I read HarperCollins' open letter to librarians this morning. I was glad that I hadn't yet had my breakfast since the letter made me sick to my stomach. As if the Agency Price Model wasn't enough, now HarperCollins wants to RENT ebooks to libraries, not sell them. Here is the response I sent to HarperCollins this morning:
Mr Marwell:
I am vehemently opposed to your new ebook policy with respect to libraries. When a library purchases a book, they own it. You are proposing renting ebooks to libraries. Attempting to base this decision on the number of ereaders currently in use around the country and/or the world does not change the facts: you intend to RENT books to the libraries, not sell them.
Paper copies have a shelf-life much longer than one year. Libraries do not need to replace their paper books each and every year. Perhaps if you were to study the average number of years a physical book remains in the system, you might be able to correlate a better rental term, but your policy as stated reeks of greed, especially considering the costs involved in producing ebooks as compared to paper copies. I've seen the numbers. Publishers make a larger profit on ebooks than on paper books. There are no shipping fees, no paper costs, and no losses from shrink nor from "stripped" book returns.
Many people who cannot afford to purchase a lot of books outright use the library systems around the country. Those people can, at this time, check out ebooks and read them on the libraries’ public computers using freely available ebook PC clients – for free – because the libraries are supported by the taxes we pay. Limiting the libraries to a single year of an ebook RENTAL would significantly increase operating costs. With libraries already facing heavy budget slashes, do you really think this is a wise idea?
No, of course not. It is short-sighted, at best. Sure, you will reap some benefits in the short-term, perhaps even slightly longer in the more affluent areas of the country. Note, however, that in the long-term, libraries will be forced to stop hosting ebooks and rely solely on paper books. This does not seem to be the way to increase your overall profits nor to garner customer respect and allegiance.
Return to the established business model: SELL your titles to libraries outright; do not RENT them.
How do you feel about this issue?
Posts
5 yarns:
I agree with you! What a terrible thing to do. If the fees get too high for the libraries they will shut down entirely which is not good for anyone. Such greed I cannot comprehend.
I think it's yet another example of how out of touch the big publishers are. :(
Madness!!! Libraries are the Reader's Refuge! They bring new lovers of literature into the fold. Who among us doesn't remember that first book we checked out and the thrill that came with it? Why would anyone want to make it harder for libraries to reach readers? There is no profit in that in the long run since libraries have limited resources and aren't going to do business with publishers who inflate prices.
Excellent letter!
Get 'em, Trek. It's a shame that libraries are struggling so hard to stay open. Our local library is in such a sad state of affairs that most people don't even bother to go in. It's in a historic house in the middle of town. They've been out of room for quite a while, so extra books are stored outside (on the front porch) on bookshelves and covered with tarps. The sewer system has long since been in need of repair and on 'busy' days, it backs up into a neighbor's yard. We've been applying for grants and raising money for a new building, but with the economy in the shape that it's in....well. /sigh/
Very well written. I had not heard of this, but I agree with what you say.
Gillian
Post a Comment