Comments on: The ALA Ebook Standoff

By: Smith444

Smith444 — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:53:50 +0000

Your estimate that 10% of a years purchase of library books actually stays in the library long enough to get weeded because it wore out – is probably very accurate.

By: Joey

Joey — Wed, 03 Oct 2012 02:30:33 +0000

So if a library buys an ebook and “lends” it to a patron (he downloads it from the library server and it then exists as a copy on his device/hard drive/etc) how is that different than me buying an ebook and “lending” it to my friend? Or buying a CD, ripping it to my computer, and then “lending” those files to a friend?

The problem is that both publishers and libraries insist on forcing digital content and technology into the same structures that were used for print media. It will never work.

By: Joneser

Joneser — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:12:56 +0000

It’s a different market – the individual vs. the institutional market. Having the same price would mean fewer sales.

By: Librarybob

Librarybob — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 23:00:32 +0000

I think the gist of the problem is that publishers — by and large — are so scared of piracy that they’ve confabulated “piracy” with the “fair use” we librarians have always provided.

Never mind our role as free publicists. Never mind our role as the main purchasers of high-quality non-fiction (no best sellers there, no siree).

The idea of a “reading ecology” seems alien to the MBA minds now running the publishing industry.

That said, I suspect the “librarian/library role” may be found in our deep history, when collection development was actually a difficult task. I think we need to concentrate much more on determining which “small press/self-published e-books” belong in our collections and develop standard contracts for paying those publishers.

As it is, established authors have no reason to use a “publisher” since they can make more by bypassing them. We can help the non-established authors do the same.

By: Joey

Joey — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:56:38 +0000

I don’t understand why librarians are so aghast over the fact that publishers don’t like them? If you look in the news, you see the publishing industry (I’m lumping music, movies, and books together) actively prosecuting people who are sharing products or using shared products, or at least expressing agreement in regards to that prosecution. Why on earth is it surprising that they don’t want to negotiate with libraries who propose to do the same thing: buy something once and let other people use it for free?

This is why all of this is ridiculous because none of it actually addressed key issues with digital content that will continue to be issues no matter what pithy agreement the ALA and the ebook industry decide upon.

By: Former Library Director

Former Library Director — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:34:54 +0000

Why should libraries pay retail? We don’t for print!! And right now, what you get is a license which can be withdrawn at any time. Libraries don’t own the content. So, it should cost much less than the print.

In addition, libraries acquisitions help the public find new titles, it is a demonstrated fact that library users purchase MORE books than library non-users.

Finally, Annoyed does not even address those publishers who refuse to sell to libraries or to library aggregators.

By: Really?

Really? — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:19:57 +0000

Shouldn’t libraries be able to buy ebooks at the same prices as the public, and then lend them just to one patron at a time? Wouldn’t that be fair and equitable, based on the system for print books?

By: Jeremy Greenfield

Jeremy Greenfield — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 12:45:05 +0000

Thanks for this thoughtful response to my piece from last week. I feel like few people who are thinking about this issue are considering the positions of all stakeholders. It’s interesting to cover and even though I’ve been reporting on it now for some time, I have no idea how it’s going to end up.