SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

Gosh, I wish I could collect physical books still. Unfortunately, a downsizing from a house to an apartment, then a cross country move to a smaller apartment left me needing to purge a lot of possessions, and physical books were one of the things that went.

I kept a single shelf full of paperbacks and hardcovers, 2 shelves of RPG manuals and other reference materials, and one of graphic novels.

Since then I have accumulated a bit more, but I try to make the choice to keep linear materials (novels, etc...) digital. Reference material to which I need random access (flipping through to find a specific page, etc..) I go physical.

I miss having a nice shelf or five of hardcovers, and many shelves doubled up with paperbacks, groaning under the weight...

as far as the cost of ebooks, I just list them on ereaderiq.com and wait until I get a notification that they're on sale and buy them then.

I've yet to see the 7 book The Outlander Seriesseries for sale for $1.99 in a paper version
or
The Complete Wheel of Time 15 book series for $44.99 (2.99 each) brand new
or
The Complete Miss Marple Collection 13 book series for $5.99
or
any of the Delphi complete works of certain authors for $1.99-$2.99
or
The Chronicles of Narnia (all 7 books) for $12.63

Patience pays off

CBRetriever wrote: "as far as the cost of ebooks, I just list them on ereaderiq.com and wait until I get a notification that they're on sale and buy them then.

I've yet to see the 7 book [book:The Outlander Series|16..."

I don't tend to buy a lot of books anymore because I mostly use the library, but I keep getting jealous every time I see that $44.99 Wheel of time sale. I have them all in paperback or hardback, but I much prefer e-books at this point, and $2.99 per book is a crazy good deal.

Don't mean to get off topic, but as a result I signed up for ereaderiq so I can possibly get some of my favorite series in an e-book version.

I was able to donate 10 boxes of books to the local Friends of the Public Library Association because of that. I'd replaced most of them over the last 8 years with digital versions, so I donated the paper versions. It has the added bonus of less to move when I next move

I think Tor made a critical PR error. I think once their ‘study’ is over, they will reinstate library borrowing. Annoying your readers is way more expensive than making snooks available to libraries...

For many years, I worked in close contact with the marketing department of a mid-level video game studio. If there's one thing that they absolutely detested, it was stores like Gamestop, EB games, Blockbuster Video (that really dates me), and other stores that sold second-hand games or rented them. Why? Because the studio only made one sale on that game.

When Blockbuster rented that one copy, say 200 times in one year, the studio was not compensated for that. One $50 sale, $10,000 in lost revenue. That's why End User License Agreements were created. That's why DLC (downloadable content) is so prevalent. That's why game disks came with a key code--One disk, one user, one console or computer. That's why physical game disks are going the way of the music CD. You actually never own anything, just a bunch of code on your computer that you are "renting".

I can tell you that deep down, authors and publishers are not fans of libraries. It's the same premise. One book sale, maybe 1000 readers over the life of the book. Lots of "lost revenue".

It may be 25 years down the road, but an actual physical book will cease to exist. In our lifetimes, for sure.

Imagine the savings a publisher will enjoy. No printing, no ink, no paper, no shipping, no glue, etc, etc. Just charge the same price for a 500kb file that will instantly appear on your device. You're paying for that convenience. The Net profits on Ebooks are astronomical. And how many users let their friends borrow their Ipad or Kindle? Not many. It's all by design. One set of eyes per copy sold.

Libraries are at a crossroads. They are being forced to make changes or disappear altogether.

Here's another article about how publishers are treating libraries. We won't have much hope of getting books that aren't new releases. Combined with what Tor is doing, this shrinks the borrowing window.

https://the-digital-reader.com/2018/0...

Faith wrote: "Here's another article about how publishers are treating libraries. We won't have much hope of getting books that aren't new releases. Combined with what Tor is doing, this shrinks the borrowing wi..."

right - harper/macmillan (they own TOR) screws libraries on one end of the window and Penguin/Random house immediately follow suit and attack the other.

Are we in slippery slope territory yet?

This is exactly what I was afraid would happen. As I said above- 4 month wait, no big deal. But it sets the bar for other publishers to also change how they release/sell to libraries.

Also- I don’t know who they were talking to that said people don’t read books more than 2 years old. I read books that are more than 2 years old all the time. I like new releases too, but there is plenty of backlist I need to catch up on.

I'm totally fine paying 10-15 for a new book on kindle. I've rarely seen the kindle version be the same price as new physical copies, and I'd rather pay for the convenience of having my entire library with my across multiple devices than save an insignificant amount of money to get one physical copy.

Hey! The ALA is trying some direct action (go Librarians, go!!) and are asking for readers to pitch in. If you're so inclined, check out the link for a petition!

http://ebooksforall.org

Allison wrote: "Hey! The ALA is trying some direct action (go Librarians, go!!) and are asking for readers to pitch in. If you're so inclined, check out the link for a petition!

http://ebooksforall.org"


Signed!

Allison wrote: "Hey! The ALA is trying some direct action (go Librarians, go!!) and are asking for readers to pitch in. If you're so inclined, check out the link for a petition!

http://ebooksforall.org"

Signed!

Signed :)

👍 Let's see what happens!

I signed too.

Shockingly, I signed it....(yesterday).

I was shouted down in various forums last year for being concerned about the publishers screwing with libraries like this. The same trolls are out saying the same crap right now, and I’m so slammed with work and real life that I don’t have the time to fight right now :( .


Suffice it to say, the publishers are truly and incredibly wrong about e-books, and they are doing a seriously anti-social thing regarding ebooks. Again.

<3 you're not alone, Lowell! we'll do what we can

Not signed.

I’m all for access to books, but an 8-week wait for Tor ebooks (and as far as I can tell, it is just Tor ebooks) doesn’t sound heinous. Plus, each library will still get one ebook, so it’s not like it will be completely unavailable for those months.

No one is talking about Penguin Random House’s new policy that charges libraries a lower price per ebook (yay!) but those books become PERMANENTLY UNAVAILABLE after 18 months (boo!).

I don’t know how many books I’ve read just in the past couple years that were older than 2 years. A hundred? More? I was looking at my holds the other day and a solid 20% have just vanished off my list. I wonder how many were PRH books.

Macmillan has about 5% of the book market, while PRH has 37%.

Once again, the public is upset about the wrong thing.

So yeah, not signed.

Trike, I mentioned it up-thread, months ago. Also, both issues are bad. Period. I and everyone else are allowed to be upset at the current iteration.

You don’t want to sign, fine. But don’t pretend it’s due to something else that is worse.

I am able to care about multiple things at once! I would love an option to protect access across all companies. But the ALA asked for this one presently, so I'll lend a voice.

No one is forced to do anything. Everyone may make their own decisions about how to be helpful.

Lowell wrote: "Trike, I mentioned it up-thread, months ago. Also, both issues are bad. Period. I and everyone else are allowed to be upset at the current iteration.

You don’t want to sign, fine. But don’t prete..."

I’m not pretending that. Those were two separate thoughts. They’re related but not the same. I don’t know how that was unclear.

But let’s talk about those two things: It’s like the house is on fire but folks are upset someone didn’t use a coaster for their drink. The difference between “you can’t read these books ever again” and “some books are slightly delayed” is a pretty huge gulf.

Or you could deal with both by also signing the PRH petition:

https://www.change.org/t/penguin-rand...

Oh, wait. You can’t. It doesn’t exist.

Cool. Let us know when the petition is up, or when you start one or find any sort of actionable way to help combat that! In the mean time, I'm not sure why you're being aggressive to people doing what they can for something that they still believe is not great? I get that it doesn't impact you, but there isn't harm in this so, if it's not your thing maybe just... let it go?

ETA: The reason the separation was unclear was that you said you weren't signing because it wasn't a critical issue, like the PRH issue is. The assumption being you're spending your time on that bigger issue and therefore have no resources left for the other issue. Just in case you actually wanted clarity for the future :)

Also, I was looking into the PRH thing more and the latest news said that they were following the licensing model going forward (a 2 year license that is renewable), rather than a higher cost book that libraries keep in perpetuity? Was there an update on that, because the ALA and other orgs seem to see this one as a net neutral, vs the embargo which they view as a serious detraction.

Signed

:)

Trike wrote: "No one is talking about Penguin Random House’s new policy that charges libraries a lower price per ebook (yay!) but those books become PERMANENTLY UNAVAILABLE after 18 months (boo!). "

I'm sure libraries won't mind that as that's what they commonly do with paper books unless they're from popular series/authors. Reference materials at most public libraries are rapidly becoming jokes with scores of books being permanently removed from their shelves if not checked out after X years. Not all libraries can afford "stacks" and the Portland public libraries even have stores where they sell old library books. I picked up several wonderful cookbooks at one recently and yes, they were library books, not donated books as they were stamped and in two cases had card pockets still.

Allison wrote: "Also, I was looking into the PRH thing more and the latest news said that they were following the licensing model going forward (a 2 year license that is renewable), rather than a higher cost book ..."

This might be a neutral position for libraries, but for people with an interest in backlist or not extremely popular books it will be a big problem. That’s exactly the intent, forcing people to buy the older books. The equally likely result will be that people will simply not read the older books at all.

But how? The book is still available. If people still want it, the library can still acquire it. I personally think that book licenses for libraries into perpetuity make sense, but the ALA seems to consider it about the same in terms of their ability to provide access within their budgets. Like, possibly depth of the offering will be somewhat impacted, but not without recourse. It also looks like PRH is at least listening and responding to library feedback.

http://www.readersfirst.org/news/2018...

CBRetriever wrote: "Not all libraries can afford "stacks" and the Portland public libraries even have stores where they sell old library books. I picked up several wonderful cookbooks at one recently and yes, they were library books, not donated books as they were stamped and in two cases had card pockets still."

My local library has annual sales where they sell library books (in addition to donated books) as well. I have quite a lot of them on my bookcases, still slipcovered, stamped, and Dewey decimal-ed.

Becky wrote: "My local library has annual sales where they sell library books (in addition to donated books) as well. I have quite a lot of them on my bookcases, still slipcovered, stamped, and Dewey decimal-ed. "

Mine as well.

Ebook prices are often too high for hyped books. Blaming libraries for a decline in book sales is like blaming open tv for a decline in DVD sales. Both things distribute media and entertainment but they have different roles.

I'm with Trike, an 8 week delay is nothing compared to being permanently unavailable. And it's not the same as clearing out old physical books due to space issues. An e-book takes up no space and there is no reason why they should ever purge ones that have little or no activity.

but... it isn't permanently unavailable. it functions like every other company that works with libraries. I can't find anything to suggest permanent removal, as shown in the article I posted.

I frequently recommend digital books to 3 libraries. They sometimes acquire the new books that I recommended, but not one of the libraries has ever acquired any of the backlist books that I recommended. My fear is that once the license expires the libraries will not use their money to renew books unless they were extremely popular. So if you don't borrow the book during the initial license you are out of luck.

I think that's a valid fear and also one that librarians aren't as worried about lol. As shown in the link I posted. licensing is already how most companies are doing it and both the ALA and PRH have said they chose this model after consulting each other.

I ain't here to put a gun to anyone's head but I am going to trust the professionals who do this for a living and take not even 30 seconds out of my day to show my solidarity with a real thing real librarians have made a real petition about.

CBRetriever wrote: "Trike wrote: "No one is talking about Penguin Random House’s new policy that charges libraries a lower price per ebook (yay!) but those books become PERMANENTLY UNAVAILABLE after 18 months (boo!). .

I'm sure libraries won't mind that as that's what they commonly do with paper books unless they're from popular series/authors. Reference materials at most public libraries are rapidly becoming jokes with scores of books being permanently removed from their shelves if not checked out after X years..."

Physical books take up massive amounts of space and cost tons of money in upkeep, hence the regular purges of unread tomes. But a 1 gigabyte hard drive can hold anywhere between 1,000 to 4,000 books depending on length. (1k Brandon Sanderson-sized doorstoppers, or 4K middle grade books.) The new cheapo laptop I bought two years ago has a 2 TERAbyte hard drive in it. I saw one advertised recently with a 14 TB drive. A terabyte is 1,000 times the size of a gigabyte, so a *single* 14 TB SSD hard drive that costs less than $500 can hold between 14 and 56 MILLION books.

This is pure false scarcity.

What Tor is doing is good business practice without denying anyone anything. All you need is a teeny tiny modicum of patience. What Penguin Random House is doing is literally taking books away from libraries and citizens, all in the name of greed.

AndrewP wrote: "I'm with Trike, an 8 week delay is nothing compared to being permanently unavailable. And it's not the same as clearing out old physical books due to space issues. An e-book takes up no space and t..."

Thank you! I honestly thought for a minute I was going crazy there, or that my brain was broken somehow.

I just can not understand why people are so up in arms about a temporary lag in getting to read a book for free versus never being able to read a book if you miss the 18- or 24-month window.*

Especially when Tor is such an itty-bitty portion of the market whereas Random House is 37% of it. Tor publishes, what, like 25 or 30 books a year? PRH publishes 15 THOUSAND.

I mean, how is this even an equation?
30 books each year you can’t read immediately
15,000 books each year you can’t read ever


* Assume a 1-week loan window for each copy with no renewals. Even with fast readers factored in, that’s maybe 60 readers in 12 months per copy. 90-100 people get to read the book before it’s gone forever after 18 months. I borrowed all of the Vorkosigan novels this year. Under the PRH plan that wouldn’t have been possible. Of the 31 books, only 1 was published within the past 18 months.

It's different because what you're saying isn't real.

I am getting annoyed, I'll admit. I'm not a super big fan of being ignored, especially in defense of a vacuous truth. You've set up a straw man and are using it to derail a conversation about an actual thing real people can do to help librarians right now.

I imagine this imagined threat is quite scary. If it were true, it would be terrifying! But it's not. So sign the petition, don't sign the petition, but please let's work with reality.

The reality is PRH offered perpetual licenses and libraries said it was too expensive to do for every book, so they offered to do what literally EVERY OTHER BIG PUBLISHER was doing. Some librarians are unhappy about it. Some say that since most people don't actually read the hype books after the first couple of years, saving money on the new releases to put towards other purchases is helpful. They do not go away "forever" it's a license, like Netflix shows, and can be renewed.

This is outlined, by the way, in the article I linked.

If you're afraid most of these books won't be renewed (and regardless of how many whomever publishes, this is of course altered by library budget and membership so we're not talking the sudden Thanos snap of 15,000 books) you can help budgets and ALA bargaining power by supporting librarians. Like they asked us to do in this petition.

Please take hypotheticals to another thread.

If you really must have the latest and greatest the moment it comes out, then I think you should be prepared to pay more for it. That's the way it works with almost everything else on the market.

Allison wrote: "Hey! The ALA is trying some direct action (go Librarians, go!!) and are asking for readers to pitch in. If you're so inclined, check out the link for a petition!

http://ebooksforall.org"

Thanks for sharing that, Allison! One problem with Macmillan's embargo that no one's mentioned yet in this thread is that it really doesn't reflect differences in libraries. A rural county library serving 20,000 people and a city library serving 2 million people would both be limited to purchasing a single copy of a book during those first eight weeks. That's a pretty breathtaking disparity.

I can't help but keep coming back to one important point. It's eight weeks. There are many things I want that due to budget constraints, I am forced to wait on. That's life. You don't always get to have the newest thing out right away. They're not saying that libraries can never have the book. Only that they need to wait for a short time first. Macmillan isn't big pharma or the oil and gas industry. They publish books. And they are allowed to make a profit so they can keep publishing books.
All they're doing is maximizing sales during the initial period when they're strongest for a new release. It's nothing sinister or mean. So you have to wait a bit. So what? The Macmillan folks aren't rubbing their hands together and laughing that they've screwed over the poor people of the world. It's a business in competition, not only with other publishers, but with far larger and more popular media sources.
A little perspective.

(4 months is not 8 weeks. and libraries make up almost half of Macmillan's revenue. a little more perspective. ;) )

Great point, Jain!! And even worse since it's 4 months, not 2!

So, a few folks keep asking what the hardship is. I could say read the thread, but it was fairly contentious at the time, too, and even links popping up in current comments don't seem to be of interest, so I'll say it again!

The library's hardship is the following:

-As Jain said, 1 copy in NYC is much different than 1 copy in Ruralsville
-It's confusing to manage. Usually librarians get a bunch of trade publications announcing new releases along with professional reviews and publisher notes and make a selection from that when the book budget for the month or week opens up. Now they'll have to set aside Macmillan books for 4 months. Again, in many places there is 1 or 2 librarians managing the whole collection. Imagine if the supplier you pay just increased your work.
-It changes how they gauge reader interest. Generally when they list books, they're not yet in stock because they're also not yet published. So, they list the book, check the holds, and buy copies based on their own business model. Now the book is already out, and they have to see if folks will remember to check, as most library users stalk the new releases at the library and know when things that interest them are coming out. 4 months after the hype? Super-invested people like us might remember because we know what Macmillan's doing, but the average library patron? Less likely.
-It's a huge slap from one of the big 5. Nevermind the work load, effing up library finances, or messing with their mission statements, libraries are a HUGE part (45%) of Macmillan's revenue. Every other big publisher plays ball with them when they act collectively. Not in a pushover way, but in that "you're my biggest client" way.

Library members hardships are the following:

-Frustrating hold lines for popular books
-Confusion about when/if a book they want will be available
-Poor or mobility impaired members once again overlooked and treated differently in a space that has been a safe place for people with limited means or access.

So. It's more work for libraries, messes with their ability to use their funding wisely, screws over certain groups of consumers more directly than others, and is a pretty giant middle finger from management.

I understand that most of us are not dependent on ebooks from libraries to get our hobby in, and that we are all happy to read books from all sorts of different time periods. I also understand most of us are not librarians who have to figure this out. So for most of us, the direct impact might be negligible.

I do expect most of us have imaginations, though, and could put ourselves in the shoes of the people who are more impacted than us.

Brian wrote: "I can't help but keep coming back to one important point. It's eight weeks. There are many things I want that due to budget constraints, I am forced to wait on. That's life. You don't always get to..."

Exactly right. This instant gratification culture we have is getting out of hand.

On Facebook over the summer one of my friends was angrily complaining that something she ordered from the other side of the planet still hadn’t arrived 5 days later. The horror! I reminded her that back in the 70s and 80s the typical wait for *anything* we ordered was 8 to 10 WEEKS. And usually much, much longer. For something that was probably no more than 500 miles away, let alone 12,000 across oceans.

Patience is a virtue.

(oops. it looks like the 4 month thing was scrapped. it is 8 weeks, I apologize for getting that incorrect. )

Jain wrote: "One problem with Macmillan's embargo that no one's mentioned yet in this thread is that it really doesn't reflect differences in libraries. A rural county library serving 20,000 people and a city library serving 2 million people would both be limited to purchasing a single copy of a book during those first eight weeks. That's a pretty breathtaking disparity."

It’s not one book per library system, it’s one per library branch.

My dad is from Brooklyn and my mom is from a tiny town in Indiana, so I have a pretty decent handle on libraries in disparate locations. I have yet to encounter one that serves 2 million patrons. By that logic there are only 4 libraries in all five boroughs of NYC. Between branches and mobile sites, the NYC library has over 100 locations. Brooklyn and Queens have their own separate library systems, for a combined total of +/- 220 branches. Each one gets a book if they want it.

Yes, that’s a larger number of patrons per book, but it’s not 2 million to 1.

Let’s do the math:

8.6 million people in NYC, served by 220 libraries. That’s 1 book per 39,000 people.

36,000 people in Adams Co. Indiana served by 2 libraries. That’s one book per 18,000 people.

Not as far off as one would think.

Plus, in NYC you’re no more than a few blocks from a library while in Indiana you’re miles away. A 5-minute walk versus a 15-minute drive. Because curiosity is my major personality trait, I just looked up the areas of NYC versus Adams County. It’s 302.6 square miles versus 340 square miles.

Double plus, the endowment for the NYC library system is insane. Former Governor and current Vice President Mike Pence drastically cut funding to Indiana public libraries (because books are bad mmkay), while the Big Apple just keeps chugging along despite modest cuts because they have over a billion dollars in the bank.

I’m still not seeing the alarm here.

'kay.

Well for those who do, or want to hear from librarians what their take is, here's the link again!

http://ebooksforall.org

This conversation was slowly headed towards more reasonable discussion so I hope to not throw it off track. My two cents are this....

Why wouldn't I want to sign the petition? Unless we are worried that everyone has a limited amount of outrage (valid), it is an issue that affects me negatively as a reader. Yes it is minor, I almost never read new releases but I love the buzz about new books, it gets me excited about when I do get around to reading the book. Less books to borrow, less buzz. I think this ultimately hurts McMillan and a case can be made to let them shoot themselves in the foot but I personally want to show my displeasure, minor though it is.

I am happy signing other petitions. I would prefer education on anyone's, dear to their heart, issue, without denigrating others.

I now know and agree that PRH is making me more outraged, so mission accomplished Trike.

Hank wrote: "This conversation was slowly headed towards more reasonable discussion so I hope to not throw it off track. My two cents are this....

Why wouldn't I want to sign the petition? Unless we are worrie..."

May I ask why PRH is making you more upset? Macmillan has an even more limited licensing agreement--2 years or 52 borrows per license and then it has to be renewed or lost. Is it just that we are outraged for libraries that they don't get perpetual licenses like they do with physical books? Here's a website you can use to tell each of the publishers you're unhappy with that!

https://econtentforlibraries.org/

They're all doing things like this, which is why I'm so confused at the rage. S&S just set limits on audiobooks, moved some titles to pay per play, and extended to a 2 year license. Hachette also just went from perpetual licenses to 2 year licenses, but they don't have borrow limits. HarperCollins is only available in pay per play. Like, none of this is great for libraries, but it seems to be the accepted norm until the FTC makes a ruling. Of them all, Macmillan seems to be the most limited--the new PRH system is also a 2 year unlimited license, with all previously purchased books remaining in perpetuity and an option for certain academic libraries to still purchase perpetual licenses.

I also see that the embargo says 1 book per library system, not branch, anyone have a different interpretation of that?

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...