SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

I agree with Trike and Andrew in that the 8 week postponement of new releases, even if it is an entire system, is somewhat trivial to overcome and probably doesn't place an undue hardship on those without means/inclination to buy. The ALA follow on article did not specifically say how this policy harms libraries beyond the assertion that libraries don't hurt sales.

Now that I have jabbed the Alison bear with my dull, uninformed stick, I will have to apologize and say that I also mostly agree with your point of view that the PRH policy isn't as destructive as Trike makes out. And yes, my larger outrage comes from the fact that no-one, including libraries, seems to own anything.

According to this link
https://www.authorsguild.org/industry...
That one early access Macmillan ebook is forever and does not have to be re-purchased. I consider that preferable.

Good grief there is a lot of information! Alison: Your linked article says the same thing, that the one early copy is forever, however that deal goes away after 8 weeks and then the licensing is the same as Penguin (pay more every 2 years) which is not as cool as the Author's Guild web page infers.

I still think any chance to get a book that you can keep and lend forever and don't have to pay (as much) for storage is worth a bit of hassle.

Ah, yeah, I can agree that licensing is...an aggressive model. But there is a thing we can do to address it! And still sign petitions!

I do know people with mobility problems and financial issues, and it does hurt me emotionally to think of them feeling once again "left out" until their turn. Because of who it most impacts it does smack to me of a sort of "back of the bus" system and that, more than the personal inconvenience, is what really concerns me.

I don't know how we fix e-loans. Unlike books, they don't wear out, they don't require physical space, they don't necessarily have to be limited to 1 member per loan period, so I can see why publishers would want to account for that truth in their pricing models--authors do deserve to be paid, piracy is a huge problem, and no one in the entertainment industry is quite sure how to deal with the change in media formats--books, TV, music...it's our ongoing struggle.

I'll be sure to post when/if the FTC ever gets to taking comments on digital books! Then we can help speak for the interests we care about most in terms of ebook lending!

For sure! And for the record I signed every petition I came across. If they don't hear feedback, they assume we all agree with them.

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 worried that everyone has a limited amount of outrage (valid)..."

The other point lost is that the Tor thing is a temporary experiment, not a set-in-stone policy going forward. The publishing landscape is shifting and the extraordinarily small footprint of Tor allows for a controlled experiment but Macmillan.

By contrast, the PRH thing will be ongoing. The Bertelsmann investor call last year made it pretty clear they were determined to do this. Once you filtered out the marketing spin it came across as mean, and it sure sounded to me like this was a done deal. I also thought it was amusing that there was an “oh no the sky is falling!” vibe to some of it and I was like, “But, but, I got paid... why the long faces?” Turns out it was because the profits hadn’t increased *enough*. I swear, these guys... so you can only buy one Lamborghini this year? My heart breaks for you. These are the same geniuses behind the Sony-Marvel split. They keep thinking that making a buck isn’t enough, they need to make a buck and a penny.

In the meantime, ordinary folks get hosed.

Hank wrote: "For sure! And for the record I signed every petition I came across. If they don't hear feedback, they assume we all agree with them."

This seems like a relatively innocuous way to balance corporate responsibility to the bottom line with the public good. It’s actually a pretty good mix of capitalism and socialism, which is how the system works best.

Heck, they may find out that limiting access to library books also limits sales. But they won’t know until they perform the experiment.

Trike wrote: "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 ..."
I know quite a few people over at Tor, and I promise they're not driving around in Lamborghini's. From the editors to marketing and publicity, they are extremely dedicated and hard working. I come from the indie world, and was skeptical to say the least when I signed with them. In nearly every way they have shattered my preconceptions. These are not the corporate monsters you might imagine.
More profits means more books published each year. And more new authors given their shot. It means Tor being willing to take the risk of a loss on publishing an untested writer.
They're already fighting against people who believe the internet is for the free exchange of other peoples' ideas, who don't mind stealing the work of an author and uploading it onto pirate sites.
You want quality material to read? Well, it costs money to produce. They have to think of new ways to stay competitive. They also must have certain priorities. If they are making libraries wait, I would think it means that it's not from where most of the profits originate.

Uh... the Tor experiment was last year. This is now policy. Macmillan also has an even more restrictive policy on ebook licenses than PRH is about to have.

To Brian's point, there are concerns across the entire industry about how to keep profits up in a world that's increasingly being gobbled up by Amazon, SPAs, and various streaming services. One of the ways to handle this has been to kind of fleece libraries already. It is mandatory that physical books be available to libraries at the same price as they are for anyone else. Not so with digital content. They're already often 2-3 times more expensive for libraries and all of them have some sort of licensing--PRH held out the longest, but is now also going to a licensing model.

And here's the key thing...libraries were okay with that. Not happy, but they do understand that people need to get paid, that the digital world is a problem, and that there aren't rules for this yet. As you can see in the econtent link I posted, they're happy if people want to help remedy this, but the people actually providing services and dealing with budgets have agreed that the Macmillan thing treats libraries as second class citizens, and unfairly targets people with disabilities.

Discrimination is not less present if it isn't heinous in the grand scheme. It's a continuum, with murder at one end, and things like making small, systemic burdens that are unfairly balanced on the shoulders of one group.

The reason we keep hammering this is that the licensing thing is separate, for one, and for two, if we're trying to make sure that things are "fair" for authors and publishers, then licensing is a strong choice. It definitely provides more revenue opportunity than a perpetual license, and is something most/all American libraries are familiar enough with to incorporate into their plan. So to say you're not for licensing, but are okay with a practice that in reality is discriminatory because you think it's a fair way to engage in capitalism is...hard to read without also hearing "it is okay for capitalist structures to discriminate provided my access is not limited." (Which, again, it is!)

So...I am a bit confused at the rancor this petition is getting, and confused about the targeted campaign against PRH when it's a whole industry-wide issue, especially given that people saying they're for the Macmillan policy are also saying that licensing is bad because it's hosing libraries for author profit, but a discriminatory way to hose libraries for profit is the cost of doing business. At least, that is what it reads as.

The problem with a four month wait is that people who want to read the book NOW will buy it instead of waiting for a hold at the library. If I know that popular books have a wait at my local library, because there's a waiting list, and I know that TOR has artificially extended that wait by 8 weeks, then I'm not going to want to use the library to get that book. I'm either going to not read it or I'm going to buy it. And I'm pretty sure that my impatience is not unique. Tor is attempting to drive library patrons to the bookstore, which means that they're attempting to pull foot traffic from the libraries. I don't blame them, this is what capitalism does, but I can certainly be on the side of the libraries.

And yes, MacMillian is doing the exact same thing except on the back end. I'm guessing that the deal that was reached there was a compromise between never getting the book at all or letting the license expire. But because the libertarians have accepted this one and not the Tor thing, that tells me where they're most concerned and I get it. The impatient people, and there are more of them then not, are the ones who drive book demand. If they're not going to get the books the want when they're released, they're going to go elsewhere and the library will loose customers. The license expiring simply means that books for which there is not a high demand will be purged (the way the stacks are purged now). And yes, OF COURSE there is a difference between storing e-books and physical books. But we live in a capitalist world where books are a money making thing for some people and so this is the compromise they've reached to even allow e-books.

There was an earlier comment about loaning out ebooks and comparing that to loaning out games, making the point about loss of revenue to publishers and to creators... I don't know what it's like in the US, but in the UK there's a thing called Public Lending Right. Each time a book is borrowed the author gets a (small) payment - which seems only right.

That's an interesting idea, Ritchie! Do authors seem to like that set up or is it more like the music lending services where they get a few pennies, so really it only helps the people like John Grisham and Stephen King?

Hello Allison! - PLR is liked by authors. It's a government-run scheme, and the top payments are capped at a few thousand pounds per year. So if you're doing well enough as a small fish, you get from the system just what a big fish gets...
It's actually quite encouraging. Small but significant amounts of money, and I don't imagine Stephen King would begrudge anyone else's income. (Though I think US writers aren't eligible for these UK payments anyway.)

Ritchie wrote: "Hello Allison! - PLR is liked by authors. It's a government-run scheme, and the top payments are capped at a few thousand pounds per year. So if you're doing well enough as a small fish, you get fr..."

Oh, that's really neat! And ha, I'm sure Mr. King is fine with people getting their own rewards, I just meant if you get a penny per use, like some of our music streaming services, you need several thousand uses to make anything substantive, which is hard to do if you're not a big player. But it seems that perhaps the UK has cracked the code on how to balance those issues, which is encouraging.

Brian wrote: "I know quite a few people over at Tor, and I promise they're not driving around in Lamborghini's. From the editors to marketing and publicity, they are extremely dedicated and hard working. "

What a completely bizarre and totally wrong reading of what I wrote. Did you completely skip over “Bertelsmann investor call”? THOSE are the guys I’m talking about. They own PRH and BMG music and et cetera.

Melani wrote: "The problem with a four month wait is that people who want to read the book NOW will buy it instead of waiting for a hold at the library. If I know that popular books have a wait at my local librar..."

To which I ask: what will you read when the publisher goes out of business?

Like it or not, we have to live in a capitalist society. (The Big Crash is coming soon, but that’s a separate topic.) Authors and editors and publishers need to make money. Waiting is not a huge price to pay to keep the books flowing.

I will say that I admire your honesty by being upfront about suffering from instant gratification syndrome, but that approach to life always leads to pain eventually. That’s why Veruca Salt is an enduring cautionary tale: https://youtu.be/JASsbo7fvc4

Trike wrote: "I will say that I admire your honesty by being upfront about suffering from instant gratification syndrome, but that approach to life always leads to pain eventually. That’s why Veruca Salt is an enduring cautionary tale: ..."

Rolling my eyes forever.

As I mentioned, I am hardly unique and I'd say I'm in the majority. Also, I'm not that way with every book. But they're mostly the ones with hype. You know the ones the publishers hype up in order to make money? The ones they create a demand for and then deny to libraries because they want people to BUY them? Like I said, I don't fault them for trying to make money. But I also don't fault the libraries for trying to stay in business as well. And if I had to choose between a corporation dedicated to making money (and yea, I know publishers don't make bank but they are a corporation whose sole purpose is to sell something) and a library, which is a public good, created by and for the public. I'm gonna go with the socialist option.

As for your other ridiculous question? Publishing houses come and go. As long as there is a method that gets books from the author to me, I'm fine with whichever method it is.

Trike wrote: "Brian wrote: "I know quite a few people over at Tor, and I promise they're not driving around in Lamborghini's. From the editors to marketing and publicity, they are extremely dedicated and hard wo..."
I did misread it actually. One of those human flaw things, I suppose. I should finish my coffee before I read.
Having gotten to know the people at Tor, I felt I should paint a picture of who they are. People get the wrong idea about them, and other publishers. Still, I think it's important to remember that it is a business. To be responsible stewards, corporate officers are obligated to their share holders to maximize profits.
The challenge is when you have public institutions interact with the private sector. Business is motivated by profit, as it should be. While government is motivate by the interests of the governed. When socialism and capitalism play in the same sandbox, things can get rough.
And let's face facts. I know people like to get teary eyed and defensive when the subject of libraries comes up. But the truth is that it's not corporations hurting them. It's progress.
There are dozens of ways to acquire books either freely or cheaply without leaving your house. If people really wanted to give libraries bargaining power, they would vote for funding, and most importantly, get up and go there. But they don't...in droves.
Don't get me wrong: I love the library. But I loved going to the arcade too. Or the mall near my house that closed. Or any number of places that simply could not adapt to the changes.

Melani wrote: "But I also don't fault the libraries for trying to stay in business as well."

What does this mean?

Libraries aren’t a business, they’re taxpayer-funded. The only reason libraries are shuttered is because either the people or the politicians don’t support them.

If “access to books” is your criterion for the staying-in-business notion, it underscores the gulf between having to wait a little bit longer to get a book (Tor) and not getting access to thousands of books ever again unless the taxpayers pony up the extortion-style racket of PRH.

Brian wrote: "And let's face facts. I know people like to get teary eyed and defensive when the subject of libraries comes up. But the truth is that it's not corporations hurting them. It's progress.
There are dozens of ways to acquire books either freely or cheaply without leaving your house. If people really wanted to give libraries bargaining power, they would vote for funding, and most importantly, get up and go there. But they don't...in droves.
Don't get me wrong: I love the library. But I loved going to the arcade too. Or the mall near my house that closed. Or any number of places that simply could not adapt to the changes."

It seems to me that this is a lot of what this discussion is about. Being able to keep libraries relevant in a changing world. I'm no library expert (and probably count as one of those people you're referring to, actually), but the way I see it is that the way people read is changing, and acquisition needs would necessarily change along with it - but this progress is hampered by these kinds of limitations and the costs imposed on libraries to invest in digital content.

I will sign any and all petitions that have a goal of getting better access to any and all content for libraries.

Becky wrote: "Brian wrote: "And let's face facts. I know people like to get teary eyed and defensive when the subject of libraries comes up. But the truth is that it's not corporations hurting them. It's progres..."

Libraries = good thing. Surely *nobody* would say libraries are a bad thing!

Ritchie wrote: "Becky wrote: "Brian wrote: "And let's face facts. I know people like to get teary eyed and defensive when the subject of libraries comes up. But the truth is that it's not corporations hurting them..."
Leslie Nope and Ron Swanson would.

Don't be too hard on Tor. They are a Macmillan imprint and Macmillan is owned by YAB (yet another billionaire). If it's cost cutting they are after, they could fire people as some publishers do.

here's Portland, Oregon's response to Macmillan

https://www.pdxmonthly.com/articles/2...

they're no longer buying any ebooks from Macmillan and the article indicates that other libraries are doing the same

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

Belatedly, I can confirm that the embargo is 1 book per library system. I currently have The Lights Go Out in Lychford checked out as an ebook. The library (which has 40 branches) has just that one copy of the ebook, and there's a message on their Overdrive saying they can't purchase any more right now due to the embargo.

I wasn't aware Tor was an imprint of Macmillan.

On this issue, I'm with the libraries. It's an advantage of ebooks that its easier to share them, artificially limiting libraries in the vain hope that frustrated readers will go and buy your books instead is not the way.

Pemry wrote: "I wasn't aware Tor was an imprint of Macmillan.

On this issue, I'm with the libraries. It's an advantage of ebooks that its easier to share them, artificially limiting libraries in the vain hope t..."

happened in 2019 according to Wikipedia

Tor's decision is disappointing as I buy from them, get the free online stuff, and use libraries. So I'm glad to see news like this: https://blog.archive.org/2019/11/06/f...

I asked my friend who is head librarian in Maine how it’s affecting their system and she said the embargo is playing out in different ways for different systems. In some places it’s one book per branch, while in others it’s one book per consortium. For most states a consortium is smaller than statewide, but not exactly regional as some cities kinda-sorta belong. Like King County in Washington state is in one but Seattle, which is in King Co., apparently is not. No idea why.

Currently Dayton, Ohio, and the Montgomery county system is boycotting but New Hampshire and Maine aren’t.

Macmillan Abandons Library E-book Embargo

I got a ton of emails from my library today to let me know about all the McMillan books I'd previously recommended and they've now purchased (they were boycotting McMillan ebooks during the embargo).

I'm pleased that Macmillian decided that this was a no-go, but sad that it came due to an ongoing global disaster.

*shrug* I'll take a small win.