S&S not supplying e-books to public libraries—but 5,400 public libraries are lending other publishers’ e-titles
You may be out of luck if you want to borrow a library e-book by Stephen King or Bob Woodward or other titles published by Simon & Schuster.
“We have not found a business model that works for us and our authors.” That’s how the NYT’s Motoko Rich quotes S&S spokesman Adam Rothberg on why the publisher won’t let public libraries distribute its e-books.”
In Libraries and Readers Wade into Digital Lending, she says that “About 5,400 public libraries now offer e-books, as well as digitally downloadable audio books.” Along the way, she quotes librarians as objecting to the higher prices that libraries often pay for e-books. Many publishers aren’t enchanted by the idea of one copy serving a number of readers.
TeleRead, anyone? Both S&S and the libraries would be better off if writers and publishers received usage-based compensation from a national digital library fund—financed perhaps by a very small tax on Internet–related goods and services.
The idea wouldn’t be to replace bookstores; rather, provide yet another business model appealing to the public’s desire for “free,” while still paying creators. There could even be cost-justification, by encouraging the use of hardware fit not just for e-books but also e-forms for purposes ranging from e-commerce to tax and health forms.
Perhaps the service could start out focused on educational and public domain materials, as well as older copyrighted books. That would be one way to reduce the threat of Washington discriminating against writers with the wrong politics. Yet another way would be to make the system decentralized and preserve choices for local libraries.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:35 am
The national e-library makes some sense.
So does the proposal from the quoted librarian who suggested the library buy a single copy and pay a per user lending fee.
Of course, setting that fee at a level that won’t bankrupt libraries is going to be tricky, as internet radio operators have discovered in their dealings with the music studios who don’t quite grasp the difference beteen limited content access rights and actual content *ownership* rights.
S&S and RH are obviously having that same conceptual problem; they clearly see every library check-out as a lost sale.
Small minds, big problem…
October 15th, 2009 at 9:28 am
A national ebook library might work, though it has underlying (political/culture war) issues that will stall any such near-term efforts.
The proposal from the librarian in the article that publishers license the ebooks to libraries on a “per-view” basis would also work, as long as the publishers get it into their tiny heads that every kibrary checkout is *not* a lost sale. That there is a difference between limited access rights and actual ownership rights. Unfortunately (as internet radio operators have discovered in their fight with the music studios) entrenched media publishers disingenously choose not to see the difference and would insist on licensing terms that would bankrupt any library.
Small minds, big problem.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Thanks for your thoughts, Felix. I’ve been pushing TeleRead in various versions since 1992 (1991 if you include an unpublished one for the Outlook section of the Washington Post), and the per-download approach has been there from the start. Totally agree with you on the need to educate publishers. They should worry less about individual biz models and more about REVENUE.
Yes, cultural wars are an potential issue, and as noted, that’s why I suggest starting with educational works and noncopyrighted works (no tax money needed to buy the latter) first. Even there, I admit, the CW factor is present, but to a lesser extent.
The big argument to use with the entrenched interests is that TeleRead would be a new revenue stream for them and could still leave room for other business models. Let’s hope they would understand the need to avoid overly restrictive licensing terms. A challenge, but a worthy one!
The allure of “free” is powerful. Better TeleRead than simply have publishers try to use “free” to reel in buyers. Samples and free books starting serials have a place; but they are hardly a panacea.
Thanks,
David
October 15th, 2009 at 10:37 am
“Many publishers aren’t enchanted by the idea of one copy serving a number of readers.”
A number of *simultaneous* readers? I’ve talked to Overdrive, and I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works. Chicago Public Library has e-books and audiobooks available to borrowers, and I had to get on the waiting list for most of the books I’m interested in.
Licensing can be structured in any of a number of different ways, I am sure.
October 15th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I think ultimately, the publishers recognize that the ability to circumnavigate DRM along with the free culture that is pervading the internet is threatening their business model. The result is that many publishers are being very tentative about embracing ebooks even though the transition is inevitable.
Personally I like the idea of an internet tax that will be used to compensate authors (and musicians and other creators of online content) and requiring ISPs to monitor how often certain files (which will need to be registered somehow) are downloaded and using this as a basis for payment to the authors. Unfortunately, this does not necessarily save the traditional media companies.
–
Bill
October 15th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Can someone explain to me how Simon & Schuster and Macmillan are even allowed to prohibit libraries from lending their electronic books? Libraries don’t need permission from the publishers to lend print books: they just buy them and then lend them out, don’t they? Isn’t this something that has been protected by the first sale doctrine in the US for a century?
I’d love to hear from Paul about how publishers are allowed to block the lending of a book in electronic format, but not be allowed to block the lending of the same book in print format.