If Libraries Didn't Exist, Would Publishers Be Trying To Kill Book Lending?

from the making-life-that-little-bit-more-diffcult dept

Against the background of today's war on sharing, exemplified by SOPA and PIPA, traditional libraries underline an inconvenient truth: allowing people to share things – principally books in the case of libraries – does not lead to the collapse of the industry trying to sell those same things. But publishers really don't seem to have learned that lesson, judging by this article in the New York Times about the nonsensical attitude they have to libraries lending out ebooks:
In their eyes, borrowing an e-book from a library has been too easy. Worried that people will click to borrow an e-book from a library rather than click to buy it, almost all major publishers in the United States now block libraries' access to the e-book form of either all of their titles or their most recently published ones.
This suggests that if libraries didn't exist, and somebody tried to set one up, publishers would use the same logic to refuse to sell traditional books for that purpose. History shows that's an absurd position, but equally absurd are the efforts of publishers to make borrowing ebooks less convenient:
To keep their overall revenue from taking a hit from lost sales to individuals, publishers need to reintroduce more inconvenience for the borrower or raise the price for the library purchaser.
The article invokes the example of paperbacks published some time after the hardback edition as an equivalent situation. But that's about pricing: publishers don't try to make it "inconvenient" for people to borrow paperbacks from libraries by creating special low-quality copies that fall to pieces after a few loans (essentially what Harper Collins does with its ebooks), nor do they add surcharges to the paperback price to try to squeeze more from the libraries that lend them out.

Sadly, publishers really are thinking along these lines:
Ms. Thomas of Hachette says: "We've talked with librarians about the various levers we could pull," such as limiting the number of loans permitted or excluding recently published titles.
Publishers are so obsessed with stamping out this ebook sharing scourge that they are oblivious to two likely consequences of their current approach. One, obviously, is increased piracy: if potential customers want to try out an ebook before buying it, but it's not available for them to borrow at their local library, it will certainly be available somewhere online, if they look hard enough. The risk is that having procured an unauthorized copy, they don't then go on to replace it with an authorized one.

The other problem for those publishers boycotting public libraries is evident from a comment by a librarian quoted in the New York Times piece:
Ms. Nesbitt adds, however, that many of the library's patrons aren't aware that other publishers are withholding e-books from it.
If library users aren't aware that certain titles are being withheld, that means they haven't asked for them - probably because they haven't heard of those ebooks, or think they won't be interested. Keeping titles out of public libraries makes it less likely that readers will ever find out about them or change their minds. After all, as the article goes on to say, there is no lack of alternatives:
While many major publishers have effectively gone on strike, more than 1,000 smaller publishers, who don’t have best-seller sales that need protection, happily sell e-books to libraries. That means the public library has plenty of e-books available for the asking — no waiting.
A familiar pattern emerges. Small, innovative publishers who are ready to adapt, reap the benefits by meeting the growing demand for ebooks at local libraries – and doubtless picking up knock-on sales as a result. Meanwhile, big, sclerotic publishers resist trying out new business models, preferring to make the use of digital formats for lending as "inconvenient" as possible – in the forlorn hope that readers will just give up and buy something. We all know how that story ends.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: books, ebooks, lending, libraries, publishing


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), 5 Jan 2012 @ 11:01am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wrong - the list included copyright protected Works as well.

    Seriously? You are still confused on what an orphaned work is? Hasn't that been explained to you at least twice before you made this comment?

    Wrong - they released a release date for the project.
    The list was complied by a 3rd party who brought the copyright infringements to their attention.


    Please cite this source. So far everything I have read has shown that the Hathitrust themselves released the list of works they planned on making available in its program.

    Wrong - there were as many in-copyright Works as there were "orphaned" Works. Hathitrust (i'm going to assume here) was going through with the project under a "fair use" idea, and if that didn't work they knew Sovereign immunity would prevent them from being sued for money.

    Of course the release of orphaned works (which are still copyrighted) is fair use. No one was denying that. Considering that copyright holders, if they came forward at any time, could have simply requested their works to be removed, there was no need for a lawsuit.

    Wrong - the scanning was done. In fact court records show it cost the libraries $100.00 per book. Nice pay day for google!

    Google provided a service. Seems reasonable to charge for said service. As for the scanning itself, the scans had not been made available so they were not being distributed. Even if they had been there is still a fair use defense to be made.

    The project is down, not a good start for the people claiming they did no wrong

    Most people will stop and action while they are being sued over it regardless of its eventual legality. It completely sucks really and as has been pointed out to you, Veoh was killed by a lawsuit even though it was eventually vindicated.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.