Publisher Harper-Collins is pissing off libraries:
Open Letter to HarperCollins & Readers of eBooks
Starting March 7, the “total number of permitted checkouts” for any HarperCollins eBook will be 26, after which point, libraries will have to purchase the eBook again. This figure does not account for people renewing an eBook to finish reading it and no accommodations are made for eBooks which never checkout. There is no option for the library to remove the title from their virtual collection; instead it will remain listed and unavailable for customers and library staff to access. The eBook is essentially locked until a re-entrance fee is paid by the library for the next 26 checkouts.
The rationale offered by the publisher is since paper books wear out and need to be replaced if they are to remain in a library’s collection, the same should be true of their electronic formats. The publisher argues that it should not be denied revenues that come from reselling replacement books and resources. Because the publisher assumes digital resources never deteriorate, they have set an arbitrary limit to the number of times an electronic resource can be accessed. Not planned obsolescence. Forced obsolescence.
Wow. That’s kinda… dickish.
17 Responses to “Apparently electrons have a shelf life”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I agree it is rather stupid and senseless.
I’d rather pay them for the number of words I read. And in this case, that’ll be zero. (Lemme write this down, “HarperCollins” and “cheapskates”. OK, got it. I won’t forget.)
No support for capitalism around here…
Book used forever, shared by anyone in the community? That sounds like socialism.
I agree it’s dickish.
We could always go to Australia’s system where libraries have to pay the publishers royalties on books that are check out. Great for publishers and authors, but it sucks for libraries and their patrons.
It’s ultimately a case of where the dog (HarperCollins) is biting the hand that feeds it (the libraries and ultimately the patron).
Yes, libraries operate based of a socialistic concept, but they do serve a higher purpose and a greater good. (Let’s just be happy that the owner of this blog isn’t a 100% Capitalist, otherwise we might be charged to read his blog post and charged to post our views.)
Great “Twilight Zone” episode here, as sole survivor of nuclear war is a HarpersCollins employee who manages to crank up a computer in a abandoned library to download some eBooks he needs to survive…only to find they have all been checked out 26 times before.
Jordan
Don’t give Scott any ideas. He could use the money.
> That sounds like socialism.
Nope, sounds more like cheap advertising.
> Let’s just be happy that the owner of this blog isn’t a 100% Capitalist, otherwise we might be charged to read his blog post
If there was an *easy* way to make the blog kinda-sorta pay-per-view, where, say, you could read the blog postings and see the small photos, but if you wanted the full-rez versions you’d get charged a nickel every time you clicked a picture… I’d probably be all over that.
Sounds like the same problems with music.
Artists have a much bigger problem with obscurity than privacy.
With Electronic Media and self publishing, I really wonder how much
HC is going to have to spend on advertising and promotion to make
up for the library loss of exposure.
-G.
>If there was an *easy* way to make the blog kinda-sorta pay-per-view, >where, say, you could read the blog postings and see the small photos, but if >you wanted the full-rez versions you’d get charged a nickel every time you >clicked a picture… I’d probably be all over that.
Admin:
There are ways of doing it. But the question is, are your website visitors going to be willing to pay and will they keep coming to your site? Not to mention, how would you prevent people from circumventing it? Oh, and not to mention, is it going to cost you more than you make per click?
No, maybe, dunno, probably.
Thus, I’m not goign to devote any real effort to it. Mostly I think it’d be for high-rez photos I’ve taken, but I doub’t there’d be enough interest to make it even close to worthwhile.
“If there was an *easy* way to make the blog kinda-sorta pay-per-view, where, say, you could read the blog postings and see the small photos, but if you wanted the full-rez versions you’d get charged a nickel every time you clicked a picture… I’d probably be all over that.”
And the readership would drop off the map. Like the nytimes.com site when they tried it the first time. They are doing it again, with 20 free articles a month, let’s see how it holds up.
> And the readership would drop off the map.
How certain are you of that? If the blog looked and worked exactly the same, with only one difference: if you saw one of my photos (cats, landscapes, whatever) and decided that you wanted a higher rez, and you clicked on it and got charged a nickle for a full-rez version of the sort of photos I’m currently posting at, generally, about 20% rez… you think people would stop coming?
One of the common confusions about capitalism is that everyone who is in a capitalist system must charge for everything, and someone who supports capitalism must always charge everyone for everything. All capitalism is is the absence of coercion in human arrangements, specifically economic arrangements. You can be a capitalist and still give a service away without encountering conflict. Capitalism has never had a problem with “socialistic” behavior; it is socialism that refuses to permit capitalism in its midst.
> Capitalism has never had a problem with “socialistic” behavior; it is socialism that refuses to permit capitalism in its midst.
Capitalism is built-in to human behavior. The most domineering, overbearing and controlling communist system in the world will still have an active black market. The commies will sometimes try to stomp it out… and sometimes work with it themselves, knowing as they do that the black market is the only way to get they thing they need and want.
And while capitalists have to hide in communist systems, under constant threat of death… in capitalist systems, hippies can go off and form their own communes. And the only people who will care? The tax-grabbers in the government.
When digital books were fist discussed a very long time ago (computery-speaking) one of the distinct advantages touted was that they would never wear out.
“How certain are you of that? If the blog looked and worked exactly the same, with only one difference: if you saw one of my photos (cats, landscapes, whatever) and decided that you wanted a higher rez, and you clicked on it and got charged a nickle for a full-rez version of the sort of photos I’m currently posting at, generally, about 20% rez… you think people would stop coming?”
Ahh but that is not the same as charging a fee to use the page. You already do this by offering your documents for sale so nothing would really change.
> but that is not the same as charging a fee to use the page
Something I’ve never even remotely suggested, as I know it wouldn’t fly.
What I actually said was: “If there was an *easy* way to make the blog kinda-sorta pay-per-view, where, say, you could read the blog postings and see the small photos, but if you wanted the full-rez versions you’d get charged a nickel every time you clicked a picture… I’d probably be all over that.”