Writing about library digital content somehow seems wrong, or least misplaced in focus, when a masked paramilitary force is murdering citizens for lawfully exercising their constitutional rights, the U.S. Justice Department is providing cover for the killers and trying to cover up the crimes, and high-ranking officials, including the President of the United States, are lying with smears about the victims. In accordance with Maryland law, my library has enacted policies to recognize the rights of, and as much as possible, protect all our visitors. I hope all libraries are doing the same, although of course local politics may prevent overt statements. But votes on ebook bills are forth coming, and at least one more state may introduce legislation this year, so it is vital that librarians advocate for change and tell the truth about how current Big 5 publisher licensing practices are making collections unsustainable, disadvantaging library readers, and mulcting taxpayers.
We do single out the Big 5, as we are primarily focused on public libraries, but any number of big academic publishers are equally unreasonable. We applaud the terms offered by many medium-sized, smaller, or Indie publishers, terms that are often quite favorable, as we have documented. How they can survive (unless taken over by what seems an ever-increasing appetite by the Big 5 to consolidate and homogenize the market) on these terms while the Big 5 and their Myrmidon lobbyists say fair library ebook bills will destroy them is a mystery, especially since libraries still get far more print books at a far lower price than we license digital. How has our buying print at market sustainable costs under copyright for hundreds of years not resulted in bookpocalypse?
The ebook bills often speak of “reasonable” terms. This certainly does raise the question of what fair pricing might be. Things bring us to the testimony Mr. Potash recently submitted against Washington D.C.’s B26-0490: The Library E-book Pricing Fairness Amendment Act of 2025. It reads in part: “"To argue that libraries are entitled to 'Magical Library Books' at the same price of a Kindle ebook from Amazon, ignores the fact that print and digital library books are not the same product. Yet the bill’s proponents want to strongarm their CDL contracts on every public librarian." I was quoted by Andrew Albanese, quite accurately, calling BS on this statement and all his testimony, characterizing it as “vituperative” and “disappointing from a company that claims to be the librarian’s friend, and a poor argumentative showing that seems not to understand this bill at all.” I said a lot more, but Mr. Albanese (wisely and generously) did not include it. [Late addition—I wish he had printed my condemnation of Mr. Potash’s vituperative—yes!—mention of Library Futures, an organization which regularly tells greater truths about library digital content than all of Mr. Potash’s testimony but which had nothing to do with this particular bill. Mr. Potash may have meant Mr. Courtney’s Ebook Study Group, not Library Futures—simply another indication of how ill-informed his testimony is.] Rather, Mr. Albanese cites, “OverDrive’s Long Testimony Misses the Point: Libraries Need Fair eBook Contracts, Not a Fear-Based Marketing Pitch,” in which Mr. Kyle Courtney spanks Mr. Potash’s arguments. This isn’t a debate, it’s a rout. I don’t need to pile on but will note the irony of Mr. Potash’s testimony directly contradicting that of DCPL Executive Director Mr. Richard Reyes-Gavilan. Apparently Mr. Potash thinks he knows better than the head of the D.C. library what is good for that library. Not good optics there.
While not walking back his points, Mr. Potash has since clarified his position somewhat. (Thanks again to Mr. Albanese for posting this article—I recommend that everyone interested in library digital content matters follow his Words & Money. Note: I get no benefit from W&M except lots of good information.) He apparently feels “stuck somewhere in the middle.” Mr. Martin Austermuhle quotes him as follows:
He agrees that some e-books are “too damn expensive,” but says those are often just the newest releases and bestsellers. Potash also says libraries can’t look at e-books the same way they do physical books. “It's a different product. Yet they want the same price. They want the benefit of print. They want the benefit of when I buy it retail. But then they get 500% more value. Because they’re never lost, never late. No handling, no shipping, every time a user touches it, they're getting a brand new pristine experience,” he says.
A few points here. We may add that with ebooks, every title can serve as large print and offer some accessibility that print may not. No one doubts that ebooks have advantages. That’s in part why we want them.
He is correct that some of the Big 5 jack up prices on best-selling titles. But even older titles are priced at a high “standard” rate with other current releases. And those prices—always coupled with circulation limits in ebooks for the Big 5, though three of them still offer “perpetual” in audio—are nearly always way higher than print. Where the hell does that 500% more value figure come from? Engaging in hyperbole just a little?
Here are some advantages print offers us. Through our jobbers, we get a 40%+ discount on most hardcovers. Yes, we pay for processing and delivery, but in no way do those costs put the price anywhere near retail. And the jobbers are making money. We can switch jobbers and get the same deal. Where’s the equivalent bargain on ebooks? It’s always list price, unless a publisher offers a deal, and the ebook vendors don’t always tell us about those “sales.”
“They are never lost, never late.” And print books never just self-destruct after they’ve been checked out 26 times or go “poof” and vanish into thin air after a one or two years. They can last years, even with heavy use. And we can send them—albeit at cost—across the country if we have a title someone wants. Tried ILL with ebooks lately? If print books get lost, patrons are generally willing to help defray costs. And when we do decide to deaccession a print book, often our Friends groups can sell them and funnel money back to us.
500% more value, my . . . grrr! . . . oh, well, in place of a vulgarity, let’s just say, 500% more value, forsooth!
But, beyond the hyperbole and frankly poor arguments (where is CDL coming into this?), let’s concede Mr. Potash’s point that ebooks offer some savings in the handling of them. They COULD offer the huge advantage of saving space and allowing us to keep titles when we have to make way for new materials, and even giant public libraries can’t keep everything they’d like to have, at least on public stacks. Titles on reasonable terms from Indie publishers—including a perpetual use or even a purchase option—do just that. But not the Big 5.
So, ebooks offer some cost advantages. Should we in libraries ask to acquire them at the same cost that the individual consumer pays, or even what we pay on discount for a hard-cover, and expect to circulate them forever? Easy answer: No. That doesn’t seem “reasonable,” at least to me, and it is not to most of the colleagues I talk with. What, then, is reasonable? What terms should the state/D.C. bills lead to? How do we get agreement among libraries and the big publishers? Many, even most, Indie publishers already offer fair terms—again, how do they do it and the Big 5 can’t, or rather won’t?
Not trying to be a tease, but next month the ReadersFirst Working Group will be putting out a statement of what we believe to be “reasonable” for digital terms. We will factor the costs of print with the advantages of digital and try to come up with a compromise. Many Indie publishers are already well in the ball park. It won’t be the low-balling that Mr. Potash claims proponents of fair ebook laws want, but it won’t be the inflated and ultimately unsustainable terms/costs that the Big 5 charge.
In the meantime, librarians, let’s adjust our hold queues to create better ROI, reward those publishers offering fair terms by acquiring and pushing their books, and, yes, advocate for fair state (and ultimately federal) bills. Don’t expect any help from OverDrive on that last part, even though if ebook terms were better they’d still be making their share and we wouldn’t be spending any less. Mr. Potash’s testimony shows what side they are on. It has been very helpful in helping libraries adopt digital, though more competition in the space would be nice. But it’s a business. It makes money—and lots of it—from us. It’s not our friend. It will always protect the money, and apparently thinks there’s more money in status quo. And maybe it’s high time we treated it, and the big publishers, like wise consumers should, knowing we can call out, and even get legislative protection from, unfair practices.
