Book Club

[Alison Wonderland]

Thanks again, @LoriLori. I shared this on my social media and several of my librarian friends did not know about this and have now signed and shared with their friends, as well.

[Marsha2003]

Macmillan should consider library readers to be a strong marketing tool because library readers are often voracious readers who talk about books with their friends which should lead to more sales.  I have no problem with Macmillan charging libraries for books, but to limit it to one book per library, even for just two months, is harming Macmillan with bad press versus increasing sales among those who might not be able to afford the book at retail.  

I signed the petition.

[smoky22]

@LoriLori  now I understand the issue you've raised.  I had several ebooks on waitlist (for over a month) where the library only had one copy.  Suddenly in the last couple of days, they have 3 or 4 copies.  

I appreciate that you brought this issue to our attention.  I wondered why the library sometimes only had one copy.  But I will say, for me, I don't mind waiting.  And occasionally, if I want the book badly enough, I will buy it.   I know that's not an option if you can't afford it.  It seems to be easier to get a physical copy of a new book from the library.  I agree it doesn't seem right.

[LoriLori]

---

@ValuSkr wrote:

---

@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.

---

ETA:  You read something in my post about reading that wasn't there.

I never said they're free, I said they'll only provide one.  That one costs money.

[LoriLori]

@Alison Wonderland   @Marsha2003   @Venezia  @smoky22 

Agree with everything you posted.

If the books were free the issue would be very different.  They're not. 

So this "one to a customer library" is horrid and I'm glad bigger publishers haven't jumped on the bandwagon.

And it's worst for children . Reading impacts theirs intelligence and ability to think for the rest of their lives.  As expected the better schools are the ones with the money to purchase ebooks.  Not all can do it.

Harry Potter remains on top of Amazon charts in print and ebook since Charts started and always will --  because kids keep aging into it and many developed their love of reading through HP.  And it's helped them become avid readers of new material.

[LoriLori]

Update 1:  Turns out this affects a lot more than McMillan.  It affects every subsidiary, some of which publish pretty big authors.  List of subsidiaries:

https://us.macmillan.com/publishers/

Update 2:  I'm disappointed at the lack of response here but the response by libraries grows daily.  Some library systems adding to the boycott are New Orleans, Columbus OH, Sacramento, Maryland Digital Library (statewide system?(, Peoria, Nashville, and King County (Seattle and suburbs) which started it as well as others.

Columbus alone reports that 2 million ebooks were checked out last year.

This is a big deal.  The boycott has already begun in many libraries effective Nov. 1, others beginning daily.  Small towns, big cities, more joining all the time.

You can sign the petition or tweet #EBOOKSFORALL

[abbalulu]

@LoriLoriThank you for bringing this to our attention. Once I read about this and digested the information I went and signed the petition. Right now I am not using the library but have done so in the past and my grandchildren use it pretty much weekly.

[Sooner]

---

I agree with @ValuSkr that it is a money issue.  It is not a moral issue and we don't have a "right" to read a book.  

A book is intellectual property.  The owner can do what they want with it.  The owner of a book is most often the publisher and the author through a legal and binding contract.

Movies get made and never released as books get written and are released when the owner releases it.

It's just business.  NOBODY has a right to books just because.  

[LoriLori]

---

@Sooner wrote:

---

I agree with @ValuSkr that it is a money issue.  It is not a moral issue and we don't have a "right" to read a book.  

A book is intellectual property.  The owner can do what they want with it.  The owner of a book is most often the publisher and the author through a legal and binding contract.

Movies get made and never released as books get written and are released when the owner releases it.

It's just business.  NOBODY has a right to books just because.  

---

@Sooner 

Benjamin Franklin would not agree..  He founded PUBLIC libraries.  I don't think e-reading would change his mind about it.   

It isn't like libraries get the books for free, they pay for every copy.  Better business would be selling them more copies sooner.  And the price of e-books has been steadily rising.  Some are almost as much as the hard copies.  

I think there's a reason many city and county libraries have joined the boycott but not a single other publisher has adopted this policy.  Maybe that's "just business" to use your words because bad PR hurts the bottom line and MacMillan has gotten nothing but --  or maybe the others feel a moral imperative.  We'll never know.

Technically nobody has a RIGHT to eat either but many people care about hunger.

[dex]

Why can’t people wait a little longer to read a book.Its not that there aren’t other choic3s at the library.it won’t damage  a life if a book isn’t available right away...unless it is a school book.