ALA Past President and Publisher, The U*N*A*B*A*S*H*E*D, the ‘how I run my library good’ SM letter
Maurice J. Freedman writes:
Interestingly, the New York Times article (March 15, 2011) on the boycott by libraries of Harper-Collins e-books omitted two fundamental points:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/business/media/15libraries.html?_r=1&hp
1. The great profits publishers make by selling e-books.
With e-books, the publishers have eliminated paper, printing, binding, distribution and returns by publishing books electronically–thus dramatically reducing their publication costs. Publishing everything in e-book format was their dream because of the reduced costs to the publisher. This view was expressed by Jack Romanos, then head of Simon & Schuster, at an e-books conference in Washington about 10 years ago. Not having to share profits with Baker & Taylor, etc. and the few remaining bookstores make e-books a great product and a money-maker. I don’t know the per cent Overdrive and other e-book firms pay for the right to distribute e-books, but–intuitively, at least–it would net far more money for the publisher given the whole B&T-like apparatus required to fulfill orders for physical books, offices for selectors & buyers and warehousing, plus selling and physically distributing the books. to libraries or its other customers..
2. The first-sale doctrine and what it guarantees for libraries
Clearly Harper-Collins (a Rupert Murdock-owned subsidiary of his News Corporation) wants not only to pocket all of these savings, but take away the benefits of the first-sale doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine) U.S. libraries have always enjoyed via the device of a license. Specifically the first-sale doctrine means that if a library buys a book, it is free to circulate it as often as it chooses without any per usage charge, royalty, or externally imposed limitation. Harper-Collins wants to limit library e-books to 26 circulations–thus abridging the right of the first-sale doctrine. It knows it is not illegal because libraries aren’t “purchasing” the e-book, they’re acquiring a limited use license to circulate it. However Harper-Collins is the only publisher of which we are aware that wants to limit the libraries’ use, i.e. 26 circs.
The librarie
s can choose to view the license as not affecting the right of first purchase and boycott those vendors–beginning with Harper-Collins–that set limits on circulations via the license device.
This is why I strongly advocate and support the Harper-Collins boycott. Circumventing the 1st-sale doctrine via the license agreement does not mean that libraries have to accept the license provisions. There is nothing to stop libraries applying the spirit of the 1st sale doctrine in their e-book procurements.
Simply, libraries should only enter into agreements for e-book licenses which provide unlimited circulations.
Forgive the cliché, but Harper-Collins is the proverbial camel getting its nose in the tent. If libraries accede to license-limiting circulation; it is not too great a leap to think–once the precedent is established—that other e-book publishers will follow.
In the article’s concluding paragraph, I was disappointed with the librarian who said that ultimately some accommodation would have to be made between e-book publishers and libraries.
There is no middle ground on this issue. E.g. There can be no middle ground or compromise between the conflicting positions that the Earth was created in 7 days and is 6,000 years old according to creationists (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/05/30/how-old-is-earth); and the position of modern science that asserts that the Earth is over 4 billion years old (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html). The contentions are mutually exclusive. There is no splitting the difference or accommodation which can be made regarding these polar opposite positions. Which is how I see the Harper-Collins licenses. There is no compromise between unlimited and limited.
Librarians must stand rock solid against any proposition that would imperil the libraries’ unlimited circulation of e-books.
The principle that has always applied to printed book purchases must be applied to e-books. There is no reason we can’t subject e-book licenses to that condition.
I urge all librarians to not enter into licenses with Harper-Collins or any other publisher that wants to limit the number of library circulations.
Maurice J. Freedman, 16 March 2011
ALA Past President
Publisher, The U*N*A*B*A*S*H*E*DTM, the ‘how I run my library good’ SM letter
The Harper-Collins Brouhaha
It is disingenuous to say there is no room for compromise here. Perhaps there is none in matters of faith vs. fact, but such is not the case in this instance.
Looked at from the money-maker’s point of view (publishers and, more importantly, authors), this issue which H-C has raised needs to be addressed. The pertinent fact here is that books wear out; e-books don’t. Popular library books have to eventually be replaced; popular library e-books don’t. The question is not whether, but when and under what circumstances, libraries may be expected to “pony up” additional payment for a popular purchase. This is the space in which negotiation needs to take place.
No one is more sensitive than I am (a special librarian in an engineering R&D company) to the unhappy fact that H-C would have liked to set the limit at a single checkout before requiring re-purchase of a title. No publisher will ever mourn the end of libraries, and publishers’ efforts to limit circulation of their titles via licensing vs. sales, DRM meddling, checkout limits, etc., are clearly aimed at a one-copy/one-reader world which threatens our institutions and all our livelihoods.
But to return to the matter at hand: Twenty-six checkouts are too few to set aside libraries’ privileged first-sale privilege. Would I be happy with 100 checkouts? Perhaps. In any event, the issue raised by H-C is a legitimate one which ought to be dealt with by our community in a manner other that proposed by Freedman.
yes
I agree that they have a legitimate reason for limiting the number of e-book loans, and there should be some give and take about what that magic number might be; maybe 50 or 52? Publishers don’t have an endless supply of funds either.
Whence comes the magic number?
I agree that there MUST be a way to accommodate both sides in this debate and don’t believe that this is wishful thinking.
Still, 26, 50, 52, 108….I’m still at a loss on how to determine what that number should be. H-C infers that their number – 26 – is based on research. However, they have yet to cite the source or authority for this number. This makes it appear arbitrary or, worse, contrived from whole cloth in an effort based solely on maximizing profits.
I have searched in ERIC and other databases and cannot find ANY research that provides any sort of number as to what the average number of circulation events for a single copy of a monograph might be. If anyone has data that can inform the debate I would love to see it.
And how that data might translate from the physical world to the digital world is an entirely different matter.
My point here is that if we’re going to debate the appropriateness of limiting usage to 26 circulation events for an e-book, some sort of valid quantitative data would be extremely helpful.
What about overall lifespan?
I’m sure theres been work saying how long a circulating paperback actually lasts, how many years? Use that as a basis instead maybe?
Harper-Collins Open Letter to Librarians
Library Love Fest.