Comments on: S&S not supplying e-books to public libraries—but 5,400 public libraries are lending other publishers’ e-titles

By: Jim Fisher

Jim Fisher — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:23:49 +0000

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.

By: Bill McHale

Bill McHale — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:28:56 +0000

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

By: asphalt

asphalt — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:37:39 +0000

“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.

By: David Rothman

David Rothman — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:37:37 +0000

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 I’ve been pushing TeleRead in various versions since 1992 (1991 if you include an unpublished one for the Outlook section of the Washington Post), and the per-download approach has been there from the start.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

By: Felix Torres

Felix Torres — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:28:34 +0000

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.

By: Felix Torres

Felix Torres — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:35:45 +0000

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…