Today’s ask is inspired by a recent New York Times article about something many readers probably don’t think much about: how libraries pay for ebooks. Several states, including Connecticut and New Jersey, are trying to pass laws that would limit how much publishers can charge libraries for digital books. The idea is to make it easier for libraries to keep up with demand without draining their budgets. Publishers and author groups aren’t thrilled, and the whole thing has sparked a heated debate.
Here’s how it works. Libraries don’t buy ebooks the way they buy paperbacks. They license them—usually at a much higher price. A digital copy of a book might cost a library more than $50, and that license might expire after two years or a certain number of checkouts. Even then, just one patron can borrow it at a time. If a library wants to keep that book in circulation, they’ll need to pay again.
Publishers argue that this model protects sales. Ebooks don’t get lost or fall apart, and if libraries could lend them out forever, it could undercut purchases. At the same time, many libraries are watching their digital budgets balloon while trying to keep up with reader demand. Waitlists for popular titles can stretch for months. Some libraries say they’re spending far more on ebooks than they ever did on print, just to offer access that’s still limited and temporary.
Publishers also argue that these prices benefit authors—whose incomes, we know, are often modest. (The median income from book-related work for published authors is just $10,000 a year.) But it’s not clear whether current licensing models actually change that depressing math. So I’m curious: do you think steep prices for library ebooks are a effective protection for writers? Or do they prop up a system that doesn’t serve libraries, readers, or the majority of authors well? What do you think the best solution would be?
It’s a tough one. Authors deserve to be appropriately paid for their work, and only a tiny percentage of authors earn big money. But the price of ebooks – as is often mentioned on this site – is making many books prohibitively expensive for readers, which makes the library the only option (assuming they have access to a library that is decently stocked.)
And, at a time where it seems to me to be more important than ever that people have access to books and information, it makes no sense to be making it harder for people to access books and information. Libraries are a valuable part of communities and are under threat because of budget constraints – if they don’t have new books to lend out, then people will stop using them. Perhaps this is what publishers want? To make books so expensive to use that the only option is for people to buy them? (Not at some of the eyewatering prices I see they won’t!)
I don’t know what the answer is – but I’ve long felt that publishers, by making ebooks so expensive for libraries and then setting expiry dates/lending limits on them, are not the good guy in all this. Maybe they could charge the same prices but extend the life of the licences to five or ten years? Or allow the libraries to lend more than one copy at a time? That wouldn’t help their profits though, which is all they’re really interested in.
Of course, in an ideal world, libraries should have big enough budgets to be able to buy all the books they want, to pay the extortianate prices demanded of them, and keep everyone happy. But that isn’t the world we’re living in, sadly.
The public library I worked at was paying upwards of $60 for a popular book, and the rental was based on the number of times it was checked out. So, Rose in Chains would cost $60 and would be lent out X number of times before we had to pay again. Most readers would join the queue for the hardback because, as mentioned in your blog, the waiting time on the digital was insane.
Personally, I don’t think libraries affect book sales in my communities. I’ve been a suburbanite/mid-sized town/small-town dweller all my life, and libraries are central hubs in these areas. People see books as luxury items and are willing to wait for them. And frankly, people don’t read enough to get super impatient over a waiting list. In the United States, the average person reads only 12 books a year, and the most active readers are over 65. You’ve learned some patience at that age. Six out of ten households don’t buy even one book per year.
I think this has more to do with publisher stupidity than anything else. Seeing declining sales, they don’t think of how to sell more books, but how to make more from the books they do sell. And that’s a losing game because of self-publishing and subscription services like Kindle Unlimited. Right now, a good 90% of my personal reading is from our steals and deals, finding something on the Amazon sales page (which I visit frequently), libraries (I have five books from there right now), the occasional UBS haul, my overburdened TBR, Kindle Unlimited, and self-published books. I purchase the expensive stuff only on birthdays and Christmas.
As far as Caz’s point regarding publishers driving libraries out of business, I can’t speak for anywhere else, but long waiting periods won’t cause people in the US to stop utilizing libraries. The library in my town (and the other town I worked at over 20 years ago) offers free internet access on their computers. Many people utilize that service. Our children’s section has very active reading programs and story hours, all based on hard-copy books. We host events there, including the school band’s summer concerts and various town meetings. I’ve only ever worked at small-town and suburban libraries, but in those communities, libraries are far more than just a place to get books.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear – I didn’t mean publishers necessarily wanting to drive libraries out of business, I meant that they might want an excuse to stop licencing ebooks to libraries because they don’t make enough money out of it.
Ah! Sorry for misunderstanding. If that’s what they feel, they are idiots. In this economy, I think most people will just do without.
Do the steep lending prices for ebooks really protect writers, though? I’m curious to know how much of that goes to the writers? Yes, of course writers need to get their fair share of profit. They wrote those books, after all. But I don’t trust publishers to do what’s right.
Personally, when the wait for an e-book that I really, really, want to read is too long, I’ll just put my name down for the paper book and see which comes up first. If it’s a book that I’m simply curious about it, then the lengthy wait won’t bother me. The longest queue I’ve had was #98 on the queue, I think.
I have heard for ebooks in libraries, authors can get 20-25% of the fee.
I don’t understand this point from the NYT article at all:
Publishers and authors argue that the long wait times for library e-book checkouts, which these legislative efforts hope to alleviate, are the only market force encouraging people to actually buy e-books. “When it’s so easy to get a free e-book, a perfect e-book, every time, why would they ever buy an e-book?” said Mary Rasenberger, executive director of the Authors Guild.
How is that any different from paper books? If I go into my library, browse the shelves and find a book, a free book, why would I then buy a copy myself? And that system seemed to work fine for decades and decades. (Oh, and if I really love the book, I indeed may buy a copy so I have it on my shelf/reader for rereading)
But now publishers, along with a number of other industries, have discovered the value of licensing vs. selling, and that they can get so much more $$$ out of your customers. This happened with software that you used to buy and own, now you license it for a monthly fee. You don’t own your ebooks, your music, your movies, and that means someone can make a decision to take it away from you at any time.
I guess my point was that everyone was and is satisfied with how it works for physical copies, that the library pays cover price or less, lends it to one person at a time, and there’s a gradual point when the book is too worn to be on the shelves and another copy is purchased or the library decides there’s no demand anymore. Why wouldn’t that process work for ebooks? Pay the cover price (or less), only 1 reader at a time, and you agree on some comparable number or loans or time period when the copy is worn. The authors are still making the exact same royalties in either case.
Yes to everything you’ve said. I’ve been furious over the licensing/streaming issue for some time now.
I think the difference is that to get exactly the paper book I want, I usually have to request it and then it takes a few days to arrive at my local library, which I then have to visit to pick up the book. As compared with Amazon, which will ship the book to my home, presto! So for a paper book, the library is not more convenient than Amazon.
However, if you’re renting an ebook from the library, and it’s instantly available, it is exactly as convenient as buying the book from Amazon, if not more so because you don’t have to pay. I probably spend a few hundred bucks on ebooks a year. If my library ebook system was as instantaneous that would likely go down to zero.
And that, I suspect, is why the system is what it is. As I write about endlessly here, those involved in writing fiction have to have some way to make money. And capitalism rewards the bosses–in this case, the publishers. If laws are passed to make ebooks easier to get from libraries–which would, in many cases, be good for patrons–I feel sure publishers will respond by higher fees per book or find some other way to keep profits coming.