Publishers Weekly Reports on the Macmillan Changes

Andrew Albanese from Publishers Weekly has posted a wide-ranging story on the e-book changes Macmillan announced today [disclosure: members of the RF Working Group are quoted].

This article clarifies that the only good news in Macmillan’s announcement—the possibility of getting a perpetual license, if only one—is limited: “A Macmillan spokesperson confirmed to PW that the single perpetual access copy will be available only for new release titles in the first eight weeks after publication—the option to buy a single perpetual access copy expires after that eight week window, and the offer is not available for backlist titles.”

Too bad about all those titles that might fail to make a splash but later become in demand or recognized as significant. Our ability to curate them, praised by Mr. Sargent as an advantage of the changes, is non-existent and undermines Sargent’s claim.

ALA Senior Director for Public Policy & Government Relations Alan Inouye is quoted as saying the following: "Worse than expected," he told PW. "Embargoes violate the principle of equitable access to information that is at the core of libraries," he added, pointing out that Macmillan's policy is curiously out of step with the rest of the industry. "Within the past year, three of the other Big Five publishers revised their library e-book business models, and none of them concluded that libraries were a threat to their profitability," Inouye observed. "Indeed, these other publishers believe that libraries are benefit to their businesses. Macmillan stands alone with its embargo."

Other librarians also weigh in: “And both [Director of White Plains Library Brian} Kenney and [director, Collections & Membership Services, Toronto Public Library Susan] Caron say Macmillan clearly did not listen to librarian input, because the new terms are not useful. "If we need more than one copy of a title, we’ll just wait. Our users will be upset if we don’t buy more to reduce holds, as we normally do. And if we can wait eight weeks, we may decide not to buy the title at all."

Since that wait is precisely what Macmillan wants, however, would it be a better idea to license the one and tell our patrons to complain to Macmillan when they want more?

FY 2019 can go down as the year that the Big 5 screwed over libraries, and, more importantly, library readers. We thank Harper Collins for resisting the parade and continuing to offer its e-books on a circulation based (and not time bound) license. HC, add the option for a perpetual license, and you become the company that cares.

The ALA Responds to the Macmillan E-book Changes

The American Library Association has responded to the Macmillan’s e-book license changes.

“Macmillan Publishers’ new model for library ebook lending will make it difficult for libraries to fulfill our central mission: ensuring access to information for all,” said ALA President Wanda Brown. “Limiting access to new titles for libraries means limiting access for patrons most dependent on libraries.

“When a library serving many thousands has only a single copy of a new title in ebook format, it’s the library – not the publisher – that feels the heat. It’s the local library that’s perceived as being unresponsive to community needs.

“Macmillan’s new policy is unacceptable,” said Brown. “ALA urges Macmillan to cancel the embargo.”

ALA calls on library customers of Macmillan Publishers to tell CEO John Sargent they object to the publishing company’s new policy.”

ALA calls on library customers of Macmillan Publishers to tell CEO John Sargent they object to the publishing company’s new policy.”

Macmillan Publishers
Attn: Mr. John Sargent, CEO
120 Broadway Street
New York, NY 10271
Phone: 646-307-5151
Email: press.inquiries@macmillan.com
Twitter: @MacmillanUSA

ALA asks that these communications also be sent to ALA’s Public Policy and Advocacy Office at alawash@alawash.org.

ReadersFirst supports the ALA’s position and encourages libraries and citizens to communicate their displeasure to Macmillan.

Macmillan Announces Its New Library E-Books Terms

John Sargent of Macmillan has announced the publisher’s new terms on library e-books.

They include the following:

• “We will make one copy of your [Macmillan authors] ebook available to each library system in perpetuity upon publication. On that single copy we will cut the price in half to $30 (currently first copies are $60 and need renewal after two years or 52 lends).”

• “Additional copies of that title will not be available for library purchase until 8 weeks after publication.”

• All other terms remain in place. It is important to note that the 8-week window only applies to ebooks; the library can order as many physical books as they like on publication.”

How very generous to let us buy all the print books we want, since you can’t stop us anyway due to print being covered by copyright and not license.

There is one positive development. Making copies available in two licensing terms (1 copy on perpetual use plus others on a two year/52 circulations metered model) shows that flexibility is possible. ReadersFirst has long advocated for this possibility but has sometimes been told it is technically impossible—a claim we dismiss because we have seen some smaller publishers offer multiple licensing. Having one copy available for perpetual use is a gain over having everything offered only on metered licenses.

As part of their change, Macmillan might have adopted a 50 circulation only model and set prices at what they thought fair. $75 might not have been out-of-line, equaling $1.50 per read. Time-bound licenses make many e-books a gamble for libraries, except in the case of relatively few best sellers. Under such a model, libraries, publisher, and authors know what revenue will be per use. If libraries doesn’t get a lot of circulation on a title, we can at least have time to promote it and hope it will be used in time. Perhaps they could offer three models: 1 copy/1 user perpetual, 25 circulations with no time limit and simultaneous use, and 50 circulations at one user/one copy, no time limit, all priced fairly. Don’t worry, publishers—the options wouldn’t be too complicated for librarians to figure out.

Of course, the small amount of good news in Macmillan’s announcement is overshadowed by their decision to embargo the sales of library digital content for 8 weeks. ReadersFirst is not surprised by the decision to embargo sales. After the Tor experiment, we saw it coming. Macmillan is a business. For all their claims to be supporting authors, they are clearly most concerned about their profits. But we are dismayed, and curious: how is it even legal to embargo sales to libraries? ReadersFirst calls for government investigation of this practice. It disadvantages library users, restricts the flow of valuable information, and undermines an informed citizenry. Some of Macmillan’s claims are preposterous and reflect a woeful lack of understanding. There is no friction in e-lending? Mr. Sargent has clearly never tried to enable a group of librarians, many of them deeply convinced that print is better, to learn digital use well enough to help our patrons, much less heard our patrons’ struggles to get library digital content or the expressions of surprise by many patrons that we have e-books at all. I only wish the process were as easy and seamless as he makes it out to be and that as many patrons know about library digital content as he presumes. Libraries are fortunate to be protected by the right of first sale for printed titles. If we were not, why wouldn’t Macmillan embargo sales of print to libraries, hoping to squeeze every dollar from the consumer market before graciously allowing readers “to lean heavily toward free”?

It is hard to know quite how to respond, other than to ask for government action and perhaps take legal action, without disadvantaging library readers. We could stop buying Macmillan titles altogether and let them see what that does to their sales, but such an action would force readers, many of whom might not have much disposable income, to buy on their own as well as take away content from our libraries. What we clearly need is unified action. We need to organize, take our case to our readers, encouraging them to write for government action and to boycott purchase of Macmillan e-books until such time as libraries also have access to these titles. Macmillan’s actions harm library readers. Ultimately, they harm the very authors Macmillan protests they are helping. Libraries are vital for promoting authors and their works, helping discovery of content that we would argue, yes, promotes sales beyond libraries. It is time for us not just to take a stand, but to ask our millions of readers to take a stand with us.

A Concerned E-Book Post in American Libraries

Alan Inouye of ALA’s Washington Office has posted on ALA’s “ongoing concerns over library prices for ebooks and audiobooks.”

Mr. Inouye’s concern about other embargoes happening is well-founded. His call for joint action in a task-force from various library stake-holders is encouraging.

ReadersFirst encourages all libraries to support and participate in efforts to move forward, including considering a boycott (in print and digital) of all publishers who enact embargoes, taking our case to the public, and considering possible legal action. Is it legal to sell to consumers and not to libraries? Perhaps it is time for a test case to see.

It's not DRM, it's licensing . . . but, yes, they are connected

Wired has posted that MICROSOFT'S EBOOK APOCALYPSE SHOWS THE DARK SIDE OF DRM.

Says Brian Barrett, “YOUR ITUNES MOVIES, your Kindle books—they’re not really yours. You don’t own them. You’ve just bought a license that allows you to access them, one that can be revoked at any time. And while a handful of incidents have brought that reality into sharp relief over the years, none has quite the punch of Microsoft disappearing every single ebook from every one of its customers.”

When consumers feel the pinch that libraries feel even more, is it time to advocate for government action (not that corporations don’t have more power than consumers, making action unlikely), or at least to try an advocacy campaign with the public to generate interest and even anger about restrictive licensing in libraries?

What have we got to lose?

Texas State Library and Archives Commission Announces “E-Read Texas” Electronic Books

A press release about an interesting library e-book development in Texas, expanding access to readers in smaller communities through SimplyE. Well done, TSLAC!

Texas State Library and Archives Commission

Austin, TX

July 8, 2019

 Austin, TX – The Texas State Library and Archives Commission (TSLAC) announces a new program, E-Read Texas, to bring electronic books to Texans served by small community libraries in all parts of the state beginning September 1. The E-Read Texas program will provide an easy-to-use platform to access e-books provided by TSLAC alongside materials purchased by local libraries.

 “We are very happy to be able to offer Texans access to these high-demand materials through their public libraries,” said Mark Smith, Director and Texas State Librarian. “We recognize the great need in communities across the state for diverse reading materials and are excited to partner with local libraries to provide cost-effective and user-friendly access to those resources.”

 TSLAC will partner with Amigos Library Services to make SimplyE, an open-source e-book platform, available to as many as 225 small and medium-sized community libraries over the next two years. SimplyE includes easy-to-use e-reader apps for iOS and Android, allowing users to check out and read e-books provided by their local library.

 “Enhancing the collections of public libraries and making these materials available 24/7 is a great benefit to communities in Texas. We encourage everyone to get a library card to take advantage of this and the many other amazing things libraries offer for free,” said Alan Kornblau, Chief Executive Officer of Amigos Library Services. “We are proud to partner with the Texas State Library and Archives Commission in providing this easy access to electronic books for people of all ages.”

 This project represents the first stage of a multi-year project aimed to bring more e-books to Texans via their public libraries. The program complements TSLAC’s TexShare and TexQuest programs that leverage statewide buying power to bring cost-effective access to e-resources to virtually every person in the state. Texans use e-resources provided by TSLAC over 140 million times each year.

 The E-Read Texas program will include a collection of general-interest adult fiction and non-fiction e-books. Libraries will be able stretch local book budgets by using these e-books to supplement their existing collections, all of which will be available through the SimplyE platform.

 TSLAC is working collaboratively with the Texas library community to select content for the E-Read Texas collection, which will be available before the end of the calendar year. The E-Read Texas program will have a statewide impact built on local needs that improves the ability of Texas libraries to engage with their communities.

More information about E-Read Texas can be found on TSLAC’s Director’s Report blog at https://www.tsl.texas.gov/director/e-read-texas-tslac-e-book-project/ and Library Developments blog at https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ld/librarydevelopments/?p=24660.

Danielle Cunniff Plumer

Statewide Resource Sharing Administrator

Texas State Library and Archives Commission

Library Development and Networking Division

"Another One Rides the Bus" (with apologies to Weird Al and Queen)

Simon&Schuster has gotten on the Big Bus to Ignore LibraryLand, joining Hachette, Penguin Random House, and MacMillan/Tor with new licensing models.

The news is not entirely bad for libraries: S&S’s new two year, one copy/one user model is more favorable than their previous one-year model. They are not embargoing titles—and that’s surely worth two cheers. And while most librarians would prefer a perpetual access license option to pay-per-use—the latter model can be a budget buster—at least they are offering options.

Joining Hachette in metering digital audiobooks, however, is a definite setback for libraries. It will make providing long-term access more expensive, less certain, and more work to manage.

ReadersFirst sends a thanks to Harper Collins. HC, there were a lot of haters when you were the first to switch to the 26 circ no-time-limit model, but overall your terms are the most friendly to libraries now. Please, please, pretty please, with more library $$ on it, would you add a perpetual access model, even if at a higher price?

The ALA Resolution to advocate for library digital access is timely—or, badly overdue, but we won’t charge late fees to the ALA. RF pledges support. Can we form a group from COSLA, ALA, ASGCLA, ULC, and CULC for joint action? The time is now!

ALA Council Passes a Resolution on Digital Content Action

As noted in Publisher’s Weekly, in the wake of two more publishers changing their licensing models, the American Library Association Council has passed a resolution calling for action.

Now, therefore, be it Resolved that the American Library Association (ALA), on behalf of its members:

1) Creates a joint working group of representatives from ALA, ULC, ASGCLA, COSLA and other members to be determined to address library concerns with publishers and content providers specifically:

a. To develop a variety of digital content license models that will allow libraries to provide content more effectively, allowing options to choose between one-at-a-time, metered, and other options to be made at point of sale;

b. To make all content available in print and for which digital variants have been created to make the digital content equally available to libraries without moratorium or embargo;

c. To explore all fair options for delivering content digitally in libraries;

d. To urge Congress to explore digital content pricing and licensing models to ensure democratic access to information'

2) Develops an advocacy and public awareness campaign to provide accurate information about the true value of library purchasing of books to publishers.

Passing a resolution is a long way from realizing action, of course, but ReadersFirst hopes this may be a start for librarians to join together to speak with a collective (and so louder) voice. We pledge our support to the effort and to all who answer the call for action.

[Full disclosure: the original draft of the resolution was prepared some on months ago by the ReadersFirst Working Group. It was subsequently greatly improved by Deirdre Brennan of RAILS and moved forward by Michael Golrick of ASGCLA).

ULC, CULC Respond--Time for Action?

In response to Hachette moving to a two-year metered licence model and Blackstone embargoing digital audiobook sales to libraries for 90 days, the Canadian Urban Library Council has released a statement, supporting ALA President Loida Garcia-Febo’s concerns about access and suggesting that libraries help people with the discovery of materials, ultimately creating sales beyond what we purchase. It reads in part as follows:

“These actions are in direct contrast to the calls to publishers made during the #eContentForLibraries campaign, where 303 libraries participated and engaged Canadians to advocate for fair pricing and access to digital content. Access to digital content is imperative for those who have low literacy or other restrictions that limit their ability to read materials in traditional formats. Restrictive access and pricing models also negatively impact vulnerable populations who rely most heavily on the library: those who cannot afford to purchase individual or subscription content.”

The Urban Library Council has also responded, with “President & CEO Susan Benton [issuing} the following statement:

“Libraries have been fighting an uphill battle when it comes to pricing and access to e-books – publishers have kept pricing unreasonably high, and restrictions such as embargos on new titles have only made matters worse. The decisions by Hachette Book Group and Penguin Random House to eliminate perpetual e-book licensing represent a dangerous step backwards in establishing a fair and sustainable e-book market between libraries and publishers. Although the new model will lower the initial costs of e-books, the two-year licenses will undermine the ability for libraries to establish rich collections that can meet the needs of a wide and diverse readership. For many individuals in the digital age, the library provides their only point of access for e-books – ULC urges these publishers to consider the real impact of these changes on readers and authors from all backgrounds.”

ReadersFirst wonders if the time for statements is past. Is it time for action? Could a task force made up of representatives from ALA (including ALA ASGCLA), ULC, CULC, and other interested parties be formed to take action? Could it take the form of an advocacy campaign with the public, calling upon our readers to express outrage or even to boycott sales of materials for 90 days themselves? Anti-trust laws exist to provide fair competition of the market. Is there a possible legal challenge to an embargo on library purchasing?

For too long, we have listened to polite noises from most publishers that they will address of concerns, only to be stonewalled later. We should expect more embargoes from other imprints. For our readers, the balance in that intricate relationship between libraries and publishers has tipped too far one way, to their disadvantage. Statements are good. How about some action?

Hachette, Blackstone Change Library Digital Content Models/Availability

Effective July 1, 2019, Blackstone Audio is placing a moratorium on sales of library content. Libraries cannot get this content until 90 days after the retail date.

Blackstone may be contacted at libraryservices@blackstoneaudio.com.

We encourage Blackstone customers to email, inquire the reasons for this change, and express their concern.

Hachette has also announced that effective July 1, 2019, [it] replace its perpetual ownership model for libraries with two-year access for e-books and digital audio books.

ALA President Loida Garcia-Febo has expressed concern.

“The elimination of perpetual ownership will reduce long-term access to ebooks and digital audio books and increase challenges to the long-term preservation of our nation’s cultural heritage,” said ALA President Loida Garcia-Febo. “While the announcement includes some positive changes, the model will further limit affordable access to reading for 172 million U.S. library card holders.”

“Libraries will welcome the reduced upfront costs and continued immediate access to new digital titles,” Garcia-Febo continued, “but the increased cost over time hurts our ability to support a vibrant ecosystem that benefits readers, authors and publishers.”

Garcia-Febo points out that at least Hachette is not following Blackstone and Macmillan/TOR with a moratorium but calls for coordinated support:

 “When a new book is released in the consumer market, libraries must be able to obtain it at the same time. Otherwise, the public believes that we are not being responsive to their needs. Library access is especially important to those whose financial situation precludes purchasing books.”

“To offer equitable access of information to our communities, libraries first must have fair and equitable access to resources, regardless of format, that is predictable and sustainable,” said Garcia-Febo. “We’ve had multiple cordial conversations with executives in publishing houses, with some disagreements. In the months ahead, ALA will amplify our role in championing the valuable and essential role of libraries in the publishing ecosystem. We will need strong collaboration with library advocates across the country to press our case.”

ReadersFirst encourages all its members, and all libraries internationally, to support the ALA and other organizations, such as Urban Library Council and Canadian Urban Library Council, in collaborating on action.

It does begin to appear, however, that many publishers are placing shareholders over library readers. That’s no surprise. We must advocate, certainly for multiple models at point of sale that will allow libraries to use their funds most effectively. We should at least ask the reasons for moratoriums. We should make a positive case in support of library readers. Since at least some publishers, we must infer, care nothing about the library market and library readers, however, and often simply ignore our questions, it might be too much to expect meaningful changes. Legislative action in support of our readers may be our only hope.