Why you should care about angry librarians

Yesterday, I shared a video about HarperCollins limiting the number times their e-books may be loaned. This is an extremely frustrating and scary issues for libraries and librarians, but the implications go further. It's easy for the general public to cast aside the concerns of librarians, but I don't think they should.

Librarians are a pacifist kind of people. We may be sassy, but we don't get angry. When problems arise, we are more apt to find work-arounds than confront the issue head on. Librarians like to be helpful, not accusatory. So, when we get angry, you should pay attention.

HarperCollins is setting an example - not just for libraries, but for individuals. In limiting the number of checkouts, publishers are retaining control of their e-books even after buyers pay for the material. (I could ramble on about DRM here, but I'll save that for another day.) While this current e-book argument is focused mainly on how it impacts libraries, the ramifications could be immense. If libraries are limited, why not individuals?

What is to stop HarperCollins from telling individual users that they need to pay more. "You know, that book you bought wasn't the bestseller we were expecting it to be. We need a couple more bucks."  Can you imagine the general outrage if that happened? HarperCollins is essentially telling e-book buyers that they don't fully own their purchases. It's like a publisher walking into your living room, grabbing your favorite book out of your hands and saying, "You've re-read this sucker one to many times. Pay up." [Side Note: A precedent for deleting e-books off readers as already been set.]

What scares me the most about this debate is the future implications to copyright law. Libraries operate because of the existence of the First Sale Doctrine. Libraries are able to lend books because they have legally purchased the item. Without this part of copyright law, libraries could not exist. In limiting e-book checkouts, HarperCollins is basically saying that First Sale Doctrine does not matter. This is why I personally hate that libraries license everything. We have protections under Fair Use and Section 108 in the copyright law. We should use them more often. HarperCollins is chipping away at our rights by their actions, and it makes me furious.

I'm not stubborn enough to think that the system shouldn't be change. E-books alter the library landscape including relationships with publishers and vendors. What I am against is companies imposing restrictions without speaking with libraries (their most reliable buyers) or fully understanding the wider impact of their restrictions (when libraries stop buying, where will publishers receive their new market growth?). Libraries give publishers more free marketing and advertising than they care to admit. Library bookgroups can help turn unknown authors into stars. Libraries are the reason most people read obscure titles. In limiting the number of checkouts, HarperCollins is basically putting all their eggs in the basket of bestsellers. Libraries will always buy the bestsellers - but if they have to keep rebuying these titles to meet both user demand and publisher restrictions, they will have to stop buying other, less known authors. Eric Hellman has a fantastic take on this issue on his blog. I highly recommend reading The Pareto Principle and the True Cunning of HarperCollins.

When it comes to social and educational issues, libraries are the canaries in the coal mine. In most communities, libraries are not a sacred cow - we have to deal with budget cuts just when our services are most needed. In most cases, we make do. But when a publisher tries to make an arbitrary decision based on who knows what information, librarians rightfully make a fuss.


For more information:
NYT: Publishers and Libraries Struggle Over Terms of E-Books
No Shelf Required: Articles of Interest - HarperCollins Edition
Swiss Army Librarian: A Little Rant on the Current State of E-Books

Teleread: Well Done, HarperCollins: Librarians Must Change Old Thinking
Agnostic, Maybe: An Open Letter to Publishers
Library Journal: HarperCollins, Overdrive Respond as 26 Loan Cap on E-book Debate Heats Up
David Lee King: Questions that Need Answers
Smart Bitches, Trashy Books: HarperCollin Seeks to Limit Digital Lending, Access Patron Data, Generally Piss Off Readers

Comments

Kathryn said…
You probably know, Meghan, that I disagree with you.

eBooks are an entirely different format from print publications, and Publishers have voiced concerns over eBooks in libraries that librarians have refused to acknowledge because we can only conceptualize a print-type world, where you purchase a book and you own it.

eBooks are licensed, they're not purchased like a physical book. Even if you check your Kindle User Agreement (3. Use of Digital Content) you're just licensing the materials, which is why they can take it away (i.e. Animal Farm). It's not a library specific policy -- its an eBook specific policy.

eBooks don't work like printed books for a lot of reasons, the most prevalent reason being that they're not actually printed books.

In addition, many librarians have flaunted the user agreement of both digital book readers and eBooks (libraries that rent Kindles or Nooks).

So, why should publishers listen to us until we listen to them? How can we expect them to respect libraries and librarians when we don't respect them? And how can we respond to their concerns in a mutually beneficial way, if we don't take the time to understand the differences between a print and a digital world?
Meghan said…
I agree with you on one thing; I think libraries and publishers need to work together. Ours is supposed to be a symbiotic relationship but, in actuality, is far far from that. Libraries feel that publishers are out to gouge them and publishers feel that libraries are finding any way possible to not pay for things. This is not a healthy relationship.

We have to change to meet the new forms of information, but the question is how. I'd love to see libraries and publishers come together to create a system that works for everyone.

While I still hate (HATE) licensing, I'm not opposed to a new form of deal. One thing that comes to mind with e-books is that, instead of paying a set price, libraries pay when a book is checked out with a max cap. Thus, you're not paying for more than you use. While some books would end up rather expensive, rarely used books would balance them out. It's not a perfect model, but it's an idea.

My main beef with the current check-out drama is that it seems to be publishers instituting a policy without speaking with libraries. There has to be a better way. We do need mutual respect, but it's hard to get everyone to the bargaining table when licensing agreements usually contain non-disclosure clauses.