Ebook economics: Are libraries screwed?

Blog post: http://www.librarything.com/thingology/2009/10/ebook-economics-are-libraries-scr...

So, general question: What do you think ebooks are going to do to libraries? Improve 'em? Kill 'em? Not much?

Interesting. I'm just going to comment on the reading devices themselves. The policy of libraries buying such devices and then loaning them out has to be short-lived. How far away are we from dirt-cheap dedicated ebook readers? Like calculators and netbooks, it doesn't seem that far away. Devices below a $100 in three years and $50 or below in five years. If you subscribe to a newspaper, magazine, or publisher for a certain time period they'll probably give you a free one.

Kindle just went to $249 for US. I don't think it'll stay there for even a year.

I agree. Some libraries used to let people check out VHS machines. Nobody does that anymore—they're too cheap, and everyone has one that wants one. Libraries aren't going to be loaning out physical devices in the future, they're going to be providing temporary rights to the device you have. Publishers are not going to let libraries do that over and over again, let alone with multiple "seats" for cheap.

oops- Kindle to $259

The rental model is something to think about for libraries. Publishers seem determined not to get locked into Amazon which is good in the long-term. Still, I'm not sure who I trust more, Big Publishing or Big Internet Retailers or Big Device Makers.

I think publishers will get locked into Amazon. The only real competition is Google, not Sony. But I don't see Google really caring about devices, or focusing enough to compete with Amazon long-term.

I agree. Some libraries used to let people check out VHS machines. Nobody does that anymore—they're too cheap, and everyone has one that wants one. Libraries aren't going to be loaning out physical devices in the future, they're going to be providing temporary rights to the device you have. Publishers are not going to let libraries do that over and over again, let alone with multiple "seats" for cheap.

#5

Well with Amazon's ebooks (well the Kindle one's anyway) they just aren't a player on the UK and European (and Aus/NZ/SA for that matter) market. The will not sell the Kindle to us, the networking stuff (Whispernet) won't work over here anyway and they show no signs of remedying that. In the UK Sony is the market-leader - it is probably the only dedicated device you can buy off the shelf in the high-street. Of course if is fighting against netbooks, and high-end phones. Some people I have talked to think that a multi-function device (like a high-end phone) is where the ebook reader is going to end up, others (including some publishers) seem to think we will have a multitude of different devices.

Our current library has plans for circulating ebooks but they aren't very advanced and I don't know how it will work. In the short term I think there will be minimal effect on libraries - but there will come a time where there could be a fairly rapid flip (maybe over two years) where ebooks become the predominant form of library lending. I expect that there will be lots of ill-prepared libraries.

>7 andyl:

They're expanding overseas this morning: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/10/international-kindle/

I should say that Apple is a real contender. Given even money, I'd even bet on them in the long run. Won't change anything, though. Apple is committed to a locked-down world.

andyl, the international Kindle was released today. 20,000 books available, mostly in English, vs. 350,000 available in the US.

Ran across this in the WSJ which is one of the first times I've seen Amazon release such a number.
"Mr. Kessel also declined to say how many Kindles Amazon had sold since launching the product in 2007. He said that today, among books available in both digital and physical editions, the company sells 48 Kindle editions for every 100 physical copies of those books."

>9 VisibleGhost:

The overall sales numbers are like 1-2% tops. Some books (ie., Dan Brown) will spike high on the first day, because of pre-orders. But we're talking 1-2% for Kindle, 13-14% for rest of Amazon in book market.

Library problems are tied up with publishing problems somewhat.

The problem publishing has is that the people who run Amazon and Google are just smarter and faster than they are.

For example, Tor, an imprint of MacMillan tries a DRM free ebook experiment closing on 4 years ago. Lasts about an eyeblink before some long-way-sub-genius executive stops it. Publishing executives are still buying the DRM snakeoil salesman's wares, to paraphrase Charlie Stross, for one, let alone me. In half of that time Amazon has whacked themselves together what would appear to be heading for billion dollar businesshood. Utilising exactly this gap and DRM-philia against them.

Now it is nearly four years later, same publisher still not selling, except occasional title - and only on Amazon! Insanity. Also, way too many flat earth I-love-the-smell-of-moldy-paper-in-the-morning-this-won't-happen denialists around, still. Some of the authors are guilty of similar arseclownery, of course.

Talking about trade publishing, their only hope to avoid all our base belong to Bezos is to put together an industry wide project (or at least single multinationalwide) sort of like hulu - but selling books, with of course some freebies - and make it different. The only difference they have to offer that I can see is no DRM and eventually all their titles. Problem being they seem to be ridiculously fractious, and would rather sue each other than agree on something like worldwide non-exclusive selling to increase sales for everyone. DRM-free of course will means books sell in significantly higher numbers. They can then have bundles and subscriptions and things like that (and new ideas) that somewhere that is just a retailer is unable to do. Keeping a much bigger chunk for themselves, too.

Talking about libraries, I don't think they are doomed - but publisher stupidity doesn't help a possible decline, certainly. As mentioned, there is some substitution possible for public libraries and recreation. Deposit/Research and academic libraries have different issues and conditions. Long-term I'm not smart enough to guess, though. Energy crises pretty bad for transporting hunks of paper around, for example.

Your monopoly rent extraction scenario for libaries is certainly likely given media executive thinking. Actually coming up with library friendly collections (or titles) for sale or rent that bypass DRM-loving Amazon and the snake-oilers and getting the librarians onside and promoting their solution would seem to be a sensible alternative. They could have promo CDs for library patrons too, that had some free stuff plus other info, where to buy etc. - something an internet retailer isn't going to do. Freebies and promos and resources could be integrated to library management software too - but Tim has talked about how hopeless they can be with innovation.

Instead, they waste their time stressing that people are copying their stuff, rather than building business models and fixing their business processes. Crazy.

How thick do you have to be if you are supposedly educated reader types (e.g. working in publishing) and don't realise that PROHIBITION _does not work_ on humans. Particularly if you are American. Unbelievable. It decreases your own business and gives more business (and your money) to enforcers of such, and those getting around it (lots of whom would give you money if they could).

The more optimistic view is that with digital content (and actual sensible economic models) libraries will have access to much more - public domain material as well as what they buy. So print collections may decrease some - but be replaced with access methods to a far greater wealth of material without taking up real estate that could be more attractive to the community as a destination.

I've been wanting to ask some of the LT authors in author chat if their publishers are doing a good job of keeping track of their Kindle sales and how many they've had. But I figured they'd think that was way too nosy. Kinda like asking how much money someone makes. I'm just curious to see how things are changing in publishing.

Yes, sellers of books are very secretive with their numbers in general, compared to other media. People care less, too, of course. :)

I just ran through the Kindle Top 100 on Amazon.com and 48 of them were free. Including stuff like Perdido Street Station. More copyrighted stuff than public domain stuff.

Sure. Hard to beat that price. :)

You can also get some of them free without having to use Amazon, too.

There is already a big gap between the publisher's idea of an acceptable ebook price and the readers'. We all feel it should be cheaper because, while editing, producing, etc. might cost the same, printing, delivery, etc. doesn't apply. And I agree with tim, I think this gap will just widen and libraries will accept it because "patrons want it" and now that it catches on, the sponsors (city, town, etc) won't want to be left behind, either and excert some pressure to build ebook collections.

If the prices for e-books are too high, why wouldn't libraries just keep buying paper books? Or are you assuming that paper books will go extinct?

I agree, the future of ebooks looks bleak for libraries. "Renting" is not something libraries traditionally have done, but we are getting used to it with services like Overdrive, and of course journal databases. But when it comes to the core collection, that's a different story.

Has there been any talk in the publishing world of some kind of pay-per-loan model? Libraries could pay the $9.99 cover price of an ebook (I doubt we'll still get the 40% discount currently offered by Baker & Taylor, Ingram, etc), but then also be charged $1 or $0.50 for each time the book is checked out (or downloaded). Publishers keep getting paid, and for libraries, it's still cheaper than a $25 hardcover (at least for a little while).

But Tim's also right about the loss of the secondary market. Library book sales will be a thing of the past, as will book donated to libraries (which will mean libraries will need to spend more on books). And even though ebooks will of course be pirated, I seriously doubt any library would add a pirated copy to their collection.

I would be curious, too, to hear what authors say about this. I'm sure if you asked just about any author, they'd proclaim how much they love libraries. Yet is there anything authors can do to make sure their work will still be available in libraries?

Back in the day, many libraries stocked and loaned music records. Do any of them even try with digital music?

11:

http://www.baen.com/library

#8, #9

Yes, I've seen that since.

I will also note that you cannot buy the device from amazon.co.uk (the announcement redirects you to amazon.com) and there is no way to buy the kindled books from amazon.co.uk yet. Obviously there are no prices in sterling. The international version ships with just a US power adapter (so would be illegal to sell in the UK without supplying a UK plug). It would also need a CE mark for the UK and Europe. Because a UK customer would be buying from the US then customs duty plus import VAT would also be charged (both on the item and delivery). Which could push the price up by about 25% plus an administration charge.

Now clearly, Amazon are going to put in the work to solve these issues but it does seem a bit of a rushed announcement considering that since Kindle's first appearance many people have been asking about versions for the UK and Europe. I wonder what will be announced by Amazon's competition over the next month?

One of the major libraries in our regional system does loan out kindles. They have maybe half a dozen and each kindle has fifty books or so loaded--purchased the way any kindle owner does, not through B&T or any discount. The titles are mostly recent, with a few classics thrown in for good measure. However, they definitely don't pay extra for each person using the item or each time an eBook is read. They do, though, have a wait list longer than Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol is currently. And they require a card of their own (no one else's regional card will suffice, which rather sucks for the rest of us who might like to try it), credit card info, and probably the signing over of your first-born. The kindles were gifts to the library that they received from patrons who shopped the library's amazon.com wishlist.

Our regional system and the next closest also share a much-touted and advertised digital collection through the aforementioned Overdrive, but I'd say the average patrons pay little attention to it. Otherwise I'd be troubleshooting a lot worse than "How do I use the catalog?" from the general public.

I think there will be an equivalent of the first-sale doctrine. The U.S. government and its courts have been pretty good about protecting library users. I don't expect that to change just because the medium is different.

Also, while I think we'll soon enjoy biblioplenty, we'll also see more of the major writers employing the Radiohead direct-sale model. Why should Stephen King or Sarah Palin go through a publishing house when they can keep all the money themselves?

Metacomment: the piece is really good and thought provoking, but I wish you'd either closed comments or not created a discussion thread. It's nice when all the LibraryThing-housed comments are in one place.

>23 bonfield:

I suspect you, Bonfield! I think I know your first name...

I think there will be an equivalent of the first-sale doctrine. The U.S. government and its courts have been pretty good about protecting library users. I don't expect that to change just because the medium is different.

I see no signs this is coming at all. Have you seen any? And I don't think content providers will sit back and let it happen. It would have been good for libraries if copyright hadn't been extended to virtual permanence too, but content providers have power.

Metacomment: the piece is really good and thought provoking, but I wish you'd either closed comments or not created a discussion thread. It's nice when all the LibraryThing-housed comments are in one place.

I hear you. It's interesting how many comments went to the blog. Mostly I've seen the opposite. I think the answer may be that I didn't give the talk link at the TOP of the post. I do like to have both, though, as they have a different flavor, and some people don't want to create an account.

This.

The distribution model makes having libraries reliant upon loaning digital files absurd. When someone can get what they want cheaply & easily from their home computer, why would they want to go to the library to do the same?

If loaning were online, why would that necessitate more than one library?

I do think digital is the way we're going . . . I'm just concerned about what will happen on the way.

Quoting from post #22: "I'd say the average patrons pay little attention to it {OverDrive and other ebook services offered by libraries}" -- this is true in the small-to-medium-town libraries I've worked in. Yes, eventually readers will be as cheap as VHS or DVD players (or cheaper) -- but until they are, libraries are going to need to circulate at least some devices, or the digital divide grows ever wider. Considering that most libraries serve many patrons who still don't have a home computer or access to the Internet at home, I'm not sure how long it will take for "everyone" to have an ebook reader, but I'm betting it will be a long time. Add the cost of circulating readers (and replacing or repairing damaged ones, and staff time helping less tech-savvy users figure out how to operate them) to the potentially rising cost of subscriptions to ebook vendors . . . well, if the chief role of the library is to provide equity of access to information to the entire population they serve, libraries are going to have a long, hard climb ahead of them.

I can see a few reasons why a library might consider acquiring ebooks: they don't cost much to store, they make the library look cool and with-it, and they potentially allow the library to offer a better service to patrons who can't use paper books because of eyesight problems. But I wouldn't have thought any of those really outweighed the practical advantages of paper books. And, as others have said, given that you want an ebook, where's the added value for the user in getting it through a library rather than through an internet ebook rental service? Libraries aren't going to be able to display ebooks to people who browse their physical shelves, after all.

What about e-books from NetLibrary (online database subscription) someday adapting to being available for use on readers? Do you think this is a possiblity?
(I'm not too familiar with e-readers yet, but am open to purchasing one someday for myself should more free books become available.)

>24 timspalding:

Sorry, yes, bonfield is Brett Bonfield. So take anything I write with a grain of salt.

'''I see no signs this is coming at all. Have you seen any? And I don't think content providers will sit back and let it happen. It would have been good for libraries if copyright hadn't been extended to virtual permanence too, but content providers have power.'''

I haven't seen any signs. I'm relying solely on precedent. But I don't think we would see any signs yet and don't expect to see them until libraries are threatened. Or, rather, the status quo on how people use libraries is threatened. For now, dead tree books are still cheap, they're still superior to their electronic equivalents, and pretty much everything that's published electronically is also still published in print. (Note: I'm arguing dead tree books vs. ebooks, not print vs. internet which is another discussion entirely.)

I disagree with your point about copyright extensions being bad for libraries. Copyright extensions artificially increase prices, limit distribution channels, and encourage people to share, helping to justify libraries' existence. It's similar to the situation in peer-reviewed journals: by controlling copyright and metadata, by keeping prices high, and by hiding everything behind confusing interfaces, publishers have created a situation in which libraries are the only place to gain access to a large percentage of scholarly articles, and librarians are often the only ones who can find them. The situation is bad for users, and good librarians are trying to change things, but the status quo protects libraries.

I agree that content providers have power, collectively, but I'm not sure they'll act in a unified way. Do authors' interests align with publishers' interests? Do either of these groups' interests align with the interests of electronic device manufacturers? And how does Google fit into the picture? I think it's more likely that these groups will fight each other and leave libraries alone. We're a tiny segment of the market and aren't likely to hurt their future profits any more than we've hurt their past profits.

>29 bonfield:

I'm not sure how to argue the extension of first-sale either way, except to say that the idea hasn't really happened yet, and we're well into the ebook revolution. But things could change, I suppose. I suspect if such a doctrine is created, it will not allow libraries to buy one copy at a regular price and then let multiple users read it at the same time anywhere.

It would be interesting to come up with a rule. Should it mimic the physical world—buy a single book and you can lend it out to one person at a time? Should it somehow be time-based?

From a political science perspective, I hope no such rule is created. I don't like the idea of government wading into private contracts to produce some alleged public good. I say alleged because it's quite possible the state will create some special "right" for libraries which amounts to a subsidy for publishers better than they'd get if both parties were left alone to make up their own rules. Or they'll create some system that favors some parties (ie., big publishers who can afford system X) over others. But whatever; I'm not in the political majority.

I disagree with your point about copyright extensions being bad for libraries

Ha. So by raising book prices, the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension helped libraries? Well, if so, to hell with libraries. If helping libraries means screwing consumers, well, I ain't ALWAYS in favor of libraries! :) You may well be right, though.

We're a tiny segment of the market and aren't likely to hurt their future profits any more than we've hurt their past profits.

We need real numbers here, but libraries aren't that small. I'd guess 10-15% total. Certainly some publishing markets—academic publishing, for example, and some reference publishing—is dominated by the library market. I'd love to see figures, of course.

ebooks aren't a threat to libraries in the near future. Dead tree books are easier to see, to get, easier to curl up with and so on and you don't need any special devices in order to read one.

In the far future? I don't know.

Even now, my library has a decent ebook collection (particularly romance books. I wish its science fiction/fantasy collection was bigger). It doesn't touch the size of the dead tree collection. But the ebooks aren't going anywhere and will likely just stay in the library's digital collection. They won't be resold in library sales (I don't like this - a lot of my books come from library sales.) and the binding isn't likely to fall apart. Though the ebook files could become corrupt, the computers they are stored on could die. Even in the case of such events, the files should be backed up somewhere else. So odds are the size of my library's digital collection will only increase, as the dead tree collection will not, due to limited shelf space. Assuming they keep getting ebooks, maybe eventually the size of the digital increase will be bigger than the physical collection? Maybe. As for why people will go to the library instead of buying ebooks, they will do so because the libraries are free. ;) They can display books on the library webpage, have staff recommendations there too, have a place where people can review and comment on books.

Will libraries go completely digital? I doubt it. Although the day may come (centuries from now, I hope) when they are mostly digital and have a single physical library where you can get dead tree books.

30: timspalding
I don't know about any doctrine, but my library already only allows just one person to check out the same copy of any ebook at the same. If you want it, you put a hold on it and they email you when it is available. And the library takes it back at the end of one week which is all you have the ebook for. (I think it is one week. I could be wrong, as I haven't checked out an ebook in some time now. Anyway, the time is limited). No late fees. Which makes me wonder - how much do libraries make in late fees? They limit you to 52 books at a time, too, though they used to limit you to 3. Anyway, I have to say I assumed they paid the normal price for it. And entered into some agreement with somebody, which limits how many computers you can read it on (1!) and how many times you can download it (this differs by format) and if you can print (usually not. For more educational type materials, you have limited printing, I think.).

31- The storage space issue is an interesting one. Many libraries are constrained by space. Now, most libraries are local. In the digital age why couldn't there be huge national or global libraries that held several million books. Administration costs would have to be cheaper for a few mega-libraries than for tens of thousands of smaller ones. That being said, I really wouldn't want my local libraries to disappear.

32: VisibleGhost - me either. I like my local library. I know all the librarians. I like walking over and browsing the shelves and all. That won't be possible in a digital library. I doubt there will be global libraries, because of copyright issues (publishers have to sell international copyrights don't they? and if they haven't, no one in that country can legally get that book.), but national ones are a distinct possibility. But it would mean turning libraries into a federal level agency and I don't know if that will ever happen.

I hate the phrase "dead-tree book." It's needlessly pejorative. We might call a Kindle a "petroleum-plastic, silicon, lead and nickel-cadmium" book, but we don't.

That being said, I really wouldn't want my local libraries to disappear.

That's a significant point, I think. Why don't you want them disappear. I suspect it's because the library has other values to you than a place to get a free book. Unfortunately, these "value adds" need to be added to something. I don't see libraries continuing to get the same support if their primary mission is mooted.

But it would mean turning libraries into a federal level agency and I don't know if that will ever happen.

Many European countries have a much more centralized public library system than the US, though. (I think this is bad, but that's my peculiar politics; I dislike aggregation of power generally, and aggregation of cultural power particularly.)

LibraryThing got its first Kindle. See here:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/74737

Tim

29

I'd agree. First sale isn't one to many, certainly. A libraries buys one, they lend one seems pretty fair to me. DRM free books don't wear out, either. :)

34

We could call a Kindle a book, but we don't, because it isn't. :)

Neither is my PDA, or mp3 player. Both of which I can read on.

"Should it mimic the physical world—buy a single book and you can lend it out to one person at a time? Should it somehow be time-based?"

That would be exactly how NetLibrary works... and it still makes no sense to me.

Rob Szarka posted a really good comment on price discrimination:
http://www.librarything.com/thingology/2009/10/ebook-economics-are-libraries-scr...

To follow my reply below, read that comment first.

Thanks for your note. It's good to get someone actually responding to the arguments--picking holes in them, which is just what I wanted someone to try.

The idea that price-discrimination provides more goods is new to me, but seems obvious, and, however you measure it, it sounds likely to me that the overall result is better. I think this is a somewhat anomalous case, however, insofar as the effect is very focused, and the rights situation is weird.

It seems clear to me that price discrimination would be great for physical books. If bookstores could price discriminate broadly--cheap books to starving students, expensive books to lawyers and doctors--that would be a good thing, and you'd see more books bought. Of course, various bookstore discount programs (eg., cards) have this effect, insofar as people who really need the money follow them religiously, and people who don't can't be bothered. It's too bad bookstores can't examine your wallet before they sell you a book.

I think the effect here, however, would be otherwise. The library market is so small that I don't think there'd be much downward presure on books for non-libraries--except, perhaps, in academic books. More importantly, the situation is complicated by the fundamentally different rights situation, and the fact that libraries aren't consumers--but a sort of proxy for them.

The rights situation is stark. Let's imagine a music club that charged $10/show, but $20 if you were a lawyer. That's the situation here--the library is the rich lawyer, and can now be charged that extra price. What's weird is that the lawyer was never just another customer. Rather, for some obscure legal reason, the club was forced to accept that, whenever the lawyer showed up, he was allowed to run to the back door, open it and admit a hundred non-paying customers.

Libraries had a special deal. Under US law, they got a very different value from the books they bought than other people. (In some European countries, there are mandatory per-checkout royalties to authors, a concept alien to US law.) The result, an outrowth of US property law, had what most considered a good social result. (Authors and publishers sometimes grumbled at it, but attacking libraries is not good PR.)

The proxy argument is this. In a normal price-discrimination scenario a restaurant, by giving students and seniors price breaks, could ensure that more meals were served. Fair enough. But in this case, a small class of customers was really a proxy for many more customers--all the people who got to read a library book. So, while more ebooks may be provided, if libraries buy fewer, that decrease is subject to a vast multiplier effect, and the result is less book consumption.

What do you think?

I think that if I read a book in a library and like it, I'm likely to buy my own copy later (aka purchase my own ticket).

If I pay full price for an unknown book and dislike it, then my book-reading friends will be more likely to hear about its problems.

Let alone the kids who can't afford to buy tons of new books now, but read library books instead of doing some other activity. If publishers want future book-buyers to exist, they'll have to support libraries or child readers in some fashion.

@ bonfield and tim

On the subject of first sale as it applies to digital media:

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/it-s-still-duck-court-re-affirms-first-sale...

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/you-bought-it-you-own-it-mdy-v-blizzard-app...

http://www.eff.org/cases/umg-v-augusto

Albeit, all three of those cases involve digital media in a physical container (CD, DVD).

@ 19

AL Direct recently had an article about a digital-only music publisher whose EULA expressly prohibited library lending. (Thereby making the music available from no one except the publisher, until they choose to make it unavailable or go out of business, at which point it no longer exists (well, darknet).) I can't seem to track it down at the moment, but I'll check my mail the next time I'm on my computer.

Will ebooks ever be DRM-free? If so, it seems that the books will become easily shareable and transferable and then, perhaps, libraries are back in the game with ebooks that are more easily lent then print. It's hard for me to imagine this working, though. Once you have a DRM-free file, sharing/copying becomes so easy and trivial, then it seems hard to see how it wouldn't hurt sales, and so it's hard to see publishers embracing that situation.

On the other hand, I would say there is a definite parallel in the music industry. I would not have thought that providing DRM-free music would be feasible, but somehow it works, although I fail to see how it would work in a library situation.

But I wonder if, with a little finagling, ebooks aren't transferable, even within the confines of the DRM. If each book had its own account, the account could be transferable. For lending purposes, instead of loaning out devices, you could loan out one of your 6(?) available device slots (thinking of the Kindle model). One ebook could be used by 6 patrons at a time. Perhaps this would be too messy to deal with long term, but perhaps the existence of such work-arounds will put pressure on publishers to find a more library/sharing friendly model.

I've been scheming how to work within the Kindle's limits to let my wife and her mother (who live on opposite coasts and routinely mail books back and forth) share the same copy of a digital book. It seems like it wouldn't be that hard. The hardware is an investment, but after that there's no more mailing and no more waiting for one person to finish the book before the other can start. There definitely can be sharing even of DRM'ed ebooks. I just don't know how feasible it would be for libraries to go that route.

So I don't know. Books locked to a provider even after they're purchased frightens me. Ebooks can suffer technological obsolescence far more easily then their physical counterparts, too. These are issues that bother me (but not enough to keep me away from ebooks), but I don't know how much the actual purchasing model affects libraries. I feel like ebooks are shareable under the current, individual model, although perhaps in ways that will be locked down if they become exploited on a wide scale. I don't see the situation as hopeless for libraries, nor as a guaranteed increase in library expenses, but I do see potential for it go that way, and I don't see the final solution, either.

>30 timspalding:

It shouldn't be all that hard to get basic data on academic press sales to libraries because a high percentage of the libraries that buy academic press titles are WorldCat members. Pick an appropriate multiplier for WorldCat.org and see how many libraries own a given title.

>34 timspalding:

*That's a significant point, I think. Why don't you want them disappear. I suspect it's because the library has other values to you than a place to get a free book. Unfortunately, these "value adds" need to be added to something. I don't see libraries continuing to get the same support if their primary mission is mooted.*

I don't think the primary mission of libraries is to distribute free books and I don't think it ever was our primary mission. I think libraries are a place that coordinates the lending of collectively purchased, infrequently needed, durable, low-cost goods. Most people would include something about those goods furthering culture or democracy or education.

For a long time, books made the most sense because they best fit the above description, but it's been decades since libraries limited themselves to just books. And there's nothing in the above description that's incompatible with libraries being a distribution point (physical or virtual) for digital goods.

>38 timspalding:

*The rights situation is stark. Let's imagine a music club that charged $10/show, but $20 if you were a lawyer. That's the situation here--the library is the rich lawyer, and can now be charged that extra price. What's weird is that the lawyer was never just another customer. Rather, for some obscure legal reason, the club was forced to accept that, whenever the lawyer showed up, he was allowed to run to the back door, open it and admit a hundred non-paying customers.*

The club metaphor (and, later, the restaurant metaphor) are inaccurate in an important way. Once the show is over, it's over; once the meal is consumed, it's consumed. It doesn't matter how much you've paid, the good is the same for everyone. This is not the case with items in libraries' physical collections.

My neighbors in Collingswood pay for the books that they've elected to entrust to their library. Let's say they pay $15 for a hard back. At some point it's going to wear out. Let's say folks are exceptionally careful and we somehow manage to circulate it 25 times before it has to be replaced. Then each of the people who read the book paid $.60 to borrow it for up to six weeks (assuming renewals). That's a pretty steep discount over the $25 cover price, but there are several mitigating factors:

1. Price discrimination: the seniors and students discount you've discussed.
2. They're borrowing the book, so they aren't paying for the book, they're paying for use of the book.
3. Inconvenience. Despite our best efforts, there's a good chance they won't have access to the book when they want it. They have to pick it up at the library and return it when they're finished. Plus, all readers but the first are reading a used book, not a new book.
4. Amazon charges the same $15 that we pay B&T, and anyone who buys two or more $15 books at time makes Amazon pay for shipping. So the discount may not be quite as steep as the cover price might lead one to believe. And, as mentioned above, maybe the discount should be against a used book, not a new book.
5. They don't own the book. It's not theirs to pull off their bookshelf and refer to whenever they want, nor is it theirs to resell.

A better metaphor might be Zipcar, Carshare, etc.

Some books are DRM free already.

DRM reduces sales like this, though:

(and this will be orders of magnitude)

There are large numbers of people who will never, ever buy a DRMed book - so you'd have to price them at 0.00 for those people.

It wastes people's time - which makes the product worth less - so if charging too high a price again a decrease in sales as compared to the equivalent DRM free version.

It costs the publishers money - so less resources for marketing.

It pisses people off - turning them into opponents who will deliberately share books - or deliberately obtain them for free, where they might have bought.

You get increased criticism, reverse PR, decreased goodwill, whatever you want to call it.

Sure, people that borrow a book from a library might share it. Some borrowed library books definitely get scanned and uploaded now. Even if DRMed it would take someone who knows how a matter of minutes to solve that. e.g. if you want to find out how with your Kindle books, go look at mobileread, for example.

A big drag on library support resources dealing with the hassles of DRM, unless the company providing that handles it all - which is not ever going to happen.

34: timspalding
I thought dead-tree book was merely descriptive. :P

and I had no idea lots of European countries already had a national level library system. I am thinking that would make it easier to control what's there.

I am thinking that would make it easier to control what's there.

That sends shivers down my spine...

That sends shivers down my spine...

Just wait until Amazon enters the Chinese market with a Chinese Kindle and, as with Google, they have to "obey Chinese law."

Has anyone addressed the question of HOW books are used, and how the new technology will either map onto this or change it? People often buy books that they haven't (yet) time to read - note the number of 'To Be Read' tags in Library Things. Books (or book deals) can already have such a limited shelf-life, or appear second-hand so rarely, that I grab them quickly and hope.

Surely this will not persist with e-books? And a book not bought opportunistically, but left on some e-shelf, may not be of interest ever again - other books may well mask it in the potential reader's mind as time passes.

The broader point I'm attempting here is that such factors, and the fact that they (almost certainly) vary widely from person to person, make our guesses on this impossibly difficult, don't they?

Maybe there's a need for a software realisation of e-shelves - like the line of cover pictures presented on the 'Profile' page (very useful), but writ large, with the ability to spatially rearrange. Even the ability to pull a book or two off a shelf and flick through them. Something like this could determine the question posed here, but I suspect its uptake is even more debatable!

Quick, give me an e-seat! I feel e-dizzy!
.

Libraries are about more than just books these days, and even within the parameters of how ebooks will affect the books in a library there are certain areas that ebooks can't touch yet. Including, for example almost the entirety of the Picture Book collection. I may enjoy being able to keep all my textbooks on a Kindle (and that's only because mine tend to be all text) or computer so I only have to haul one thing to school and am able to search the whole text instantly or jump to my highlights, but I don't think that they are quite up to a bed time story for a 3 year old wanting Where the Wild Things Are yet.
Libraries also provide access to computers and internet to people who don't have them other places, along with programs including story time and classes on things like how to use all this new technology. This would also be the major problem in adapting a centralized library system, local libraries are needed for these services if nothing else. However, there are library systems, which make it possible for libraries to share the cost and housing of materials over multiple locations, and this model is becoming more prevalent.
While some people might do all their book purchasing in ebook format in the next few years, these are probably people who primarily buy their own books now rather than using the library. Which, considering the wait for a hard copy of the latest Dan Brown or Stephenie Myer book at the library I work at can run into more than 500 people, makes sense if someone can afford to do it and wants to.
Besides, libraries have collections of classics in physical formats that have to be replaced every year as they are damaged and lost, but if these books that are in public domain (such as those available on Project Gutenberg, which are all in Plain Text first so compatibility issues are minimalized) are in digital format the space needed to house them becomes infinitely smaller saving the cost of building on to the library and then maintenance of that additional building space, as well as the cost of the books in physical form. While there are concerns for libraries adopting ebooks and other technology there are benefits as well. Another consideration is things like Google's book program where they are scanning in out of print materials and making them available, while there are copyright issues to sort through the access to materials that otherwise might be unavailable is exciting.
Considering the number of people who come into the library to access the internet or use computers because they do not have these at home I think it will be awhile before ebooks become a threat to even the book collections part of the library's services. This doesn't mean that librarians should sit back and not get involved in their implementation, for example involvement in deciding how materials will be acquired such as subscriptions or purchase, just that I think that people who proclaim that libraries as physical entities are doomed within the next 10 years are overestimating the dissemenation of technology.
I think possibly a bigger cause for concern is the number of people who don't read books at all. http://www.nea.gov/news/news07/TRNR.html

If you leave your cheap paperback or even hardcover book on the train, it's a lot less painful than leaving your Kindle, no matter how cheap it was. Furthermore, the tech industry is not interested in having cheap technology around for long. Plenty of devices hit the market with plans to be obsolete eight years down the line. I don't see where cutting edge technology will ever be available to people of modest means. Once the price drops hard enough, the companies will produce something new. Gone are the days where machines were built to last. It's bad business to have long lasting items.

Paper is still cheap, and for the foreseeable future, always will be. Recycled paper, bamboo, and other renewable sources seem to keep it that way. There will always be patrons who don't want to struggle with technical difficulties. There will always be parents who don't want their children messing around with a Kindle. Remember how our parents would freak if we stuck our fingers in the VCR? Yeah, it's cheap til you have to buy a new one.
My belief- Libraries may wind up with fewer books, and different purposes. Holding classes for technology, or something like that, may become more important. But I don't see the end of the paper book either.

I really like e-libraries. If I want to read a certain book, I just plop down in front of my computer to pull it up. When I want to talk to a librarian, I can send an email or chat online during business hours. Maybe I'm just lazy, but I actually prefer this to going to a physical library.

I'm not sure if there is any legal problems with printing material out. It's just like making a copy from a copy machinge after all. Man, I remember when my Mother would spend hours doing that at the local university library. It was so boring, standing around waiting for her to finish.

Seeing that Google wants to pdf scan all the copyright free books (well, old ones, etc) and the newly published ones too (at a fee?), I suspect that they want to replace Google scholar for something more global and more viable for them. But I cannot read books from a screen; it takes me ages to read compared to a hard copy. Articles are fine, but I would not want to have to deal with Google for reading. I suspect younger (than me) generations will use and abuse the technology, so 'traditional' libraries are at risk of disappearing, at the expense of media centres, with computer points and e-collections.

On the other hand, it IS true that hard copy books are an ecological nightmare. People should take it upon themselves to get second-hand copies instead of the latest prized book of the year. And we should go to libraries more. We need to change the mass market trend for a more responsible attitude.

Long live hard copy books! Long live second-hand books too! ;-)

Sonia, BookMooch/swap addict

>50 LiberryTeacher: "I'm not sure if there is any legal problems with printing material out. It's just like making a copy from a copy machinge after all. Man, I remember when my Mother would spend hours doing that at the local university library. It was so boring, standing around waiting for her to finish."

A fair amount of photocopying that goes on at a public library actually does violate copyright. The library posts notices about what the rules are, which then usually exempts them from liability, but they rarely interfere with people violating those rules. Ditto the burning of CDs and DVDs on library computers.

the publisher usually limits or bans printing out of library ebooks. even if you decide to buy textbooks that are in ebook format, you can't print those or print a single page at a time.

Assuming that e-book readers drop significantly in price, it seems to me that it will be just the excuse people have been looking for to close local library branches once and for all. Main library buildings will stay, but they'll gradually transform for other more "relevant" purposes, and the only library function a great many people will have access to will be managed by a state-level bureaucrat. Some people will probably check out these e-books, but they'll become distracted by all the other apps on their reader and they will forget about the book by the time the loan period expires.

Hrrmmmph.

54: Topper - don't think any of the current ebook readers actually come with apps. the kindle has a browser but it's like one of those old browsers before the mouse was invented. current ebook readers can't do much else except let you read.

Well, the libraries getting screwed by the publishers is already happening in ebooks. Libraries get charged $29.99 for an ebook of The Lost Symbol. They can buy hard copies at a discount all day long. Consumers can buy the ebook at a discount. Libraries pay full price for every ebook copy. I lost my source for this but I think it was in a NYT article quoting a librarian.

That ebooks present a danger to libraries is a very weird sort of opinion. I believe it, obviously. But I notice that some people believe it—and some people can hardly conceive of it. I find this a very weird thing to believe—that books will stop existing as physical objects, and this poses no really serious problem for libraries, which exist as physical aggregation points.

My library (which is admittedly a government "special" library, not a public library), more and more exists not so much to acquire books as to facilitate access to information on behalf of our clients. E-books, e-journals, electronic table of contents service (and retrieval of articles requested if we don't own or have electronic access to the journal), news and current awareness digests, extracts from Hansard tailored to our client ministry's interests. We maintain a print collection, but our budget is limited and we must often forgo print in favour of cheaper electronic access. Of course, then if we stop subscribing, we lose access to all the material.

I love the books, but my clients seldom value them. The physical collection gathers dust most of the time - although occasionally there will be a spurt of interest in a piece of it.

I think I'd be more optimistic if libraries were permitting ebook downloads on computers in the library. Right now, ebook versions of frequently requested titles (GED, ASVAB, etc) are purchased and then access is limited to computers outside the library--a real disconnect.

>59 jlane:

Right, but it's not libraries that set the rules there. Libraries will give you as much as they are allowed. Publishers want strict rules because they'd don't want to recapitulate what they see as the defects of the former, physical system--the unique ability of libraries to squeeze more value out of a book than other people.

I'm increasingly in favour of ebooks, and increasingly less worried about what happens to libraries. They'll either cope with the changes or they won't. They're often inconveniently located, with unhelpful opening hours, and then if you do get there you find a small stock of books I'm uninterested in. Great well I'll try and schedule myself back in next week or two or three when the book I want may be available.

It doesn't take a genius to see this isn't a sucessful model in today's society.

Hence there will be dramatic changes and ebooks will only be one of the factors.

62: reading_fox - you can't order the books you want and only go to the library when they are there? Or check the library catalog beforehand.

58: tardis - that might true of all "special" libraryies. i usually only go to my school library for the journals and periodicals and all that stuff I can access from there. Though the public library has that stuff too.

I think it needs to be said again because some people seem to have trouble understanding it.

There already are DRM-free ebooks, and it certainly seems that they're commercially successfull.

Here's a web store which sells only DRM-free books since 1999: http://www.webscription.net/
It was originally an effort by Baen, but has since offered ebooks from E-Reads, Night Shade Books, and a handfull of books from some other publishers (including the aborted experiment by Tor mentioned above).
Baen also has a number of ebooks available for free. The Baen Free Library was mentioned before, and of course it's all DRM-free, too: http://baen.com/library/
Essentially, Baen thinks that putting some older books in the library is a way of advertising. Oh, and they only do it if the author explicitely agrees; that doesn't seem to be a serious problem, though.

Next, there's Fictionwise: http://www.fictionwise.com/ I don't know the exact percentage of DRM-free books they sell, but it feels like about 50%. And I note that they're regularly discounting DRM ebooks, so I suspect DRM-free ebooks sell better. In any case, those DRM-free ebooks mainly seem to come from a large number of smaller publishers.

Those are my two main sources for ebooks from commercial sources. Then, of course, there are speople who put their stuff up on their own sites for free - like, say, Wes Boyd (http://www.spearfishlaketales.com/) - and sites that just publish stories for some authors, often with some form of rating by readers. Here are two examples that have a lot, but not exclusively, erotic content: http://storiesonline.net/ http://www.beyondthefarhorizon.com/

There are also an increasing number of scientific publications available for free, though you'd have to ask someone else (or Google) for URLs.

Many more standards are available for free.

And so on and so forth.

The DRM-free part of the reading world is clearly growing.

ETA: And let's not forget Project Gutenberg! http://www.gutenberg.org/

I think it needs to be said again because some people seem to have trouble understanding it.

It's not a question of understanding. It's about coverage. DRM-ebook sources have very poor coverage. Sure, you can find an ebook to read. But that's not what motivates most people. They don't want to conform their reading to what's available. Most people want to read specific titles, and DRM-free ebooks don't have the sort of coverage that makes that pleasant. Even the Kindle store, which has DRM and is backed up by Amazon people twisting arms all over the publishing world, can feel pretty empty, depending on what you're looking for. Non-DRM sources are far, far emptier.

DRM-free sources have bad coverage for a reason. It's not because people don't understand them, or aren't giving them a chance. It's because publishers don't want to distribute their books in a DRM-free format. I don't see that changing soon. I see licenseless or light-license ebooks, suitable for real library lending, happening even slower.

> It's because publishers don't want to distribute their books in a DRM-free format. I don't see that changing soon.

Probably true... and completely dumb from them. The publishers will waste time and money developing DRM "solutions" while the audio/video industry is already realizing that they just don't work (remember how quickly various schemes have been cracked?), plus they are not really necessary anyway (witness the introduction of DRM-free music on iTunes, for example).

We shouldn't forget the good sides of e-books, when we worry about libraries...I’ve heard a couple of years ago that usually only 10 % of the purchased books are of the kind one could read on a PC or other e-device. I’m not sure whether the situation today has changed, yet many of my friends, realtives and acquaintances prefer to hold a book made of paper. None of them thinks about the awful consequences the creating of paper could cause to the nature... Everey tree is connected to at least twenty species of animals or other plants (it depends on the longitude and latitude, please excuse me if my numbers are not quite correct)... When a tree is cut off, it means death for some of these species, and much stress for the others, that could even lead to extinction...
There are many other awful consecuences caused by the disappearance of the trees. Like draught, erosion, climate change... Usually, the new generation of trees grow up for about ten years, so it takes a lot of time until things are normal again... Finally, that leads to awful consequences for us humans (hunger, diseases, even death...).
I’ve heard that about 98 % of all the animal and plant species that existed on Earth are extinct, since the Earth has been formed or created. I don’t know what is the percentage of the species killed by people’s way of life or strivings for a better future. But I remember when a journalist asked the famous naturalist Gerald Durrel how many animals and plants were threatened or extincted because of people’s activities, Mr Durrel showed him two enormous volumes of The Red Book and replied: „ I don’t know, I’m not brave enough to count them...”
I remember also an excellent thought of the Indians from North America: The Earth is not ours, we just borrowed it from our children... I guess all of us should bear in mind this excellent saying, which Antoan De St. Exupery used too, and do our best to preserve the planet... Reading e-books instead of those made of paper could be one of the ways to do that...

http://www.strategicpublishinggroup.com/title/TaleOfTheRockPieces.html, http://allanbard.hit.bg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yw3a5n00FI,
http://allanbard.blogspot.com/

Just to play Devil's Advocate, some food for thought:

http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/03/is-digital-media-worse-for-the-environment...

Though my apologies, as well, as this addresses the environmental impact of ebooks as opposed to the original question of what ebooks mean for libraries.

A big problem that I foresee is libraries being locked out of e-book content through the need to go through third parties such as OverDrive and NetLibrary. The fact that we're licensing content rather than owning it, means that we rely on the delivery mechanism supplied by these vendors. With DRM'd e-books, libraries no longer have the freedom of purchasing what is needed from whoever is supplying it and then making it directly available to users. So libraries become heavily reliant on these third parties being able to secure and provide an adequate selection of material from publishers. My concern is that a fair percentage of publishers are never going to be interested in making their content available to library vendors. The horse bolted a long time ago for publishers with print and first-sale rights, but with e-books, the opportunity is there to put it right back in the stable. Why supply to libraries on a one-to-many model if you can avoid it?
Herzogbr (message 18) presents a solution publishers could be happy with - a per use charge for libraries - but this would be quite challenging for library budgets which are apportioned at the beginning of the financial year. Do you turn off the service till next year if the budget gets exhausted through high use? The way around this of course is to charge users a rental fee greater than the per use charge to publishers, but that's a dark path to be going down.
Another model I suppose would be that of the database, where libraries pay a (likely exorbitant) fee to access a pool of titles. This is a common model for electronic resources and has some promise, but relies on the third party being able to provide the titles that the library's community wants.
Which takes us back to the availability issue. In New Zealand for example, we have access to about 20,000 e-book titles through OverDrive. This is compared to around 100,000 for libraries in the U.S. using the same service. This in turn is a fifth of what is available through Amazon right now. This is fine - if annoying - in a world where print is still the dominant medium, but if and when the balance shifts, this could seriously curtail library collections.

Not selling to libraries at all may well sink a bunch of publishers, too?

I dunno. If publishers sell one book for every nine they currently sell to libraries, they're even.

I work in a rural library in a city of 10,000, though we have a very healthy collection and a variety of services for our size. We are hoping to offer ebooks to library patrons in the near future through our Overdrive Service, though I don't believe we are actually going to purchase any of the devices to loan out, at least at this point. The downloadable ebooks would be aimed at patrons who own their own readers, and it would be a way to encourage them to use our services, even though they will probably be doing so from the comfort of their own home. It will still engage them, and hopefully they will then feel more inclined to attend programming and other events. If the people who are moving to ebook only reading are not offered ebooks through the library, then they will most likely be lost as patrons entirely.

The major hurdle is going to be compatibility issues, as I believe Amazon's Kindle only will work with ebooks purchased through Amazon, but this is something that is sure to change eventually.

Also, for people who are heavy readers, even at $8 a book the cost will add up quickly, and this is where libraries will come back into play.

The only way for libraries to survive in a changing world is if they are willing to evolve and change as well. Ebooks may take their toll, but only on libraries who are unwilling to embrace technology and engage their readers in webbased format. Ebooks can be seen as an opportunity for libraries to draw in new, younger patrons, which is something needed in all library systems. It will be different and a lot of kinks will need to be worked out, but if we are still alive and have adapted to the internet, then adapting to ebooks should be a breeze :-)

>72 TiffanyHickox:

With respect, Tiffany, I think you're missing the point. This is not an issue of libraries refusing to change, or whatever. That surely is a potential problem. The basic problem, however, is that ebooks are not going to be offered to libraries on the same terms that books have been offered. The publishers no longer have to do so, and they have been clear that they will not be.

There are services like Overdrive to be sure, but their pricing is higher, they are very much experiments by the publishers, who know they are fringe products now, and they have a very partial selection. Publishers are eager to sell ebooks so long as few can use them, and on books that have low lending rates, and that's it.

The logic of the situation is simple. Publishers will not be allowing libraries anything like the deal they once had. Libraries currently can buy a book and loan it out to as many people as they want. As a result, although libraries are responsible for nearly half of book-reading, they actually purchase less than 5% of the books bought. Before now, publishers had no choice, because books were physical objects without contract attached to them, and could be moved around, sold and resold as people desired. Publishers will not be willing to continue this now that they don't have to.

Libraries work because physical aggregation and lending makes economic sense. They get far more value out of the book than a person can. A person would pay, say, $18 for a book, but a library, by lending it out multiple times—9 times is generally thrown around—pays far less for that experience to take place. With ebooks, publishers can and will be charging rates that amount to the money lost when a consumer gets the ebook from a library, not for themselves. Assuming no economies of scale and not counting cataloging costs and so forth, libraries may expect to see their book budget increase 900%. I don't think libraries can do that.

More importantly, once towns realize that library lending is not an economically efficient way to promote reading but, in light of all the other sunk costs, far less efficient, they will, I think, be moved to simpler, library-less book subsidies.

71

Not quite that simple though is it Tim? Short term, perhaps, but long term it would mean their consumer base shrinks, I would think? (If you buy into publisherthink that their market is static and can't be grown).

e.g. you replace those 9 readers with 1, are those now ex-readers? Or 'less readers' - which means future corporate earnings go down (as they will never buy books they like that they didn't get to read, etc).

Particularly after the PR nightmares resulting from such standover tactics.

Take a garden variety North American book. Call it 50-50 on electronic sales, or some reasonable percentage. If 10% of its sales were previously to overseas markets, then those that are electronic just vanish--poof!--under current rights issues. Replacement purchasing of any is impossible, unless buyers fake their identities, locations etc., or are travellers with access - some will do this, of course.

73

Publisher corporate welfare directly? Sure, Americans might go for that. :)

Plus, of course, lots of people will replace get from library with download for free. So if they remove all legit free using....