7 ms·

U.S. libraries are battling high prices for better e-book access

94 points by coloneltcb 2y ago

avidiax 2y ago
Copyright is in dire need of reforms. Those laws were mostly made before perfect digital copies, but also before digital enforcement and "licensing“ instead of ownership.
- vel0city 2y ago
  There needs to be some overhauls to fix the damage Disney et al. did to our copyright system. The Copyright Act of 1976 and later Copyright Term Extension Act did so much damage to the concept of public domain. Being able to own exclusive control over a work for up to 120 years is insane.
  - 999900000999 2y ago
    I think capping copyright at 20 years would do wonders. After 20 years everyone's gotten paid and can move onto other projects. I can never imagine this happening though. It's too profitable to keep milking the rare hit IP for decades. For example, Harry Potter has already made JK Rolling a billionaire. She'd be fine if the books went public domain. So many works will be lost since they're no longer available legally. All that artistic effort, gone.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > capping copyright at 20 years would do wonders You’d probably have to grandfather in copyrights made before the law went into effect. Too much money tied up in the long-tail of prior works.
      - 999900000999 2y ago
        Of course you'd grandfather in older works. But it's a moot point, in most places money is more important than access to art. I can't imagine such a law ever being passed. The tragedy here is so much will simply disappear. Original publisher doesn't want to do a re-issue, how will you access it in 30 years?
        triceratops 2y ago
        I assume you'd start archiving right now when it's available. In 20 years it'll be public domain and freely accessible.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  Would definitely like if items weren't stuck in the form you got them. A movie on VHS seems entirely reasonable to convert to DVD or w/e so long as you don't then sell the VHS while keeping the DVD. Image not being able to frame a poster because it didn't come in a frame to begin with.
- tzs 2y ago
  > Those laws were mostly made before perfect digital copies There are a variety of arguments used to justify copyright, ranging from philosophical to economical, and I can't think of any of them whose validity or lack thereof depends on whether or not copies are perfect.
triceratops 2y ago
First-sale doctrine needs a serious update for electronic content. It's too important a principle for us to lose. Content licensing, as opposed to outright sale, is a cancer spreading through our collective culture. Ownership will cease to have any meaning at this rate.
- jauntywundrkind 2y ago
  I adore technology, but the legal system has given enormous power for Technological Protection Measures to smash property rights & generally exact absurd levels of control. It's enormously saddening to see that which should be raising and liberating humankind, to see our tool-making, used to choke & restrain humankind; what an infernal curse! Written up two decades ago by Mark Lemley, Terms of Use, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=917926 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=917926
- andrewla 2y ago
  That sounds nice, but I have no idea what such an update would look like. The future envisioned by DRM is an attempt to deal with the problem of copying through structural rather than legal means. Would an update to the law restrict DRM by putting transferability requirements in place (that is, any DRM scheme needs to have the option to irreversibly transfer the content)? Would it put further DMCA-style restrictions on attempts to circumvent DRM? I don't really like any of these options. I think music is the closest thing to where we have "solved" this problem -- streaming music is inexpensive enough and widespread enough that music piracy is essentially a non-issue. For a while it seemed like video was going in a similar direction, but now with the balkanization of video platforms and the increasing cost of access to materials, we're slowly reverting back. Books, especially ebooks, have been totally blocked from this path by the publishers, who managed to successfully defend their pricing moats and make ebooks more expensive than their physical counterparts. Piracy seems (anecdotally) less widespread just because ebooks (especially Kindles) don't make it easy to bring your own content.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    That's a really good question. It might look something like Steam, but with some important additional features. 1. Resales and lending are built into the platform. 2. Some kind of trust or legal framework so that you can't lose access even if the company operating the platform goes bankrupt. 3. Assets are portable between platforms. 4. Strong legal privacy guarantees. We mostly don't have stock certificates anymore. They're all electronic assets. But you still own your shares and they can't be freely copied or counterfeited. Why can't we do that for digital intellectual property? Just like financial crimes will always exist[1], it isn't possible to stamp out piracy. That doesn't mean we have to make everything suck for everyone else. 1. https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fraud/ https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra... (Please, no one say blockchain)
andrewla 2y ago
I love Libby and the fact that I can get free ebooks through my local public library. But the model is just kind of broken and never made any sense. Even the idea of "loaning" ebooks never really made any sense. The operation of "lending" an asset has two parts; once where it is given, and one where it is returned. Given a medium where perfect copies are essentially free, it is easy to "give" an ebook, but incredibly difficult to "take it back". And the fact that it's associated with a local library is just kind of a silly fiction to keep friction artificially high.
- jandrese 2y ago
  It's incredible how much work went into porting the concept of scarcity over to the digital realm. Its pretty annoying if you want to read your book because you are offline, but can't open it because the app can't phone home.
- leotravis10 2y ago
  For sure. This piece says it all really: https://buttondown.email/ninelives/archive/the-coming-enshittification-of-public-libraries/ https://buttondown.email/ninelives/archive/the-coming-enshit...
  - voxl 2y ago
    DRM has been the modus operandi of OverDrive's ebook offering since Day 1. It's not even really a them thing or a private equity thing. It makes the publishers happy and makes the whole system work at all. Deleting DRM doesn't mean we enter a utopia where ebooks are freely shared, it means public libraries lose ebooks from big publishers completely.
- dehrmann 2y ago
  The e-book library model doesn't work without high-ish prices because the barrier to use is incredibly low and access is universal. There'd be no reason to buy books. Before e-books, books wore out, so the library had to buy replacements. Books were also more expensive, and libraries might have increased demand.
grepLeigh 2y ago
The PE firm that owns Libby/Overdrive (Kolhberg Kravis Roberts) has been consolidating publishing assets since the 90s, and recently (2023) acquired the Big Five publisher Simon & Schuster. We need to protect our regional library systems from extractive PE firms. Libraries (even those in large metro areas) have very little negotiating leverage against global conglomos like KKR.
- leotravis10 2y ago
  Sadly, it may already be too late. https://buttondown.email/ninelives/archive/the-coming-enshittification-of-public-libraries/ https://buttondown.email/ninelives/archive/the-coming-enshit... Nearly 90-95% of library e-book systems are controlled by KKR-owned Libby/Overdrive.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  FYI, KKR is a publicly listed company. Anyone can buy shares. https://www.google.com/finance/quote/KKR:NYSE https://www.google.com/finance/quote/KKR:NYSE The funny thing is all the governments that are spending more money on libraries due to higher ebook prices also own shares in KKR via the taxpayer funded defined benefit pension plans for government employees.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
What is the actual source of the main claim in this? "Librarians are mounting a fierce state-by-state battle against the high prices they pay to provide patrons with e-books" ... they're referring to something but never link to it, or it's hard to find it in all the randomly linked words. Feel like there's an actual report out here or article they're responding to but never clearly credit. This I suppose? After Fierce Debate In House, Digital Books Bill Is Tabled https://ctnewsjunkie.com/2024/05/01/after-fierce-debate-in-house-digital-books-bill-is-tabled/ https://ctnewsjunkie.com/2024/05/01/after-fierce-debate-in-h...
- ChrisArchitect 2y ago
  Related: Libraries struggle to afford e-books, seek new laws in fight with publishers https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39724045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39724045
loughnane 2y ago
I'd like to see authors find another way to make money rather than selling by copy. I've thought about this a bit, though nothing seems like a slam dunk. - QR code or similar embedded in books, for people to tip - Patreon style subscription for your favorite authors (like how some youtube channels do it) - Use it as a loss-leader to go on "talks" tours (like musicians) Not perfect ideas, but something has to change. Our laws today are creaking under the load.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- NegativeK 2y ago
  > - Use it as a loss-leader to go on "talks" tours (like musicians) Copyright is a mess and its mere existence pisses me off sometimes, but it sounds even worse to expect someone to be so unable to make money from their work that they have to use it as an ad for doing _more_ work. I fully support authors who want to do that, but I also support authors who don't.
  - loughnane 2y ago
    A lot of things are like that though. People in all sorts trades do work to build a following without getting paid. Of course its better to get paid from the jump, but people aren’t often eager to pay for the creative output of an unknown. Once they have the following then they have a good shot and making some money, maybe even a living. I’m not saying one is morally right, but in a world where content can be infinitely duplicated it’s tough to see how margin per unit will hold.
- beezlebroxxxxxx 2y ago
  Your comparison to musicians is apt. Like most musicians/bands, most authors barely make enough to cover their advance; only best sellers make any money and it's usually less than you think unless you can write multiple best sellers that have a long long-tail. > - Patreon style subscription for your favorite authors (like how some youtube channels do it) Some self-published authors do this. It can work, although I find most self-published stuff to be pretty middling quality. There are a couple downsides. First, this can give your subscribers unreasonable expectations, like say demanding a book every 4 months, when a lot of authors don't work on a schedule like that. Authors used to write serially, publishing chapters or sections in newspapers, but most people can really tell those authors were always working by the seat of the pants and a lot of novels from that time period are kind of rambling messes. The rare ones worked and are remembered, but there were 100s that were just messes. Second, a lot of self-publishers forgo good, professional, editors in order to save costs. For some people, this isn't that big of a deal, but I usually find that the main problem with self-published stuff is a glaring lack of a good editor (even copy editor at times). With traditional publishing, authors are more like talent drafted by editors, who have their salary paid by the publishing house and insure that the book meets the "house standards" of editing. Aside from the marketing and distribution of your book, getting your book published by a big publisher was also a sign that your book passed through a certain scan of quality before publishing. > - Use it as a loss-leader to go on "talks" tours (like musicians) This was (kind of is still) also common back in the day. Most authors go on book tours. Some made money, some made barely any. Nowadays they're wrapped up with selling books, so in order to get a ticket to a book talk you need to buy a copy of the book as well. Unfortunately, like music touring, a lot of the infrastructure that supported these kinds of tours have either disappeared or become really expensive such that only already famous authors can really use them to make money anymore.
darby_eight 2y ago
What value to publishers actually provide? 1. Marketing 2. Floating financing for editing, rendering, etc. Did I miss anything? This just seems like the same 'ol trope of leveraging capital to take future returns wildly disproportionate to the value actually added. Marketing is no longer as necessary with social media—we just need a way to support artists while they work independently of predatory entities.
- bombcar 2y ago
  The only really remaining value is an indicator to readers/buyers that this book "might be worth it", as compared to a self-published item which could have any varying quality. But that's relatively minor in the big scheme of things, because most published books are also unread.
- triceratops 2y ago
  > same 'ol trope of leveraging capital to take future returns wildly disproportionate to the value actually added As far as I know, book publishing isn't a high-margin business. Fronting capital to publish an author is quite risky and they deserve to make a profit. What they cannot be allowed to do is choke off ownership and make us all renters.
  - darby_eight 2y ago
    > As far as I know, book publishing isn't a high-margin business. E-book publishing certainly is or there would be more bullet points to add to my comment above. The only way this could not be the case were if they were addicted to investing in authors that didn't produce revenue—certainly possible, but I don't see any indication of this.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  > Floating financing for editing, rendering, Based on the error riddled books I see nowadays, they're not investing much on editors.
rwbt 2y ago
At the risk of sounding out of touch - I think public libraries should get out of lending e-books altogether. Instead use that money to buy more paperbacks and physical books. It's never been easier to search for a book, place a hold on a book using the libraries' websites. If more people start showing up in the libraries and use them - they'll continue to flourish. If they become a Netflix for books - they're not going to survive.
- 39896880 2y ago
  The mission of libraries is generally to increase access to works, not reduce. Your plan would hit the group who needs it most - the working poor who don’t have the means / time to go to a physical library.
  - rwbt 2y ago
    That might be true but unless there is significant regulatory/policy overhaul what is currently happening is a systematic public funds transfer to Private Equity. If this continues - there won't be too many public libraries around.
  - QuarterReptile 2y ago
    Citation needed. I highly doubt that the working poor are the ones doing most of the e-book borrowing.
    - 39896880 2y ago
      I made no such claim.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

94 points by coloneltcb 2y ago

Copyright is in dire need of reforms. Those laws were mostly made before perfect digital copies, but also before digital enforcement and "licensing“ instead of ownership.

vel0city 2y ago
There needs to be some overhauls to fix the damage Disney et al. did to our copyright system. The Copyright Act of 1976 and later Copyright Term Extension Act did so much damage to the concept of public domain. Being able to own exclusive control over a work for up to 120 years is insane.
- 999900000999 2y ago
  I think capping copyright at 20 years would do wonders. After 20 years everyone's gotten paid and can move onto other projects. I can never imagine this happening though. It's too profitable to keep milking the rare hit IP for decades. For example, Harry Potter has already made JK Rolling a billionaire. She'd be fine if the books went public domain. So many works will be lost since they're no longer available legally. All that artistic effort, gone.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > capping copyright at 20 years would do wonders You’d probably have to grandfather in copyrights made before the law went into effect. Too much money tied up in the long-tail of prior works.
    - 999900000999 2y ago
      Of course you'd grandfather in older works. But it's a moot point, in most places money is more important than access to art. I can't imagine such a law ever being passed. The tragedy here is so much will simply disappear. Original publisher doesn't want to do a re-issue, how will you access it in 30 years?
      - triceratops 2y ago
        I assume you'd start archiving right now when it's available. In 20 years it'll be public domain and freely accessible.
lesuorac 2y ago
Would definitely like if items weren't stuck in the form you got them. A movie on VHS seems entirely reasonable to convert to DVD or w/e so long as you don't then sell the VHS while keeping the DVD. Image not being able to frame a poster because it didn't come in a frame to begin with.
tzs 2y ago
> Those laws were mostly made before perfect digital copies There are a variety of arguments used to justify copyright, ranging from philosophical to economical, and I can't think of any of them whose validity or lack thereof depends on whether or not copies are perfect.

triceratops 2y ago

First-sale doctrine needs a serious update for electronic content. It's too important a principle for us to lose. Content licensing, as opposed to outright sale, is a cancer spreading through our collective culture. Ownership will cease to have any meaning at this rate.

jauntywundrkind 2y ago
I adore technology, but the legal system has given enormous power for Technological Protection Measures to smash property rights & generally exact absurd levels of control. It's enormously saddening to see that which should be raising and liberating humankind, to see our tool-making, used to choke & restrain humankind; what an infernal curse! Written up two decades ago by Mark Lemley, Terms of Use, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=917926 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=917926
andrewla 2y ago
That sounds nice, but I have no idea what such an update would look like. The future envisioned by DRM is an attempt to deal with the problem of copying through structural rather than legal means. Would an update to the law restrict DRM by putting transferability requirements in place (that is, any DRM scheme needs to have the option to irreversibly transfer the content)? Would it put further DMCA-style restrictions on attempts to circumvent DRM? I don't really like any of these options. I think music is the closest thing to where we have "solved" this problem -- streaming music is inexpensive enough and widespread enough that music piracy is essentially a non-issue. For a while it seemed like video was going in a similar direction, but now with the balkanization of video platforms and the increasing cost of access to materials, we're slowly reverting back. Books, especially ebooks, have been totally blocked from this path by the publishers, who managed to successfully defend their pricing moats and make ebooks more expensive than their physical counterparts. Piracy seems (anecdotally) less widespread just because ebooks (especially Kindles) don't make it easy to bring your own content.
- triceratops 2y ago
  That's a really good question. It might look something like Steam, but with some important additional features. 1. Resales and lending are built into the platform. 2. Some kind of trust or legal framework so that you can't lose access even if the company operating the platform goes bankrupt. 3. Assets are portable between platforms. 4. Strong legal privacy guarantees. We mostly don't have stock certificates anymore. They're all electronic assets. But you still own your shares and they can't be freely copied or counterfeited. Why can't we do that for digital intellectual property? Just like financial crimes will always exist[1], it isn't possible to stamp out piracy. That doesn't mean we have to make everything suck for everyone else. 1. https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fraud/ https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra... (Please, no one say blockchain)

andrewla 2y ago

I love Libby and the fact that I can get free ebooks through my local public library. But the model is just kind of broken and never made any sense. Even the idea of "loaning" ebooks never really made any sense. The operation of "lending" an asset has two parts; once where it is given, and one where it is returned. Given a medium where perfect copies are essentially free, it is easy to "give" an ebook, but incredibly difficult to "take it back". And the fact that it's associated with a local library is just kind of a silly fiction to keep friction artificially high.

jandrese 2y ago
It's incredible how much work went into porting the concept of scarcity over to the digital realm. Its pretty annoying if you want to read your book because you are offline, but can't open it because the app can't phone home.
leotravis10 2y ago
For sure. This piece says it all really: https://buttondown.email/ninelives/archive/the-coming-enshittification-of-public-libraries/ https://buttondown.email/ninelives/archive/the-coming-enshit...
- voxl 2y ago
  DRM has been the modus operandi of OverDrive's ebook offering since Day 1. It's not even really a them thing or a private equity thing. It makes the publishers happy and makes the whole system work at all. Deleting DRM doesn't mean we enter a utopia where ebooks are freely shared, it means public libraries lose ebooks from big publishers completely.
dehrmann 2y ago
The e-book library model doesn't work without high-ish prices because the barrier to use is incredibly low and access is universal. There'd be no reason to buy books. Before e-books, books wore out, so the library had to buy replacements. Books were also more expensive, and libraries might have increased demand.

grepLeigh 2y ago

The PE firm that owns Libby/Overdrive (Kolhberg Kravis Roberts) has been consolidating publishing assets since the 90s, and recently (2023) acquired the Big Five publisher Simon & Schuster. We need to protect our regional library systems from extractive PE firms. Libraries (even those in large metro areas) have very little negotiating leverage against global conglomos like KKR.

leotravis10 2y ago
Sadly, it may already be too late. https://buttondown.email/ninelives/archive/the-coming-enshittification-of-public-libraries/ https://buttondown.email/ninelives/archive/the-coming-enshit... Nearly 90-95% of library e-book systems are controlled by KKR-owned Libby/Overdrive.
lotsofpulp 2y ago
FYI, KKR is a publicly listed company. Anyone can buy shares. https://www.google.com/finance/quote/KKR:NYSE https://www.google.com/finance/quote/KKR:NYSE The funny thing is all the governments that are spending more money on libraries due to higher ebook prices also own shares in KKR via the taxpayer funded defined benefit pension plans for government employees.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

What is the actual source of the main claim in this? "Librarians are mounting a fierce state-by-state battle against the high prices they pay to provide patrons with e-books" ... they're referring to something but never link to it, or it's hard to find it in all the randomly linked words. Feel like there's an actual report out here or article they're responding to but never clearly credit. This I suppose? After Fierce Debate In House, Digital Books Bill Is Tabled https://ctnewsjunkie.com/2024/05/01/after-fierce-debate-in-house-digital-books-bill-is-tabled/ https://ctnewsjunkie.com/2024/05/01/after-fierce-debate-in-h...

ChrisArchitect 2y ago
Related: Libraries struggle to afford e-books, seek new laws in fight with publishers https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39724045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39724045

loughnane 2y ago

I'd like to see authors find another way to make money rather than selling by copy. I've thought about this a bit, though nothing seems like a slam dunk. - QR code or similar embedded in books, for people to tip - Patreon style subscription for your favorite authors (like how some youtube channels do it) - Use it as a loss-leader to go on "talks" tours (like musicians) Not perfect ideas, but something has to change. Our laws today are creaking under the load.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
NegativeK 2y ago
> - Use it as a loss-leader to go on "talks" tours (like musicians) Copyright is a mess and its mere existence pisses me off sometimes, but it sounds even worse to expect someone to be so unable to make money from their work that they have to use it as an ad for doing _more_ work. I fully support authors who want to do that, but I also support authors who don't.
- loughnane 2y ago
  A lot of things are like that though. People in all sorts trades do work to build a following without getting paid. Of course its better to get paid from the jump, but people aren’t often eager to pay for the creative output of an unknown. Once they have the following then they have a good shot and making some money, maybe even a living. I’m not saying one is morally right, but in a world where content can be infinitely duplicated it’s tough to see how margin per unit will hold.
beezlebroxxxxxx 2y ago
Your comparison to musicians is apt. Like most musicians/bands, most authors barely make enough to cover their advance; only best sellers make any money and it's usually less than you think unless you can write multiple best sellers that have a long long-tail. > - Patreon style subscription for your favorite authors (like how some youtube channels do it) Some self-published authors do this. It can work, although I find most self-published stuff to be pretty middling quality. There are a couple downsides. First, this can give your subscribers unreasonable expectations, like say demanding a book every 4 months, when a lot of authors don't work on a schedule like that. Authors used to write serially, publishing chapters or sections in newspapers, but most people can really tell those authors were always working by the seat of the pants and a lot of novels from that time period are kind of rambling messes. The rare ones worked and are remembered, but there were 100s that were just messes. Second, a lot of self-publishers forgo good, professional, editors in order to save costs. For some people, this isn't that big of a deal, but I usually find that the main problem with self-published stuff is a glaring lack of a good editor (even copy editor at times). With traditional publishing, authors are more like talent drafted by editors, who have their salary paid by the publishing house and insure that the book meets the "house standards" of editing. Aside from the marketing and distribution of your book, getting your book published by a big publisher was also a sign that your book passed through a certain scan of quality before publishing. > - Use it as a loss-leader to go on "talks" tours (like musicians) This was (kind of is still) also common back in the day. Most authors go on book tours. Some made money, some made barely any. Nowadays they're wrapped up with selling books, so in order to get a ticket to a book talk you need to buy a copy of the book as well. Unfortunately, like music touring, a lot of the infrastructure that supported these kinds of tours have either disappeared or become really expensive such that only already famous authors can really use them to make money anymore.

darby_eight 2y ago

What value to publishers actually provide? 1. Marketing 2. Floating financing for editing, rendering, etc. Did I miss anything? This just seems like the same 'ol trope of leveraging capital to take future returns wildly disproportionate to the value actually added. Marketing is no longer as necessary with social media—we just need a way to support artists while they work independently of predatory entities.

bombcar 2y ago
The only really remaining value is an indicator to readers/buyers that this book "might be worth it", as compared to a self-published item which could have any varying quality. But that's relatively minor in the big scheme of things, because most published books are also unread.
triceratops 2y ago
> same 'ol trope of leveraging capital to take future returns wildly disproportionate to the value actually added As far as I know, book publishing isn't a high-margin business. Fronting capital to publish an author is quite risky and they deserve to make a profit. What they cannot be allowed to do is choke off ownership and make us all renters.
- darby_eight 2y ago
  > As far as I know, book publishing isn't a high-margin business. E-book publishing certainly is or there would be more bullet points to add to my comment above. The only way this could not be the case were if they were addicted to investing in authors that didn't produce revenue—certainly possible, but I don't see any indication of this.
kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
> Floating financing for editing, rendering, Based on the error riddled books I see nowadays, they're not investing much on editors.

rwbt 2y ago

At the risk of sounding out of touch - I think public libraries should get out of lending e-books altogether. Instead use that money to buy more paperbacks and physical books. It's never been easier to search for a book, place a hold on a book using the libraries' websites. If more people start showing up in the libraries and use them - they'll continue to flourish. If they become a Netflix for books - they're not going to survive.

39896880 2y ago
The mission of libraries is generally to increase access to works, not reduce. Your plan would hit the group who needs it most - the working poor who don’t have the means / time to go to a physical library.
- rwbt 2y ago
  That might be true but unless there is significant regulatory/policy overhaul what is currently happening is a systematic public funds transfer to Private Equity. If this continues - there won't be too many public libraries around.
- QuarterReptile 2y ago
  Citation needed. I highly doubt that the working poor are the ones doing most of the e-book borrowing.
  - 39896880 2y ago
    I made no such claim.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]