The Good Library Blog

Come off it! The same self-interested arguments were advanced when public libraries started to lend gramophone records. Why should a particular form of document be excluded from public libraries? Because it is not in the selfish interests of a cabal of suppliers to do so?

I could not disagree more. I could try, but I'd fail. Libraries should be meeting the needs of their users and, whether you like it or not, this includes ebooks. When I was working in a public library we had countless emails asking when we were going to stock them. I myself have an ereader and I often take books out of the library (1 a week for the last 6 weeks). Quite frankly, I couldn't give a monkeys what the private sector wants. The needs of library users take priority over the needs of book retailers. Besides, you say booksellers:

"just plain don't want public libraries to offer for nothing that out of which they try to make their living".

That's a pretty weak argument. What about books? Don't they try to make a living out of selling them too?

I'm rather surprised that a 'library campaigner' is opposed to meeting the needs of library users. Very strange indeed.

The Booksellers can make their own case, but my main argument is about money. Ebooks are being sold time limited. That means they can expire after a year and if the library wants to continue to hold them it has to buy them again. As we know the average life of a paper edition is much more than a year.

They are also more expensive, in many cases than a print edition, and there is a need to buy a reader. That is the point I am making. No doubt publishers want to sell them.

But shouldn't libraries be trying to meet the needs of their users? The demand is there. By failing to meet their needs isn't the service failing as a whole? Libraries and librarians are accused often enough of ignoring the needs of the people that use the service. If campaigners can't campaign based on what library users want, what is the point of them? I would hope it is not to defend the interests of the private sector.

Another point should be made here, which is that Libraries have performed an archiving function, ensuring that books remain available to readers long after they go out of print and are not available from booksellers. This archiving function includes, or should include, variant editions.
Who will perform this task? - it cannot simply be transferred to the publishers - as publishers go out of business, rights are sold or purchased by other publishers, who for contractural reasons may not be able to offer to keep earlier editions available.

Historically, the books owned by Libraries have been viewed as collectively owned, but ebooks transform libraries into simple intermediaries between the publisher and the reader, and that position is not sustainable in the long run just as CD loans have declined in Libraries with the advent of direct downloads.

I am not making an argument for excluding e-books from libraries - in the long term publishers of children's non-fiction may see libraries as their main market - but this issue needs some hard thinking in relation to the long term future of public libraries.

Both the Society of Authors and the Booksellers Association have raised the need for public libraries to charge for the loan of ebooks. There are still several issues to be resolved related to the loan of ebooks, not least the potential cost to the public library service. There is also a much wider debate going on about pricing structures, royalty rates and business models involving publishers, authors and agents. It is important that the library profession understand and are involved in the discussions to resolve the issues.

There is also a need to establish PLR for ebooks and essentially, we need to have standard systems for both the books and the cataloguing. It is just frightening to see councils spending money on these things without any of the ground work in place. How many times have we seen all this before? Where are the institutions and bodies that should have a hold of these matters?

It's a shame that you're so anti libraries and their users, but it takes all sorts I suppose. As a user I want access to ebooks, both fiction and non-fiction - something that you would apparently wish to deny me. Thankfully my library system is rather more forward looking as it does provide access to ebooks and without requirements for an e-reader.

I'm not actually that interested in the voice of the booksellers either; they can fight their own corner.

e-books most assuredly are for libraries, both now and increasingly in the future.

If e-books are provided as part of the basic service - ie books in an alternative format, then charging for them would be in breach of the 1964 Public Libraries Act. Or is the idea that they should simply be some kind of "cash crop" in the way that CDs and Videos/ DVDs have been treated.

One of the failings of the public Libraries is that they have failed to undertake proper stock selection or archiving of CDs and Video and DVDs - thereby creating the precedent that these tasks are unnecessary for books as well. Yet they are basic requirements for libraries.

The siren voices suggesting that charges should be introduced for ebooks obviously hope that they will create a precedent for charging for the loan of printed books in libraries as well.

Martyn. This is an interesting subject. There is an overriding European (and therefore British) Law that says that Governments should not offer or assist in the offer at subsidised rates that which normal traders have to offer in normal competition. The famous case was Ryanair being subsidised by the French Govt for using old airfields as passenger airports. They were told to stop.

It has always seemed to me that local internet cafes could have used that law to stop public libraries giving free access computers, but they never did, perhaps because they were all small and independent.

Nevertheless Booksellers could, if they wished, object very strongly to the public library service offering free books. I think they have a case in the matter of ebooks.

It is copyright law which carries an exception that allows public libraries to offer printed books free to loan. (Most books carry a warning that says that a book many not be loaned-- there is an article in copyright law which excepts public libraries) That will need to be ammended, I understand, if libraries are to allow free loans of ebooks.

I don't think there should be any presumption that a public library has an open right to do what it likes, if that could potentially damage someone else's legitimate business. (As any councillor will quickly recognise)

Unless I've got this wrong, the difference is that when you borrow a book from a public library, you have to take it back - it's a loan. But when you download a book at a public library, you then effectively own that book without having paid anything for it. And that brings it into direct competition with e-book sellers in a way that it does not with traditional booksellers.

Amanda - no you don't. Ebooks expire after a specified period by the library - you do not 'own' them, the library's provider does. Once expired they cannot be accessed on your computer, your ereader or any other electronic device. That's one of the reasons why I think this argument is a non-starter. The only difference with normal books is that you don't have to visit the library to return your books. Which is, again, another reason why the 'library visits' statistics are so misleading.

Amanda, e-books for loan from public, and indeed other types of library, use Digital Rights Management (DRM). So the borrower does not 'own' the book any more than I could be said to own the hard-copy library books I borrowed yesterday.
In fact, witness electronic journals, the library and library users' rights are far more restricted with digital material, thanks to the restrictive practices of cartels of publishers. Will the same selfish interests stop public libraries offering e-books?

My (admittedly limited) understanding of the law is that the Digital Economies Bill seeks to extend the definition of book in the Public Lending Right Act (1979) to include:

"(a) a work recorded as a sound recording and consisting mainly of spoken words (an “audio-book”), and

(b) a work, other than an audio-book, recorded in electronic form and consisting mainly of (or of any combination of) written or spoken words or still pictures (an “e-book”)"

...and amends the The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 so that:

"Copyright in a work of any description is not infringed by the following acts by a public library in relation to a book within the public lending right scheme—

(a)lending the book;

(b)in relation to an audio-book or e-book, copying or issuing a copy of the book as an act incidental to lending it."

Effectively allowing libraries to "loan" ebooks without infringing copyright. With respect to the previous comment about not being able to "lend" e-books - services such as Overdrive are able to create copies of e-books which expire after a period, so the "borrower" does not have a permanent copy of the book.

Despite the many failings of the Digital Economies Bill, the changes to legislation outlined above are consistent with the spirit of copyright law - which, since the Statute of Anne 1709, has existed not only to protect the interests of booksellers but also to protect the rights of the public to access published information. Which is why we have concepts such as fair dealing, exceptions for private research or study and legal deposit.

Throughout the history of copyright law, the interests of the public to freely access published information have always been at odds with the interests of booksellers, and booksellers have always sought to influence the law in their favour. I find it interesting that a "library campaigner" would so strongly support booksellers. As librarians we are taught to view information critically for example to determine if the source is biased or has an ulterior motive. In this case I'd suggest maybe Perkins should consider re branding as a "Bookseller Campaigner".

Even I am surprised at some of the comments here! I hadn't realised that there was venom against publishers and booksellers.

My point originates from a discovery that the cost of one ebook in one county council is £70. And it will be removed after one year. The county will have to pay a further £70 if it wishes to keep that book for a second year. It can be 'borrowed' by several people at the same time... but nevertheless the cost comes from the same county book fund, which is already rather small.

My God! I'd die happy if I'd caused a fuss like this but to try and look at it rationally, I've long disliked intensely the narrow-minded attitude which proclaims that the newest advance (these days it's IT) will mow down all else before it and we'll all end up wearing silver suits and riding around in aircars. It is, as a BBC programme once deftly put it, a load of crystal balls.
E-books, you bunch of noncey poncey robot ant boys, are just the latest advance, which like every other format has its pros and cons. I think they do have some place in libraries (I don't much care what) so will you all cool it a bit and get back to the regular job of calling the library establishment a bunch of useless halfwits who'll be first up against the wall when the revolution comes! Publishers and booksellers are not perfect (I am presently contending with a publisher whose head office is apparently being run by a 14-year-old admin. assistant) but those who presume to run the library "profession" are arguably even worse.
I hope, incidentally, that today's blog is a welcome return to my regular form, and I look forward to crucifying pretty much everybody on a regular basis...

You do of course have a cite for the £70 figure that you can share with us don't you?

Yes, Phil, it is the price Essex are paying.

I don't think it's 'venom'. I think there are a couple of concerns here.

1) A good library service should seek to meet the needs of its users. If the users think ebooks meet their needs, then the service should should try and meet this need.

2) I may be wrong, but I believe that £70 figure comes from an annual subscription. And an annual subscription whereby the subsequent ebook has an unlimited number of downloads. Thus it has effectively cost £70 for infinite copies of a book. Seventy divided by infinity = a very cheap book!

3) In terms of the archival aspect, this is a bit of a red herring. Other than the British Library, libraries in general don't archive every book published. It's impossible. The only books that would be subject to archival would be local studies items. These are very unlikely to be available via an ebook provider (such as Overdrive). In such cases, physical copies would be bought anyway. If they were to be available in an ebook format, they would be easy (and cheap!) to store and would only be subject to a one-off fee (unlike Overdrive books). It is very unlikely for an ebook supplier to add a small interest local book to their service - it wouldn't be cost effective.  Besides, books will be available in both formats for many years yet.

This isn't about attacking publishers etc, it's about meeting the needs of library users. As some campaigners tell us, we should listen to our users at all times and act on what they want from the service. Whether it be more books, longer hours, better buildings or ebooks, we should listen and act accordingly. That's what 'good libraries' are all about.

Ian - we are getting closer to a resolution. There aren't many books for which one would want to buy an infinite number of copies for a public library service. I did the sums and calculated that ebooks represented good value only for a relatively small number of popular titles which will have a limited life. If the average life of a book in a library is 7 years or so, then to replace ALL of the book purchasing with ebooks would be very expensive indeed. It isn't just local books that are held, one presumes, there is much normal backlist which is kept and rightly so.

For that reason I could see ebooks sold with a one year subscription representing at most about 10% of the expenditure of the book fund - and that only if the appropriate titles were available. In reality that is about the same percentage many authorities spend on audio and large print items.

This still leaves the obstacle of having to procure reading devices for those readers who do not have them. And there is also the unresolved problem of Public Lending Right and as always there is the question of standards of data interchange- we don't want different systems in each council- that must not be allowed to happen.

In other words I believe we should not get carried away with the idea that ebooks are already the answer to the future of public libraries. They may some time play a part, but only a relatively small one. The bulk of the job and the priority for attention is, as it always has been for me, to improve the collections of printed works substantially, because the lack of quality has been driving the reading public away. That is the priority for management attention and resource, not the speculative purchase of ebooks.

No offence but I don't quite think you understand. No-one is suggesting that ebooks should replace all book purchasing. Not even me and I am a big advocate of ebooks. They should complement the collection not replace it. I've been involved in many discussions about incorporating ebooks through some work that I have done in the past. I have never heard a single person suggest that library stock should be abandoned and replaced with ebooks.

As it is not replacing all the stock, there is no need for anyone to purchase ereaders for users. In fact, many services have already successfully incorporated ebooks into their collections without needing to supply equipment to readers too. There are increasing numbers of people who already have the equipment, the growth of smartphones has made the technology widespread. Yes, there are people that do not have the equipment, but as the book stock is not being removed this is not really an issue.

Again, no-one talks up ebooks more than me (I am well known for it), but I certainly do not think anyone is getting 'carried away'. The general view, in my experience, is that ebooks are not 'the answer'. They are part of a package of services that libraries need to deliver to meet the expectations of library users. Your priority may be on printed works, my priority is on providing a service that the users are demanding. I wonder how you would respond to the users' demands for ebooks? I would hope that you would take notice of their request. I would certainly hope that as a library campaigner who frequently lambasts librarians for not listening to people, you would lead by example. It is very curious that you are not. Why don't you want the service to meet the needs of a growing number of users?

Ps Your estimate of the life of a library book is very optimistic. With current standards of printing I'd be amazed if they last more than a year in good condition.

Ian. OK, so where should the budget for ebooks come from, given that, by and large, books funds in libraries are decreasing, especially for adult books? Let's focus on the numbers for a particular council.

And - do you have figures for the demand at present?

My figure of the life of a book comes from CIPFA data. We claim to have about 70m books for lending and to be purchasing them at the rate of about 10m per annum. It has remained fairly constant over a decade.

I think we are indeed getting closer to a resolution. I specifically agree that ebooks are not 'the answer,' that they should complement the collection, not replace it, and that libraries should provide packages of services. My main gripe was and is with those who seemed to consider books (the plain old printed ones) a dirty word and did indeed seem to get carried away with the wonders of IT, espoused via incomprehensible jargon in Update.

It's also important to retain a healthy cynicism. If I recall correctly, I did a vicious hatchet-job on RFID a couple of years ago and I haven't heard much about it since. Maybe it's been enormously successful and transformed libraries, or maybe it's just been yet another trendy idea which got too much biased coverage from vested interests and died a natural death. It basically sounded like an excuse for dispensing with (even) more staff and running libraries on automatic...

However, anything which requires any sort of interface to function will be more complicated than the venerable book, will require more maintenance, will need money spent on it, will go wrong and will become obsolete. This is a general principle, but libraries will have to shell out something somewhere at some point for ebooks.

One final fundamental economic point:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH!

Thanks for the cite. I've been able to track down some more information on this, and the figures are not quite as you describe. The £70 could be calculated from the cost of the 36 title Bloomsbury Public Library Online. This figure is based on population size and provides simultaneous access for a year to potentially 1.4 million people. Obviously, if the subscription isn't widely used it can be stopped, unless the purchase of a large number of books which the service would then be stuck with.

However, once we look at the prices for individual Overdrive downloads, the cost is roughly inline with the paperback version. Essex's other subscription based e-book service, ebrary (with again simultaneous access to all members) works out at £2.36 per title.

Consequently, averaging out the cost for all of the ebook services, which is around 23,000, about 75% of which are available to all readers all of the time the average price per item is about £2.95.

It's also worth pointing out that these titles can be read on PCs and laptops, so expensive ebook readers are not required.

In summary therefore, ebooks provide excellent value and £2.95 is a much more palatable figure than £70, so I'm sure that you'll agree that ebooks ARE for public libraries - now more than ever.