Harper Collins and the Expiring E-book

[jimhines]

From Library Journal: “In the first significant revision to lending terms for ebook circulation, HarperCollins has announced that new titles licensed from library ebook vendors will be able to circulate only 26 times before the license expires.”  The idea is that this matches the average number of times a print book can be checked out before it falls apart and needs to be replaced.

As you might have guessed, this has not gone over well.  There’s the usual cry to boycott the publisher, lots of anger, a Twitter hashtag, and plenty of accusations that HC is stuck in the past and doesn’t understand the future of publishing.

My agent weighs in here: “I’m of mixed emotion on this. I don’t think it’s prima facie a heinous thing to do because businesses do need to adjust to changing business models … On the other hand, it pisses off customers.”

I came across one author suggesting that the idea itself wasn’t necessarily bad, but 26 copies was too few.  I.e., it’s not the principle of the thing, but the numbers.

I’m still thinking about the implications.  I love libraries, both as a reader and an author.  Libraries buy my books, and they allow readers to discover my work.  Realistically, unrestricted e-book lending could decrease the number of my books libraries buy.  If those books never wear out or expire, a library could keep all of my work in circulation forever.  Which would be really, really cool on the one hand … but could also cut into sales, and I like being able to pay my mortgage.

Two things I’m pretty firm on are:

1. Authors deserve to be paid fairly for their work.  So do publishers and agents.
2. I like libraries very much, and I don’t want to lose the service they provide to the community.

I keep coming back to the Public Lending Right (PLR) system used in a number of non-U.S. countries.  Basically, PLR is an author’s “legal right to payment from government each time their books are borrowed from public libraries.”  Such a system would eliminate the source of contention, at least from the authors’ perspective.  If I get paid for each checkout of my books, then by all means, keep all of my e-books forever!

I think it would be fair to split such payment with the publisher and agent as well.  And we’re probably not talking about a huge amount of cash here, at least for nonbestselling authors like myself.  But I really like the principle of the thing.

Actually implementing it could be a problem.  Libraries, like many public services, continue to be targeted for massive budget cuts these days.  I asked a librarian friend for her thoughts, and she suggested it would require some sort of tax to cover those PLR payments.  Not likely to happen any time soon, given the current political environment in the U.S.  (If things continue, I imagine a lot of libraries will have to close, which could make the whole thing moot.)

I don’t know the best way to be fair to libraries and their patrons as well as to authors and publishers.  Maybe it would be better to switch to a rental model where libraries pay an annual fee for the right to lend out a certain number of e-book titles from publisher X.  Older books could be removed from the list over time, replaced by newer and more popular releases.

I’m sure there are flaws with that plan, too.  I don’t have the answers.  But I’d love to hear what other folks think, particularly my author and librarian friends.

Mirrored from Jim C. Hines.

Comments

[twistedchick]

Personally, I will continue to buy, borrow and read physical books that do not expire at the whim of some executive. And, FWIW, when I borrow books that I find I love, I buy them so I can continue to read them when I want. Library lending thus increases sales, because otherwise I would not take a chance on some of them as my book-buying budget is limited.

[brownbetty]

Frankly, I don't care about the 26 times, which may or may not be fair to libraries.

But I do know that the last time I tried, legally, to borrow an e-book from my library, I couldn't get the damned thing open because of copy protection. So more protections don't seem like a good trend to me.

[jimhines]

Gotta love that DRM. I understand the fear and the thinking behind it, but it just seems like a bad idea, one that causes trouble for legitimate readers and doesn't really slow down the thieves.

[brownbetty]

Well, they did prevent at least one theft, because after discovering I couldn't open it in the way I had expected to, I put some serious effort into cracking it open using fair means or foul, but was stymied by, apparently, just not being cut out for a life of crime.

But if they had set out to create a scenario that would convince the average user that ebook piracy is not only morally neutral but in fact a righteous calling, they could not have concocted a better one.

[meigui]

...I'm not sure how I feel about PLR. To my understanding, public libraries are mostly funded at the local level in the United States, which means that the areas that really need them the most--the low-income ones--tend to be left out in the cold more often than wealthier areas. If the PLR is just an additional cost, then that would just widen the gap even further. I'd say I'm sure there's a way to deal with that, but given the way things like education funding work out in this country, I'm not as sure as I'd like to be...

[branchandroot]

I could see charging more for a library licensed copy, exactly the same way a library-bound copy is more expensive because it's made to stand up for a lot longer. But frankly, the absolute ham-handed idiocy with which DRM and licensing of all sorts has been implemented so far has totally erased my faith in the ability of the industry to do /any/ e-product licensing terms reasonably or rightly. I like the idea of lending royalties, as it were, but, as you say, that would only work in a country whose government has not recently gone batshit insane and taken a butcher knife to public services of all kinds.

[jimhines]

Butcher knife? I thought we had skipped straight to the chainsaws.

[bodlon]

Honestly, I think the answer is to stop stripping library funding. I don't resent paying my city/county property taxes because virtually all of it goes to my local school district and public library.

If libraries were adequately funded, a PLR arrangement would work and everyone would benefit.