Wow. $55 for an ebook license that expires after 2 years or 26 checkouts. Meanwhile, a good-condition donation of a hardback costs nearly nothing to clean and shelve. I think we do need laws...
Wow. $55 for an ebook license that expires after 2 years or 26 checkouts.
Meanwhile, a good-condition donation of a hardback costs nearly nothing to clean and shelve.
I think we do need laws allowing people to donate ebooks and other digital purchases. I'd donate from my ebook library if I could. The fact that I can't say, "Here, have my copy of X, I don't want it anymore" is the reason I have avoided digital purchases from the get-go, as much as I could, at least. All the way back to iTunes, I tried to get physical media whenever possible. I held out as long as I could against Steam, too, until physical copies of games just became containers for downloadable codes. Now we are a nation of one-time locked in purchases.
This article was useful. I'm going to take more trips to my library to get physical copies now that I know I'm depleting a finite resource by borrowing ebooks. It's just silly that the ebook license is the one that's finite, and the physical copy which requires the energy of me having to get to the library to check it out is the one that has near unlimited reuse.
That's a great idea too, I would donate pretty much all of my e-books because I almost exclusively read via audionook now, because I've learned that is the best way for me to read with my adhd. I...
That's a great idea too, I would donate pretty much all of my e-books because I almost exclusively read via audionook now, because I've learned that is the best way for me to read with my adhd. I can listen to the book and fidget for hours.
The fact that there's such a short limit on how long libraries can have copies of ebooks is just shocking to me. Two years or 26 checkouts is just so low. They don't have limits on physical books....
The fact that there's such a short limit on how long libraries can have copies of ebooks is just shocking to me. Two years or 26 checkouts is just so low. They don't have limits on physical books. Is it because publishers have more control over digital copies, and thus can give into the greedier impulses more?
Either way, I now feel guilty about the ebook I'd just checked out from my local library because I don't know if I'll actually read it.
Yeah it’s the same business model as companies building subscription carwashes in metro areas, they know many people will sign up and just pay monthly without ever or hardly ever using the...
Yeah it’s the same business model as companies building subscription carwashes in metro areas, they know many people will sign up and just pay monthly without ever or hardly ever using the service. Publishers get to tout their ebook sales (rentals really) to libraries as more eco/green, while everyone that checks it out is counting down to when the library will have to re-buy a copy.
Which, library-wise, rebuying physical books is already in the budget, as they wear out far quicker than you would think, especially for popular choices—but it’s unnecessary for ebooks and the companies know it. As illustrated by /u/hobbes64’s chart above, writers are benefiting too, but dang.
The struggle is worth it IMHO. I've used my library more than I have in years since I became able to borrow e-books. The money state governments spend will provide enjoyment and education to many...
The struggle is worth it IMHO.
I've used my library more than I have in years since I became able to borrow e-books.
The money state governments spend will provide enjoyment and education to many state citizens. What portion of their taxes can most people say that about.
Lending e-books also gives libraries more relevance and the deserve.
I would like my library system not just to have e-books, but have an interface to more easily to browse by genre and get more information about a book than just the title.
I don't know much about book publishers but I assume they are predatory like music publishers, who like to talk about how much the artists need money to live while taking most of it. So this made...
“They do have a funding problem, but the answer is not to take it out of the pockets of authors and destroy the rights of creators and pass unconstitutional legislation,” said Shelley Husband, senior vice president of government affairs at the Association of American Publishers, noting how more people than ever can access e-material that might otherwise have been purchased from booksellers.
I don't know much about book publishers but I assume they are predatory like music publishers, who like to talk about how much the artists need money to live while taking most of it. So this made me curious about how much authors get compared to publishers. Here is an article that talks about that a little: janefriedman.com
Here is the table from the article:
List price
Publisher’s net
Author’s net
Consumer ebook sale (agency model)
$14.99
$10.49 (70%)
Library ebook license (agency model)
$55
$38.50 (70%)
Library ebook license (wholesale model)
$55
$27.50 (50%)
Hardcover sale (library or retail)
$27.99
$13.99 (50%)
This is only one source but there are other sites that show the breakdown for amazon and other ebook publishers and distributors. It seems like it's a sliding scale where more expensive books give more to the author.
I did a little hunting trying to figure out if they were using "constitutional" literally or as a buzz word. It's a copyright argument; a federal ruling against laws like what's proposed has...
I did a little hunting trying to figure out if they were using "constitutional" literally or as a buzz word.
the Court found the state statute likely conflicted with the Copyright Act because it forced publishers to forgo their exclusive rights to decide when, to whom, and on what terms to distribute their copyrighted works; publishers would suffer irreparable harm if the Act was not enjoined; and the balance of the equities and the public interest weighed in favor of injunctive relief.
The legalese goes over my head after that, I don't understand how injunctions work. It does say that the law is unconstitutional and unenforceable because of the Copyright Act.
Hopefully this just means that particular law went too far. I'd never heard before today the concept of publishers being entitled to some kind of payout per read, it's not how ebooks are sold to the public and it's certainly not how physical books are sold.
What's interesting to me is that all of this is from the perspective of a really popular book. With one that's less popular the library still pays the full "per read" price even if that target number of reads never happens. I'm guessing the ebook still expires after a certain date because I'm cynical and know that printer ink "expires".
Wow. $55 for an ebook license that expires after 2 years or 26 checkouts.
Meanwhile, a good-condition donation of a hardback costs nearly nothing to clean and shelve.
I think we do need laws allowing people to donate ebooks and other digital purchases. I'd donate from my ebook library if I could. The fact that I can't say, "Here, have my copy of X, I don't want it anymore" is the reason I have avoided digital purchases from the get-go, as much as I could, at least. All the way back to iTunes, I tried to get physical media whenever possible. I held out as long as I could against Steam, too, until physical copies of games just became containers for downloadable codes. Now we are a nation of one-time locked in purchases.
This article was useful. I'm going to take more trips to my library to get physical copies now that I know I'm depleting a finite resource by borrowing ebooks. It's just silly that the ebook license is the one that's finite, and the physical copy which requires the energy of me having to get to the library to check it out is the one that has near unlimited reuse.
That's a great idea too, I would donate pretty much all of my e-books because I almost exclusively read via audionook now, because I've learned that is the best way for me to read with my adhd. I can listen to the book and fidget for hours.
The fact that there's such a short limit on how long libraries can have copies of ebooks is just shocking to me. Two years or 26 checkouts is just so low. They don't have limits on physical books. Is it because publishers have more control over digital copies, and thus can give into the greedier impulses more?
Either way, I now feel guilty about the ebook I'd just checked out from my local library because I don't know if I'll actually read it.
Yeah it’s the same business model as companies building subscription carwashes in metro areas, they know many people will sign up and just pay monthly without ever or hardly ever using the service. Publishers get to tout their ebook sales (rentals really) to libraries as more eco/green, while everyone that checks it out is counting down to when the library will have to re-buy a copy.
Which, library-wise, rebuying physical books is already in the budget, as they wear out far quicker than you would think, especially for popular choices—but it’s unnecessary for ebooks and the companies know it. As illustrated by /u/hobbes64’s chart above, writers are benefiting too, but dang.
It would be worse if you didn't use the library at all, because if libraries don't have active patrons they don't get allocated budget
The struggle is worth it IMHO.
I've used my library more than I have in years since I became able to borrow e-books.
The money state governments spend will provide enjoyment and education to many state citizens. What portion of their taxes can most people say that about.
Lending e-books also gives libraries more relevance and the deserve.
I would like my library system not just to have e-books, but have an interface to more easily to browse by genre and get more information about a book than just the title.
I don't know much about book publishers but I assume they are predatory like music publishers, who like to talk about how much the artists need money to live while taking most of it. So this made me curious about how much authors get compared to publishers. Here is an article that talks about that a little: janefriedman.com
Here is the table from the article:
This is only one source but there are other sites that show the breakdown for amazon and other ebook publishers and distributors. It seems like it's a sliding scale where more expensive books give more to the author.
Now I feel really guilty for not finishing books I've checked out. I'll be much more mindful of what I have on hold from now on!
I did a little hunting trying to figure out if they were using "constitutional" literally or as a buzz word.
It's a copyright argument; a federal ruling against laws like what's proposed has already happened in Maryland.
Full text of the ruling [PDF].
The legalese goes over my head after that, I don't understand how injunctions work. It does say that the law is unconstitutional and unenforceable because of the Copyright Act.
Hopefully this just means that particular law went too far. I'd never heard before today the concept of publishers being entitled to some kind of payout per read, it's not how ebooks are sold to the public and it's certainly not how physical books are sold.
What's interesting to me is that all of this is from the perspective of a really popular book. With one that's less popular the library still pays the full "per read" price even if that target number of reads never happens. I'm guessing the ebook still expires after a certain date because I'm cynical and know that printer ink "expires".