Who Can Get Your Book?
March 10, 2021 9:43 AM Subscribe
From the "yet another reason to hate Amazon" desk, Fight for the Future's Who Can Get Your Book addresses the problem of book access when a publisher refuses to make a title available to libraries or schools. Via Geoffrey Fowler's column at the Washington Post (a Post subscription may, ironically, be required).
Library access isn't just an Amazon problem, but Amazon certainly isn't helping, according to Fowler:
Library access isn't just an Amazon problem, but Amazon certainly isn't helping, according to Fowler:
Amazon is the only big publisher that flat-out blocks library digital collections. Search your local library’s website, and you won’t find recent e-books by Amazon authors Kaling, Dean Koontz or Dr. Ruth Westheimer. Nor will you find downloadable audiobooks for Trevor Noah’s “Born a Crime,” Andy Weir’s “The Martian” and Michael Pollan’s “Caffeine.”It's not just Amazon, though. If a school wants eBook copies of The Diary of Anne Frank, it costs $27 per student per year.
Amazon does generally sell libraries physical books and audiobook CDs — though even print versions of Kaling’s latest aren’t available to libraries because Amazon made it an online exclusive.
Legit seems like something to drag authors over. “Mindy Kaling / Dean Koontz / Dr. Ruth / Trev Noah / Andy Weir / Michael Pollan hates libraries” seems like it would be bad for both the authors’ brands and for Amazon.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:13 AM on March 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 10:13 AM on March 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
From Inside The E-Book 'War' Waging Between Libraries And Publishers:
posted by still_wears_a_hat at 10:14 AM on March 10, 2021 [7 favorites]
There are two key components of the status quo: First, unlike print books, which libraries often get at a steep discount, libraries pay more for digital content than the general public.Outrageous.
“We pay up to five times the cost that [a] consumer would pay for this material,” said Esmé E. Green, director of the Goodnow Library in Sudbury and president of the Massachusetts Library Association.
The ALA gives the example of "The Codebreakers" by David Kahn, for which a consumer can buy the e-book version for $59.99 but a library must pay $239.99 for time-limited access.
That time-limited access is the second thing frustrating libraries. Publishers generally limit how long libraries can use an e-book or audiobook license. The limit varies based on the particular publishing house, but the principle is the same. After the limit is reached — for example, after 26 or 52 lends or after two years has elapsed — a library must buy the license again at full price.
posted by still_wears_a_hat at 10:14 AM on March 10, 2021 [7 favorites]
Publishers' logic for usage-limited ebook licensing is that after 26 or 52 circulations of a physical book it would be in tatters, and at that point the library would be buying another copy.
posted by PhineasGage at 10:33 AM on March 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by PhineasGage at 10:33 AM on March 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
We have this problem in NZ where the organisation that manages Safety Standards retains a very tight control on their over-priced 'standards' (which are usually a lower form than anything else on Earth) Often library cannot hold them, Interloans are not allowed either. To comply legally with some govt. contracts requires owning a set of (quickly redundant) books. Another Capitalist success story Not!
Whenever I see one I photo/scan all the pages.
posted by unearthed at 10:46 AM on March 10, 2021
Whenever I see one I photo/scan all the pages.
posted by unearthed at 10:46 AM on March 10, 2021
Publishers' logic for usage-limited ebook licensing is that after 26 or 52 circulations of a physical book it would be in tatters, and at that point the library would be buying another copy.
Which would maybe make sense if they were paying the same amount for an ebook as for a physical version instead of many times more, and if it didn't expire after 2 years regardless of how many people took it out.
posted by jeather at 11:08 AM on March 10, 2021 [11 favorites]
Which would maybe make sense if they were paying the same amount for an ebook as for a physical version instead of many times more, and if it didn't expire after 2 years regardless of how many people took it out.
posted by jeather at 11:08 AM on March 10, 2021 [11 favorites]
Oo, I got email from my library explaining how expensive digital&audio books are for them and asking that I use the sample feature. I’ve recently returned a couple of books without getting very far in them, so this is news I can use.
Plus I’d better bump up my donations to their general fund, I have been a Libby-using fiend all pandemic.
posted by clew at 11:14 AM on March 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
Plus I’d better bump up my donations to their general fund, I have been a Libby-using fiend all pandemic.
posted by clew at 11:14 AM on March 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
Arrgh, if only there be some way to calibrete the market to fix this...
posted by nushustu at 11:57 AM on March 10, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by nushustu at 11:57 AM on March 10, 2021 [5 favorites]
(I am the trustee for a library, so there's my bias laid out.)
With so many libraries shut for much of the last 12 months, and some still shut, electronic media usage went through the damn roof. Even with a statewide buying deal, my state's libraries used up their budgeted money for ebooks/audiobooks/movies really fast and had to go looking for more.
Meanwhile, the publishers are selling a more-expensive version to libraries with fewer reads in the license, which is the opposite of what the more-durable "library edition" used to mean. And during a damn plague!
My rep, David Ciccilline, has done some work to address this at a national level from an anti-trust angle, but so far it's only talk. Here's an interview with him about it: LINK. Feel free to write to him and remind him of the gross profiteering that publishers are doing while we're all locked up.
posted by wenestvedt at 12:34 PM on March 10, 2021 [10 favorites]
With so many libraries shut for much of the last 12 months, and some still shut, electronic media usage went through the damn roof. Even with a statewide buying deal, my state's libraries used up their budgeted money for ebooks/audiobooks/movies really fast and had to go looking for more.
Meanwhile, the publishers are selling a more-expensive version to libraries with fewer reads in the license, which is the opposite of what the more-durable "library edition" used to mean. And during a damn plague!
My rep, David Ciccilline, has done some work to address this at a national level from an anti-trust angle, but so far it's only talk. Here's an interview with him about it: LINK. Feel free to write to him and remind him of the gross profiteering that publishers are doing while we're all locked up.
posted by wenestvedt at 12:34 PM on March 10, 2021 [10 favorites]
Worse, since all the damn money goes to bolster existing licenses, there's not much left over to buy new titles as one-offs -- so if the thing you want to enjoy isn't mainstream, NYT best-seller, then it's doubtful that your library can get it this year.
Which, of course, sucks for the patron and the librarian (who just wants to serve their patrons).
And that's to say nothing of how the shift in platforms is to streaming-only, which just doesn't work if you have a non-cellular device (like my little Sansa Clip audio player that I use for audiobooks in the car) or don't want to use their web client, or need assistive tech, or.... GAH.
posted by wenestvedt at 12:38 PM on March 10, 2021 [6 favorites]
Which, of course, sucks for the patron and the librarian (who just wants to serve their patrons).
And that's to say nothing of how the shift in platforms is to streaming-only, which just doesn't work if you have a non-cellular device (like my little Sansa Clip audio player that I use for audiobooks in the car) or don't want to use their web client, or need assistive tech, or.... GAH.
posted by wenestvedt at 12:38 PM on March 10, 2021 [6 favorites]
So glad to see this posted here! This is my first comment as a lurker, and I have a pretty heavy stake in it... I run an advocacy organization that fights for equitable access to knowledge and a technology-forward vision for libraries. We helped out with the Fight For the Future campaign and I'm glad that it's drawing attention to this issue.
The shift to digital delivery has been disastrous for most library collections – I'm sure this has been discussed, but the lawsuit against the Internet Archive could spell the end of lending as we know it. It's disheartening that despite counting for at least 30% of publisher revenue, libraries are treated like they're taking money out of the pockets of authors. (And these corporations aren't small fries...)
It's important that people are getting mad at Amazon for this – it's a pernicious practice. If you really want to get mad, though, it's ridiculous that libraries aren't permitted to buy digital books and lend them like they would physical books. The End of Ownership is an eye opening book on this topic and I'd highly recommend reading it for context around why Amazon is even allowed to lock libraries out like this.
I also think it's important to consider how "creator rights" are weaponized against libraries. Most of the "libraries cannibalize sales" (in Amazon's words) arguments are strawmen based on faulty conceptions of how libraries work, even digital libraries. "Creating friction" in digital lending just isn't a thing, and most public library budgets are set by the government, so the expensive and confusing licensing agreements (usually about 5-10x the consumer costs) are basically just draining taxpayer money. Suffice to say that authors aren't seeing this money.
posted by burningyrboats at 1:15 PM on March 10, 2021 [16 favorites]
The shift to digital delivery has been disastrous for most library collections – I'm sure this has been discussed, but the lawsuit against the Internet Archive could spell the end of lending as we know it. It's disheartening that despite counting for at least 30% of publisher revenue, libraries are treated like they're taking money out of the pockets of authors. (And these corporations aren't small fries...)
It's important that people are getting mad at Amazon for this – it's a pernicious practice. If you really want to get mad, though, it's ridiculous that libraries aren't permitted to buy digital books and lend them like they would physical books. The End of Ownership is an eye opening book on this topic and I'd highly recommend reading it for context around why Amazon is even allowed to lock libraries out like this.
I also think it's important to consider how "creator rights" are weaponized against libraries. Most of the "libraries cannibalize sales" (in Amazon's words) arguments are strawmen based on faulty conceptions of how libraries work, even digital libraries. "Creating friction" in digital lending just isn't a thing, and most public library budgets are set by the government, so the expensive and confusing licensing agreements (usually about 5-10x the consumer costs) are basically just draining taxpayer money. Suffice to say that authors aren't seeing this money.
posted by burningyrboats at 1:15 PM on March 10, 2021 [16 favorites]
Libraries are critical to people being able to survive. I visited a library in Las Vegas in a crummy neighborhood (boring reasons). They cheerfully let me use a computer and charge devices and make plans. People were in and out getting job help, using computers, taking out videos and books in a tiny space. Screwing libraries is even worse than I expect from Bezos.
Libraries can cost some sales, but not that much. Publishers have upped prices a lot for digital media.
posted by theora55 at 1:21 PM on March 10, 2021 [3 favorites]
Libraries can cost some sales, but not that much. Publishers have upped prices a lot for digital media.
posted by theora55 at 1:21 PM on March 10, 2021 [3 favorites]
theora55: Libraries are critical to people being able to survive.
AMEN. We just extended our free wifi to the parking lot for families who need the library computers but can't use them because of COVID. This way, they'll still have access to school, job applications, benefits web sites, and the ability to maybe book a vaccine.
And the publishers want to take a bigger slice of this pie?
posted by wenestvedt at 1:34 PM on March 10, 2021 [6 favorites]
AMEN. We just extended our free wifi to the parking lot for families who need the library computers but can't use them because of COVID. This way, they'll still have access to school, job applications, benefits web sites, and the ability to maybe book a vaccine.
And the publishers want to take a bigger slice of this pie?
posted by wenestvedt at 1:34 PM on March 10, 2021 [6 favorites]
Might be a good occasion to question why copyrights last lifetime plus 70 years. Millions of books could be circulated freely without restriction.
posted by JackFlash at 1:57 PM on March 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by JackFlash at 1:57 PM on March 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
Publishers' logic for usage-limited ebook licensing is that after 26 or 52 circulations of a physical book it would be in tatters, and at that point the library would be buying another copy.
I'd love to hear what actual librarians think about this idea. As a non-librarian reader, it seems like nonsense. If reading a book 52 times resulted in its destruction, there would be no old books at all.
posted by Lexica at 2:25 PM on March 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
I'd love to hear what actual librarians think about this idea. As a non-librarian reader, it seems like nonsense. If reading a book 52 times resulted in its destruction, there would be no old books at all.
posted by Lexica at 2:25 PM on March 10, 2021 [2 favorites]
I mean, millions of used print books do circulate for a nominal cost, as long as you can find them. There are nonzero costs associated with reprinting or digitizing out of print books, and one way the capitalist market looks at demand is to see if there was enough demand to keep a book in print in the first place. There's not much of a value proposition even if you negate copyright on a shorter scale, at least for books that predate electronic typesetting. And check out all the OCR errors in, say, the Gutenberg Library version of James Joyce's Ulysses for an illustration of how hard this is to do when nobody's getting paid.
But that's not really connected to how publishers are intentionally squeezing out libraries out of a stated fear of cannibalized sales.
posted by fedward at 2:30 PM on March 10, 2021
But that's not really connected to how publishers are intentionally squeezing out libraries out of a stated fear of cannibalized sales.
posted by fedward at 2:30 PM on March 10, 2021
I find myself constantly weighing in my head which exemplars of the early internet’s promise have become the biggest toxic dumpster fire, Google or Amazon. I keep defaulting to “Why not both?”
posted by Thorzdad at 3:12 PM on March 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Thorzdad at 3:12 PM on March 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
I am .... guessing that when a publisher charges a library N times as much as a single private sale, the author doesn’t get a cut*N? Yes, no, is the accounting obfuscated?
If we know not, that’s something to shout every time the “but authors sales!” gets trotted out.
posted by clew at 3:17 PM on March 10, 2021
If we know not, that’s something to shout every time the “but authors sales!” gets trotted out.
posted by clew at 3:17 PM on March 10, 2021
Slightly incidentally, I have found that a corrected file sent to Project Gutenberg with explanations will very often be adopted. They have a process. I don’t know of a good app to mark “check this” points on a book as I’m reading it, which is a pity - anyone?
posted by clew at 3:20 PM on March 10, 2021
posted by clew at 3:20 PM on March 10, 2021
I think that Calibre's book reader also lets you edit. Would that help?
posted by wenestvedt at 3:30 PM on March 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by wenestvedt at 3:30 PM on March 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
No reason to make things up. Authors get their share of all revenue, whether from libraries or retail sales.
posted by PhineasGage at 3:41 PM on March 10, 2021
posted by PhineasGage at 3:41 PM on March 10, 2021
The question isn't whether authors get a share, it's whether they're getting a proportional share. Because it would not be out of character for a publisher to count a extortionately-priced ebook as merely one book sold and then pocket the difference.
posted by fedward at 3:53 PM on March 10, 2021
posted by fedward at 3:53 PM on March 10, 2021
"it would not be out of character" <> truth. Authors get a proportional share of publishers' library ebook revenue = fact. Now can we get back to bitching about Amazon?
posted by PhineasGage at 3:57 PM on March 10, 2021
posted by PhineasGage at 3:57 PM on March 10, 2021
"With standard contracts from the Big Five authors, author royalties are a percentage of publisher revenue. With eBooks, the standard contract ensures that authors receive 25% of the revenue from a sale after the distributor discount. Publishers get the other 75%. Therefore, any effort to “help” authors helps their publishers three times more" (page 17). Most ebooks take very little money to produce in addition to a print book – it's not nothing, and I'm not discounting the very real cost of publishing, but it's so off proportionally that there is legislation in three states demanding fair pricing for digital content. I literally work in this field and find myself frequently opining "But where does the money goooooo?"
I think it's important also to recognize that publishers set these contracts – not libraries. Selling to libraries = more sales. Authors should get their fair share, but it's not happening through intricate licensing schemes and withholding books from libraries.
To quote Twentieth Century Music Corp v Aiken, “Private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts.” Even if you do care about publisher revenue, at the end of the day, that's not really what this whole conversation should be about – right?
posted by burningyrboats at 4:20 PM on March 10, 2021 [3 favorites]
I think it's important also to recognize that publishers set these contracts – not libraries. Selling to libraries = more sales. Authors should get their fair share, but it's not happening through intricate licensing schemes and withholding books from libraries.
To quote Twentieth Century Music Corp v Aiken, “Private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts.” Even if you do care about publisher revenue, at the end of the day, that's not really what this whole conversation should be about – right?
posted by burningyrboats at 4:20 PM on March 10, 2021 [3 favorites]
I've always had a sinking feeling that Overdrive/Libby is the Pharmacy Benefit Manager of the ebook world. They skim a fair amount off of the afformentioned $240.
posted by BobtheThief at 4:45 PM on March 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by BobtheThief at 4:45 PM on March 10, 2021 [1 favorite]
I'm sure this has been discussed, but the lawsuit against the Internet Archive could spell the end of lending as we know it.
Thanks. It is disheartening to see authors like Colson Whitehead getting behind the destruction of Open Library and making false accusations of illegal copying against them:
“They scan books illegally and put them online. It’s not a library,” novelist Colson Whitehead tweeted in March. (I wrote last week to ask Whitehead what laws he thought were being broken, or whether he’d since altered his views on this matter, and he declined to comment.)
posted by vacapinta at 5:38 AM on March 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
Thanks. It is disheartening to see authors like Colson Whitehead getting behind the destruction of Open Library and making false accusations of illegal copying against them:
“They scan books illegally and put them online. It’s not a library,” novelist Colson Whitehead tweeted in March. (I wrote last week to ask Whitehead what laws he thought were being broken, or whether he’d since altered his views on this matter, and he declined to comment.)
posted by vacapinta at 5:38 AM on March 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
How is this going down in the UK and elsewhere? (I've always admired the Public Lending Right.)
posted by BWA at 6:15 AM on March 11, 2021
posted by BWA at 6:15 AM on March 11, 2021
@BWA not great! The Public Lending Right is super important, but it's a complicated situation. There's a webinar about it next week led by Johanna Anderson and Benjamin White – both very great people.
Check out the #ebooksos campaign and this article in the Guardian.
posted by burningyrboats at 7:01 AM on March 11, 2021
Check out the #ebooksos campaign and this article in the Guardian.
posted by burningyrboats at 7:01 AM on March 11, 2021
It didn't help that the Open Library itself escalated things with it's very loud stance that seemed designed to provoke a lawsuit. I know librarians who are honestly annoyed that they were screwed over because IA had to do the equivalent of waving a torch around in an explosives shack.
posted by happyroach at 9:21 AM on March 11, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by happyroach at 9:21 AM on March 11, 2021 [3 favorites]
Herding the Wind - A journey to the strange world of the e-library in the autumn of the year 2020 is a brief essay on ebooks and Z-Library (formerly BookFinder) by Finnish library activist Mikael Böök that's relevant to this discussion.
posted by progosk at 9:30 AM on March 11, 2021
posted by progosk at 9:30 AM on March 11, 2021
I'd love to hear what actual librarians think about this idea
Most of us think it's bullshit.
Authors get a proportional share of publishers' library ebook revenue = fact.
As burningyrboats pointed out above, it's more nuanced than this. And not everyone's contract looks the same.
posted by aspersioncast at 2:27 PM on March 13, 2021
Most of us think it's bullshit.
Authors get a proportional share of publishers' library ebook revenue = fact.
As burningyrboats pointed out above, it's more nuanced than this. And not everyone's contract looks the same.
posted by aspersioncast at 2:27 PM on March 13, 2021
I work in book publishing and can state as fact that while the percentage may vary, every standard publishing contract from a major publisher pays the author a percentage of revenue from library sales, whether print (special library editions) or digital (via licenses). What is a fair percentage is of course subject to negotiation and disagreement. But it is a percentage of revenue, meaning if the publisher charges more, the author gets a proportional amount more, contra some of the incorrect speculations above.
posted by PhineasGage at 3:12 PM on March 13, 2021
posted by PhineasGage at 3:12 PM on March 13, 2021
Re: the 26-circs-and-it-expires license (usually HarperCollins/Disney-Hyperion): I've compared ebooks and physical books of identical titles, and on the ones I checked (not all of them by any means--maybe 100?--the cost-per-circ on those was pretty similar). Luckily, most publishers have abandoned that abusive "52 circs or 24 months, whichever happens first" deal which MacMillan had going on, but DC is still using it (proving that, in more ways than one, they're no Marvel. Marvel's eBook pricing is actually surprisingly reasonable). DC's pricing can be downright extortionate as well--when the Suicide Squad movie came out, they were selling renting one of the Suicide Squad graphic novels for $104.97; at one point Hush by Jeph Loeb was $149.97, as was the Injustice series. (They might be still; but I didn't pick any of them up, of course, because part of my job is stewarding taxpayer money, not setting it on fire in a barrel. In our midsize library, graphic novel ebooks check out maybe a half-dozen times a year.)
One thing I object to is that metered access fundamentally changes collection management. For physical items, if you exclude obsolescence (in nonfiction and/or biographies), we weed for two reasons: condition or patron disinterest. If a fiction title has checked out in the last year or two and it's in good shape, we leave it in the collection. For metered access, that is flipped on its head: titles must prove themselves constantly to be allowed to stay. The question isn't "what must go?" but "what can I justify keeping?"
The result is that for smaller library systems, eBook titles published by MacMillan, Hachette, or Simon & Schuster are almost never worth it (and likewise with eAudio from Simon & Schuster). I've skipped picking up audiobooks with starred reviews, because a) I've been burned on them before, and b) for the cost of a 24-month rental from Simon and Schuster I can pick up four to twelve times as many titles from other publishers. (The new Cassandra Clare audiobook is $129.99 for a 24-month rental. It has checked out twice since street date two weeks ago. There are only three holds on it. I will be amazed if it checks out 100 times before it expires, and for almost any other children's or teen's author I'd pass at that pricing. Most authors aren't Cassandra Clare-levels of popularity, and it is really interesting to me that Simon and Schuster prices her books like that when the Harry Potter audiobooks are $75 for five years. I mean JFC give me a break.) Publishers are actually hurting their midlist authors with their eBook/eAudio pricing, because most libraries can't afford to take a chance on the titles even if they'd like to.
At any rate: more to the substance of this article: yes, Amazon's exclusivity is atrocious. One of my author friends was unaware that "Audible-only" meant "and not for libraries, either," and I feel certain that Amazon is in no hurry to make it clear in their contracts. But I do expect more knowledge from the occasional multimillionaire comics author/TV producer who imagines himself a friend of libraries. I can only guess that Amazon pays extremely well.
I'm not sure if the DOJ has any interest in how Amazon-exclusive/Audible-exclusive contracts make the titles unavailable to libraries, but I sure wouldn't mind seeing a lawsuit about it.
posted by johnofjack at 5:42 PM on March 15, 2021 [1 favorite]
One thing I object to is that metered access fundamentally changes collection management. For physical items, if you exclude obsolescence (in nonfiction and/or biographies), we weed for two reasons: condition or patron disinterest. If a fiction title has checked out in the last year or two and it's in good shape, we leave it in the collection. For metered access, that is flipped on its head: titles must prove themselves constantly to be allowed to stay. The question isn't "what must go?" but "what can I justify keeping?"
The result is that for smaller library systems, eBook titles published by MacMillan, Hachette, or Simon & Schuster are almost never worth it (and likewise with eAudio from Simon & Schuster). I've skipped picking up audiobooks with starred reviews, because a) I've been burned on them before, and b) for the cost of a 24-month rental from Simon and Schuster I can pick up four to twelve times as many titles from other publishers. (The new Cassandra Clare audiobook is $129.99 for a 24-month rental. It has checked out twice since street date two weeks ago. There are only three holds on it. I will be amazed if it checks out 100 times before it expires, and for almost any other children's or teen's author I'd pass at that pricing. Most authors aren't Cassandra Clare-levels of popularity, and it is really interesting to me that Simon and Schuster prices her books like that when the Harry Potter audiobooks are $75 for five years. I mean JFC give me a break.) Publishers are actually hurting their midlist authors with their eBook/eAudio pricing, because most libraries can't afford to take a chance on the titles even if they'd like to.
At any rate: more to the substance of this article: yes, Amazon's exclusivity is atrocious. One of my author friends was unaware that "Audible-only" meant "and not for libraries, either," and I feel certain that Amazon is in no hurry to make it clear in their contracts. But I do expect more knowledge from the occasional multimillionaire comics author/TV producer who imagines himself a friend of libraries. I can only guess that Amazon pays extremely well.
I'm not sure if the DOJ has any interest in how Amazon-exclusive/Audible-exclusive contracts make the titles unavailable to libraries, but I sure wouldn't mind seeing a lawsuit about it.
posted by johnofjack at 5:42 PM on March 15, 2021 [1 favorite]
« Older Let's smelt some plants! | For Creators, Everything Is for Sale Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Mchelly at 10:02 AM on March 10, 2021 [2 favorites]