VERY IMPORTANT: RE LIBRARIES & E-BOOKS

LoriLori · ‎03-12-2010

As of November 1st MacMillian will become the first publisher to provide just one copy of each e-book to each library for the first two months of the book's release. This is a big change.

Book sales are down and I understand the thinking behind it but there's also IMO a moral imperative to keep providing libraries with more books than one.

Here's a safe link to the petition at the American Library Association you can sign.

http://www.ala.org/advocacy/ebooksforall-petition

There is a separate petition at change.org which has been signed by far fewer people. Google the story.

Here's an update reported in Publisher's Weekly: the King County, Washington State library system will boycott MacMillan books as long as this policy remains in place.:

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/81475-this-major-public...

PLEASE SIGN! I know some of you won't be affected (like me) but many of you so please sign, I did!

LoriLori · ‎03-12-2010

I updated the OP -- the ALA petition site is now secure and I added King County's boycott as reported in Publisher's Weekly..

I hope people are signing, just not commenting.

This doesn't affect me but it upsets me for all those whom it does.

Lilysmom · ‎03-09-2010

@LoriLori , I am Canadian and I think we are having similar issues. The purchase of ebooks for the library system here is more expensive than paper. LM

Alison Wonderland · ‎02-05-2018

Thank you so much, @LoriLori! I will sign and share on my social media pages, as well.

ValuSkr · ‎03-15-2014

I don't understand why library users can't wait two months for a just-released book. Are movies released to subscriber services (such as HBO or Netflix) at the same time as they're released to theaters?

Book publishers want to make money too and two months doesn't seem unreasonable. If libraries want more copies, would MacMillan sell to them?

LoriLori · ‎03-12-2010

@ValuSkr wrote:
I don't understand why library users can't wait two months for a just-released book. Are movies released to subscriber services (such as HBO or Netflix) at the same time as they're released to theaters?

Book publishers want to make money too and two months doesn't seem unreasonable. If libraries want more copies, would MacMillan sell to them?

With all due respect, @ValuSkr , that's because you did not read the ALA's statement. The answer to your question is there and more info than just that.

I hope you take the time to read what the ALA's explanation. The policy IS unreasonable and your analogy is apples to oranges.

A quick Google search lets me know other county's libraries joined the boycott of McMillan.

ValuSkr · ‎03-15-2014

@LoriLori wrote:
@ValuSkr wrote:
I don't understand why library users can't wait two months for a just-released book. Are movies released to subscriber services (such as HBO or Netflix) at the same time as they're released to theaters?

Book publishers want to make money too and two months doesn't seem unreasonable. If libraries want more copies, would MacMillan sell to them?

With all due respect, @ValuSkr , that's because you did not read the ALA's statement. The answer to your question is there and more info than just that.

I hope you take the time to read what the ALA's explanation. The policy IS unreasonable and your analogy is apples to oranges.

A quick Google search lets me know other county's libraries joined the boycott of McMillan.

@LoriLori Yes, I read only your summary. But reading the ALA statement has made things clearer. I understood from your summary that MacMillan provided e-books to libraries for free. But they do not. Libraries buy e-books but MacMillan will now allow them to buy only one during the first eight weeks of a book's release.

I think it's not unreasonable. MacMillan wants to sell books and believes library e-books cannibalize sales. Libraries can buy more copies after eight weeks and it seems that library patrons should be able to wait that long. If they can't, they can buy the book themselves.

Venezia · ‎03-09-2010

@ValuSkr- I'm lucky in that I can afford to buy any book I want. Not everyone is that fortunate, and those people depend on their libraries.

Reading and staying current should not be considered a luxury in the richest country in the world, IMO. Yes, those who cannot afford to buy the books themselves will now have to wait two months. However, as someone who also utilizes our public library, I can tell you that current books often have long waiting lists.

So people will not be waiting just two months; it could be much longer than that, once the library actually has the book.

Of course businesses want to make a profit, but it should be fair. The libraries are customers, just as any individual, and they serve a very real need in their communities.

millieshops · ‎03-09-2010

I'm not signing until I think this issue through more. I can't decide if I think the company has a moral responsibility to sell in a fashion that endangers their business. Or do readers who want a free ride have a moral responsibility to support authors and publishers.

Someone has to pay. That much I know and I will read the ALA's side as well as the anything I can find on the other side, probably in the financial press.

To be clear, I love to read from my library, both online and in print, but I've been a library reader for 70 years now and I can't think of a single book I couldn't have waited for. I'm really not sure who exactly will be negatively affected by this decision and that's why I need to read the arguments pro and con.

Alison Wonderland · ‎02-05-2018

@millieshops wrote:
I'm not signing until I think this issue through more. I can't decide if I think the company has a moral responsibility to sell in a fashion that endangers their business. Or do readers who want a free ride have a moral responsibility to support authors and publishers.

Someone has to pay. That much I know and I will read the ALA's side as well as the anything I can find on the other side, probably in the financial press.

To be clear, I love to read from my library, both online and in print, but I've been a library reader for 70 years now and I can't think of a single book I couldn't have waited for. I'm really not sure who exactly will be negatively affected by this decision and that's why I need to read the arguments pro and con.

The library pays. They buy each copy they loan out.

The people checking books out of the library are often people who cannot afford to pay for new books as they come out. Penalizing them by making them wait longer to read a book is really just penalizing them because they have less disposable income. I'm not okay with that.