's taught mostly in English. China, your market for art books has expanded tremendously. Europe, your architecture and museums are capable of being mined as never before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once you think about it for a minute, you can understand that they aren't selling e-book, they are licensing them. That license can (without the limits of the law) be fairly restrictive.
The assumption here is that the libraries will pay the same as retail pricing for these ebooks, that is also not proven in the story. What would you say if they were paying $2.60 a license? Would the story change?
Making assumptions is a terrible thing. New business models mean new rules. Get use to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Don't forget transport and other infrastructure costs such as storage and printing. They may be really cheap, but you're comparing the near to zero as can be cost of an ebook to the direct and indirect costs of a physical book.
I'm willing to be that there is a significant difference between the cost of millions of ebooks (which file sharing has proved can be essentially the price of a computer and an internet connection) and millions of real books, which need a printing facility, transport, factory facilities and any other costs associated with physical goods. The chances are that ebooks will end up subsidising real books, if publishers can get their act together and make them worth using.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's actually funny is a publisher taking a medium that is inherently more functional than the incumbent and going out of their way to artificially make it less functional by a significant margin then expecting it to sell for a higher price. That's not a "new business model" that's either stupidity of gargantuan proportions or an arrogance to rival emperor Nero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree with you that is why I will never rent(i.e. buy) a book from those creepy people ever again, there is actually a couple of thousand years of good reading available completely free, why would I want to buy that crap from stupid people who want to screw me over?
The new rule for me is, if it is not free(as in freedom) it is not worth it.
I'm not giving up that freedom for a douche that only thinks about money and is a freak control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protect authors?
The real issue is how to spread out the development costs over all of the readers. If you want to have an infinite number of lending events, well, that means that the publishers will only sell a few copies. In order to recoup the costs, they'll need to charge $100,000 or more for each copy.
You can't have it both ways. You can't reward authors like Malcolm Gladwell for writing a great book and let each copy circulate everywhere. Oh wait. Your plan is to reward Malcolm Gladwell for making t-shirts and putting his face on it or something dumb like that. Then he'll give his book away to advertise his t-shirt business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Protect authors?
More and more authors are making a living while giving away their books.
"The real issue is how to spread out the development costs over all of the readers."
If that were the 'real issue' then many successful publications could have stopped selling and released their books for free on the internet a long time ago. You don't set a price by trying to work out how many readers you're going to have, you work it out by trying to determine what people are willing to pay.
"If you want to have an infinite number of lending events, well, that means that the publishers will only sell a few copies."
If that were true then the same should apply to physical books and libraries. If people can borrow physical books, well, that means that the publishers will only sell a few copies. Unless you're making the argument that the only thing keeping physical books being sold is the limited number of copies available at libraries. If so then evidence for that shouldn't be too hard to find.
"You can't have it both ways. You can't reward authors like Malcolm Gladwell for writing a great book and let each copy circulate everywhere."
Woohoo, I can join the anti-socialist club everyone on TV in America seems to be part of. Forcing people to reward authors isn't really a concept compatible with our capitalist system.
If no one likes his books enough to reward him out of choice then yes, he may want to sell t-shirts. Of course, he may instead want to do any number of other things that Mike has suggested on this site other than selling t-shirts. The point is that it's up to him to work out what he can do that people are willing to pay for, not for other people to feel socially or legally obliged to reward him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Protect authors?
If people don't want to buy they book, they don't have to do that. But the message you and your lazy, cheap friends keep insisting on delivering is that if you feel like stealing something, the authors should just roll over and let you take it. Because your choice is what matters, not the authors.
Well I've got news for you bucko. You shut down monetary reward and the only people left who can blog are the rich and the vain. When stroking your ego is the only way to get something out of posting on the web, only the vain will be left. That seems to be Mike's biggest wish, for some odd reason.
I'm sorry. The vain and the t-shirt salesmen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Protect authors?
Or are they just vain as well, because if that's the case I've got some bad news for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Protect authors?
What a load of crap. I spend so much time focusing on ways that people can make more money via their content, and some clueless "bob" claims exactly the opposite?
Dude, learn to read: I'm helping people make MORE money, not less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Protect authors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Protect authors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Protect authors?
Very simple answer: giving your work away for free can make you more money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Protect authors?
Firstly, it wasn't Mike who wrote that but a guest poster.
And the natural extension of that statement is "...and I can cash in that credit in other areas" - that's the point. Like your Gladwell example: as Mike mentions below, Gladwell makes the bulk of his living off speaking fees, not book sales. I know it's easy to assume that a bestselling author just sits back and watches the checks come in, but that's rarely the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Protect authors?
I believe you may have some basic problems with reading comprehension. First of all, I did not write that. Second, the whole point, as has been demonstrated time and time again, is that you can make more money by giving stuff away. The trick is understand what to give away and what to charge for. This is the point you seem to fail to grasp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Protect authors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Protect authors?
You ignore the issue of reading the book, which is not exclusive to buying the book, except if artificially restricted (e.g. by law).
"the message you and your lazy, cheap friends keep insisting on delivering is that if you feel like stealing something, the authors should just roll over and let you take it"
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you implying that lending is stealing? Or are you making vague accusations about something off topic? If you're going to redirect the conversation then it helps to be specific.
"Because your choice is what matters, not the authors."
If I'm the one with the money and they want me to give it to them for something which is inherently free then yes, it is my choice that matters. I can choose to read a book at a library rather than buy it, without breaking the law. I can borrow a friend's book, without breaking the law. Other ways to freely access the book may be unlawful, but that's an inconsistency in the law, not my ability to choose.
"You shut down monetary reward and the only people left who can blog are the rich and the vain"
Assuming your point, why would the rich blog if they weren't also vain? It's hard to believe that you've thought things through when you slip in such an obvious tautology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Protect authors?
Your point is infantile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Protect authors?
You know how much Gladwell makes from speaking fees? It's more than he makes from book sales. Speaking fees = selling the scarcity.
We're not talking about t-shirt businesses, and the fact that you think we are suggests you have trouble reading. Try again, bob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eReaders are a Phase - Or Not?
This brings up a thought: Will eBooks eliminate the need for libraries?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: eReaders are a Phase - Or Not?
I would be surprised if most people who use an eReader don't also have a laptop already. I think the point of eReaders are that they are more comfortable than a computer for, say, reading in bed. Tablets will hopefully eventually make both eReaders and laptops almost obselete.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g9vL11CRe8
This message will self-destruct in 26....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enough is enough, why do people keep buying that crap from those people they only screw everybody over without regard to anyone.
Thank God piracy is a real alternative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]