As one can see the effect of e-books and their related technologies are complicated. On one hand we've got Pottermore which sounds like more show then substance but could hopefully lead more people to the books. On the other if books were not in e-book format some persons simply wouldn't read them. Its a thorny issue and one so complicated the American Library Association has a website where its pulled together a number of sources to help libraries keep ahead of this ever changing topic. Its located:
http://www.emergingissues.ala.org/ebooks-and-libraries/
One can find all sorts of good information there. Personally I was surprised by some of it. One thing I learned was that e-books are limited. See what happens is a library gets so many copies of a particular e-book and if they are all checked out there is still a waiting list. I know limits on electronic information surprised me too. In fact Harper-Collins has it so that after 26 uses a copy of an e-book would expire and would have to be re-bought. I personally don't see the point to quote the article I read this in this number was based on, “The president of sales for Harper Collins told Library Journal the limit “was arrived at after considering a number of factors, including the average lifespan of a print book, and wear and tear on circulating copies.” (http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2011/0228/Limits-on-library-e-books-stir-controversy)
Ok let get get this right. The electronic version has to take into account real life wear and tear, despite the fact that it can't 'wear out'?.That doesn't make sense until one considers that publishers are in it to make money. After all if they can fix it so you have to keep 'rebuying' the same book as its original copy expires then they don't lose money with e-books because they can treat it like their other, more material selections. Now there may be other considerations that I'm missing and I am open to discussing them but I can't help but feel this artificial limitation hinders a libraries use of e-books and in this day of decreasing budgets that can be a problem considering cost of high technologies.
Publishers of e-books are a big concern of librarians, after all librarians may be seen as the gatekeepers of information but who do you think gets the information to the gate? If all one has to work with is round pegs one is not going to be able to make use of a square hole for example. Until publishers get more on board with working with libraries, I believe some still haven't made their e-books available, then libraries are going to be limited in what they can do.
As always your mileage may vary,
Christina Doane
Great topic! This is essentially price fixing in the digital age. With many emerging technologies, the once dominant players always fail when they try to control too much of one thing. This is because other emerging competitors will seize on these flaws, appease the masses, and win new markets. Netflix did it to Blockbuster. Broadband did it to dial-up. And we're on track to see Amazon do it to the Big 6 in some respects.
ReplyDeleteI found an article from the Guardian that responded to the shameful acts of HarperCollins by testing their theory of 26 checkouts as a life span for a book. According to librarians, HC has grossly underestimated the circulation life of a public library book. Librarians in Oklahoma tested five HC best sellers and among the highlights include:
-Stuart Wood's Swimming to Catalina had been checked out 120 times and was still in good circulation condition. Under the new guidelines, that item would be on its fifth copy!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/mar/06/ebooks-on-borrowed-time
Other considerations include the fact that these files are not necessarily perpetual; the file formats likely have fixed life spans due to impending updates in the future, or possible demises of the formats. Unfortunately, these are not run of the mill PDFs that are proven to be around for a long time.
I am also trying to view this from the perspective of the publisher as for their justification for artificial life spans. They are choosing to make enemies with libraries and I just don't understand why. If someone has a healthy disposable income to buy an e-reader, then they have the disposable income to buy e-books. From what I witness, patrons are almost always happy to wait in a long hold line for a book, and only buy a personal copy one rare occasions. A statement by HC in the New York Times explains:
“We have serious concerns that our previous e-book policy, selling e-books to libraries in perpetuity, if left unchanged, would undermine the emerging e-book ecosystem, hurt the growing e-book channel, place additional pressure on physical bookstores, and in the end lead to a decrease in book sales and royalties paid to authors,” the company said in a statement."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/business/media/15libraries.html
I wish I could understand this statement, but i'm guessing they're alluding to free markets and competition as a healthy way to grow the e-book sector. I guess I'd be really interested to know how much of the market is made up of library purchases, versus individual customers. Wouldn't it just be more fair if the e-book price was set to the same price as the hard copy?
Thanks for exposing this topic.
-Josh Meyer
I also found this topic extremely interesting! I had not ever even thought of e-books having life spans. In fact, I had always somewhat assumed that this was one of the perks of buying e-books.
ReplyDeleteAfter doing some research (including reading the article posted by Josh) I also found that the 26 "checkouts" used to measure the lifespan of a book seems unfair. Many hard copies of books last decades on the shelves, surviving hundreds of checkouts and still being in great condition. Obviously this is a money game. Publishers want to make sure they are getting their piece of the pie. However, it should make us wonder how we are going to stretch the libraries budget to support our patrons needs with these kinds of standards. In fact, the ALA president believes the 26 limit "threatens libraries’ ability to provide their users with access to information."
For more of the ALA stance visit: http://www.selco.info/display/dnldaubk/2011/03/14/ALA+opposes+restricting+ebook+check-outs
Josh and Steph,
ReplyDeleteSorry for the delay I replied but for some reason it didn't take. So try two, this is the thing with technologies, they are not as certain as people would like.
To continue,
Yes and we see whats happening to Netflix when one reaches too far, too fast:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec11/netflix_10-27.html
And thanks for the link Josh, this is just another factor that lends itself well to proving that the limit on e-books is well and truly arbitrary. I could reasonably see them not wanting to lose money in comparison to the books offerings. That would require though, that they keep the e-books on the same circulation level. For example the article mentions a book with over 120 checkouts that still doesn't require replacement. The fact that they are not doing this suggests one of two things to me: 1-They don't know how to get the right numbers to do the comparison, this I doubt this is the case considering how difficult it is to become a successful business in the first place. Of course it could be a mistake but it sounds too reasoned for that. 2-That they want to get as much money as they can with this new tech.
I and thanks for that quote josh that definitely supports option two for some reason they feel that libraries are going to ruin their business in some way. Personally I think libraries help businesses, I know I am not the only one two 'test reads' a book at the library only to determine I like it and wish to own it. Josh made this point as well, libraries help bring books to people and in many cases they will go and buy them. Especially those with the money to purchase an e-book reader. I know libraries and publishers have different focuses on why they are 'in business' but I still think despite that some compromise can be reached.
There are multiple ways and if certain publishers aren't careful others will cater to the library market, after all we're money too, and they will lose out. Especially as libraries get more and more 'business savvy' with the right language etc when interacting.
Here's an article from Newsweek with some interesting numbers on e-books verses books:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/08/03/back-story-books-vs-e-books.html
According to them its roughly .50 cents for a download in production costs. Its not like publishers can claim catastrophic money loss on this product. Its cheaper to e-book so the money loss argument doesn't hold water, just another way to prove Josh's above quote from the publisher.
And thanks for the link Stephanie, its good to be aware. The ALA is trying hard with other librarians to stay on topic of this topic and libraries may need to be creative when dealing with e-book publishers. I think one way is to prove to publishers that, within their guidelines, libraries can be decent partners in book promotion. But for some its hard to see beyond the immediate bottomline to any long term gains.
Glad people find this interesting, I know I do. Thanks for commenting,
Read On!,
Christina Doane
The 26 use limit does seem really arbitrary. A regular hard cover or paperback book would have to be able to be checked out more than 26 times for the amount of money that they cost. An e-book doesn't have to worry about having its pages torn, getting spilled on or actual physical damage. I have a NOOK and I have noticed that sometimes the e-book costs just as much as a normal book.
ReplyDeleteAubrey Maynard
Aubrey,
ReplyDeleteGood info,
Yes just so, if real books can last longer why not increase the limit? So far no publisher has come forward to explain properly themselves in light of these concerns. They've said things like its supposed to match the real book check out life span (HC Publishers above. But there is compelling evidence of that argument not holding waster. And as we touch on before e-books are cheaper to produce. So yeah talk about mark up, even taking into account author payment etc.
Christina Doane
The e-book debate amongst librarians is indeed a passionate argument. Who decides what is fair? I myself am an e-reader owner and never considered getting books from my library through it. Why? Mostly because through my Amazon Kindle I can simply get free titles that rotate often.
ReplyDeleteMy problem with "checking out" my books from a library on my e-reader is the fact that I have no control over how long I get the book. We all know those times when we want to read a book and have all the intention of finishing it quickly only to have life get in the way. When I check out a library book in the physical form and this happens, I may turn the book in late or re-check it out online to avoid late fees. But with e-book check-outs would my download just disappear? And because of the restrictions placed on the number of times a book can be checked out will I be able to re-check out the same title in order to finish it? It seems as though it would be less of a hassle to either go to the library and obtain a physical copy or simply purchase the book on my e-reader and finish it at my leisure.