Friday 9 September 2011

Fury over 'stupid' restrictions to library ebook loans | Books | guardian.co.uk

Fury over 'stupid' restrictions to library ebook loans

HarperCollins's plans to limit libraries to 26 loans of each ebook declared 'backward-looking and retrograde'

Public library
Internet user in a public library in London. Photograph: Jeff Blackler / Rex Features

Furious librarians are calling for a boycott of publisher HarperCollins over its decision to put a limit on the number of times its ebooks can be loaned.

Under the new policy, announced by distributor Overdrive in a letter to customers last week, libraries will only be able to lend out each purchased ebook published by HarperCollins a total of 26 times before the book's lifetime expires.

The development has led to an explosion of anger among librarians, who up until now have been able to lend any ebook as often as they like – just as they do with print copies. Loans are generally made via the library's website, with users gaining access via a PIN number, and downloaded ebooks remaining live for a two-week loan period.

Phil Bradley, vice president of the UK professional body The Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals, blogged: "I simply cannot begin to describe what a stupid, backward-looking and retrograde step I think this is." He called the move "a direct attack on a library's users, making it difficult for them to borrow electronic books that they might otherwise be unable to read," adding: "Worse than that, it is going to make libraries think twice about purchasing ebooks in the future if publishers think that they can just change the rules whenever they feel like it."

Librarian Sarah Houghton Jan of San Rafael Public Library, wrote on her blog that HarperCollins's decision created a "dangerous precedent" that others would follow, blaming publishers for not realising that new formats are opportunities, as well as ebook vendors for not standing up to "asinine" demands – and the library profession itself for not standing up for the rights of its users. "I cannot over-emphasise that we are in trouble my friends," she wrote. "The lack of legislative leadership and advocacy in the last decade has created a situation where libraries have lost the rights to lending and preserving content that we have had for centuries."

Meanwhile librarians Brett Bonfield and Gabriel Farrell launched a site calling on colleagues and library users to boycott any books or ebooks from the publisher until it changed its stance.

Concern among publishers about the implications of library ebook lending surfaced last autumn, when the UK Publishers Association moved to restrict remote downloading amid fears that ebooks were being loaned without proper geographical safeguards. But Overdrive CEO Steve Potash last month insisted there was now "enthusiastic support" for library e-lending from "many" trade houses, with only "one or two" still expressing concerns.

Comments in chronological order (Total 19 comments)

  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor

  • StephDuncan

    1 March 2011 1:26PM

    An alternative digital library supply model exists through Public Library Online which offers concurrent user access to library members on a 24/7 basis, both within the library and remotely with a library card to log in. This digital online access library supply model was developed by Bloomsbury in response to librarians' need to remain relevant to their local community by providing a digital service to their entire community whilst also meeting publishers' needs to support libraries with an appropriate digital lending model. The Public Library Online includes themed online access bookshelves from a range of UK publishers.

  • ParkyDR

    1 March 2011 2:21PM

    The concept of lending e-books is bizarre anyway, they are digital files.

    With physical books, there is only a limited number of copies so it makes sense, but with a digital file, infinite copies can be made.

    I realise authors/publishers etc need to make money, but there's got to be a better way than this nonsense.

    In addition, by using these closed formats, most of our culture will be lost because it is locked up in files no one can read anymore.

  • olip74

    1 March 2011 3:44PM

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    What a farce! It's a strange, strange world. It's funny, there's a kind of communist essence to all these 1s and 0s that 'capitalist peegs' just can't get to grips with.

  • R042

    1 March 2011 3:51PM

    What a farce! It's a strange, strange world. It's funny, there's a kind of communist essence to all these 1s and 0s that 'capitalist peegs' just can't get to grips with.

    The same sort of "communist essence" that of course can be as easily replicated by giving things away and passing them on, rather than buying something and duplicating it for your friends.

    There's more personal meaning and selflessness in giving someone one of your possessions than simply making a copy.

  • olip74

    1 March 2011 4:07PM

    It's classic Marxist economics. As the cost of production (and distribution) tends toward zero so does the inherent value. IP and licensing creates artificial scarcity. It depends on your viewpoint whether this is a good thing.

  • R042

    1 March 2011 4:10PM

    The ultimate question is really do you think that writing is a task which deserves payment, or should authors just "deal with it" as you indulge your communist essence and encourage people not to buy their books.

  • olip74

    1 March 2011 4:13PM

    I never said I was a communist, I'm just drawing some analogies with Marxist analysis here...

  • R042

    1 March 2011 4:23PM

    I never said I was a communist, I'm just drawing some analogies with Marxist analysis here...

    I'm not either - it's just a fruitful debate, I think. Do works of culture have inherent value, should they be paid for? And if so by who?

    Ultimately if a book is assigned a price, what determines it? The quality of the book, the size of the book (and so the resources used) or the desires of the author?

  • olip74

    1 March 2011 5:20PM

    Well to continue the communist analogy, am I right in thinking that the communist states used to support artists in return for their efforts? Of course their work was inevitably constrained by ideology and propaganda but there were still great artists from this era, e.g. Meštrović. In fact in most other models of society than capitalism, artists were supported by patronage of one sort or another, the Italian city states, etc.

    Even in the modern age in the West, there are great, even philanthropic, champions of the arts. But, at the end of the day, as Wilde said "all art is quite useless," and it is not possible to assign any of it a convenient value in monetary terms. Is one copy of N-Dubz latest excrecence of the same worth as the latest Murukami novel? Don't know where I'm going with this but I guess I'm saying that it's always been a struggle for artists to get paid. The advent of the Internet provides challenges, sure, but also opportunity and limiting library eBooks to 26 leases is one of the more 'stupid' examples that I've yet witnessed of the content industries' bunkered mentality. They are simply not adapting to reality and they risk making themselves obsolete.

  • olip74

    1 March 2011 5:23PM

    Actually to be fair, Meštrović didn't work for the communist regime, despite being invited back to Yugoslavia. Picasso did though!!

  • kwacka2

    1 March 2011 7:16PM

    No doubt books are available (with the Digital Restraints removed) on P2P networks, download sites like Katz, IRC, usenet ............

    Seems like the Harper-Collins fail to learn the lesson of Hollywood & music industry.

  • olip74

    1 March 2011 8:11PM

    Harper-Collins, prop. R.Murdoch.

    Ah, might have guessed! That explains that then.

  • JaitcH

    2 March 2011 4:57AM

    Geographic safeguards, use restrictions, copying concerns

    It is extremely easy to bypass most every attempt at limitation based on IP information. I live in the Far East and have proxy terminations in the U.S.A. Canada and the U.K. and controls simply don't/won't work for any medium.

    Unreasonable restrictions on use will simply attract abuse such as hacking the DRM, etc.

    And if Harper-Collins thinks e-books represent a risk for sales, they might be interested in knowing there are thousands of books that have been converted from paper to .PDF or plain graphical scans.

  • PatrickNeylan

    2 March 2011 10:33AM

    It's easy to criticise the publisher, largely because the Guardian doesn't seem to have asked for a comment or explanation. So we've only got half a story. Still, since HarperCollins is owned by Rupert Murdoch, we all know they're evil anyway.

  • Staff
    benedictepage

    2 March 2011 10:58AM

    We did approach HarperCollins for comment and I'm happy to say this one has now come through:

    "HarperCollins has always been a firm supporter of libraries in the UK, working hard to ensure that our books are available in both physical and digital form. We also work closely with The Reading Agency and include libraries as a regular element of all author tours. With a rapidly changing digital market, establishing the right arrangement for lending e-books, which supports the interests of both readers and authors while providing a sustainable future, is not straightforward and many models may need to be tested before we reach the optimum outcome. The deal which HarperCollins US have struck involving a cap of 26 consecutive circulations on a “one copy, one reader” basis, is one potential solution, and preferable, we believe, to simply prohibiting ebook library lending as some major publishers in both the UK and the US have done. We continue to work with the PA on this issue, with the aim of reaching an industry-wide solution.”

  • OverThereByTheDoor

    2 March 2011 10:02PM

    I've been wondering how on earth publishers plan to reconcile the e-book with libraries. The only downside of a library is that they are limited in terms of their stock due to physical space. Since there is no such requirement on an e-book, what's to stop all books being available instantly, for free, from your public library website? Why would anyone ever buy a book again? It's surely just a matter of time before Google starts receiving commissions to provide databases of books.

  • starlingnl

    3 March 2011 11:45AM

    It's classic Marxist economics. As the cost of production (and distribution) tends toward zero so does the inherent value. IP and licensing creates artificial scarcity

    Marxist? I'd say creating artificial scarcity (which is something De Beers does with diamonds, btw) is definitely Capitalist.

Comments on this page are now closed.

Loading
Loading
via guardian.co.uk

Posted by at

Flickr - projectbrainsaver

www.flickr.com
projectbrainsaver's A Point of View photoset projectbrainsaver's A Point of View photoset