A call to action for librarians about the disturbing side effects to library users of the Amazon Kindle format eBook lending in Overdrive, including the threat to intellectual freedom, lost user privacy, and targeted ads pushed at our library users.
While libraries know who currently has a book checked out, most, if not all, delete the history of the book being checked out. The part of the PATRIOT Act that could force them to keep this information was removed, mainly due to the ALA fighting against it and refusing to cooperate.
Libraries and Amazon.com have two very different missions in life. We’ve seen libraries fight to keep your privacy over and over while Amazon.com monetizes every bit of information about you for their own profit. If you didn’t realize that, you haven’t been paying attention.
Last week, I wrote about the restrictions that HarperCollins was placing on ebook loans. The Virtual Library of the Pioneer Library System decided to see what a printed paperback copy of a HarperCollins book looked like after more than 26 checkouts.
You can read their open letter to HarperCollins on their website and you can let HarperCollins know what you think as well.
HarperCollins has revised the terms of their e-book lending terms to stipulate that, after 26 loans by a library, the license expires.
The publisher also issued a short statement: “HarperCollins is committed to the library channel. We believe this change balances the value libraries get from our titles with the need to protect our authors and ensure a presence in public libraries and the communities they serve for years to come.”
Josh Marwell, President, Sales for HarperCollins, told LJ that the 26 circulation limit was arrived at after considering a number of factors, including the average lifespan of a print book, and wear and tear on circulating copies.
While HarperCollins may think that this equates to the lifespan of a print book, it does not. There are numerous books in libraries that range from new to over a hundred years old and people are still enjoying them. HarperCollins is only committed to making as much money as they can off of libraries by limiting what can be done with an e-book.
If an e-book is no longer popular, the library and librarians are the ones who should decide to no longer catalog said book. It should not be up to HarperCollins to arbitrarily decide when the lifespan of a book is over. While it is understandable to place a limit on simultaneous checkouts, limiting the number of checkouts will only alienate library patrons.
For librarians—many of whom are already frustrated with ebooks lending policies and user interface issues—further license restrictions seem to come at a particularly bad time, given strained budgets nationwide. It may also disproportionately affect libraries that set shorter loan periods for ebook circulation.
While HarperCollins is the first major publisher to amend the terms of loan for its titles, two other members of the publishing “big six”—Macmillan and Simon & Schuster—still do not allow ebooks to be circulated in libraries, much to the consternation of librarians.
If the major publishing houses continue to treat patrons like this, they should not be surprised when they have completely alienated everyone who ever thought of checking out or purchasing an e-book. They are, essentially, pushing people towards pirating e-books. Overly strict policies do this to people.
Libraries are the backbone of civilization. They’ve been around since ancient times. They contain a wealth of information. Free access to books is essential for societies to thrive. Besides containing books, poor people also use it for free access to the internet. The unemployed use it for job searches and resumes. Yet, FOX news is seemingly advocating the closure of libraries to save money.
I personally think my local library is crappy. They never have what I want and I end up purchasing the books I want online. That said, every time I go to the library, there are usually 3-4 people using the computers for internet access, 5-7 children looking for books to read, and 4-5 adults looking getting books to check out. There is also a video rental system that is heavily used. The more popular titles have waitlists.
Libraries have numerous programs for children. Adults have literacy programs and cultural events. There are summer reading programs for all ages. The library saves the community thousands of dollars on items ranging from audiobooks to the latest fiction precisely because they can freely check them out and not purchase them. Libraries have access to newspapers and magazines that most people cannot afford. Libraries provide valuable research opportunities to students as well as scientists. 2.5% of property taxes in Chicago is not a large asking price for the community to pay for providing a place of learning.
To get rid of the public library is to eliminate knowledge for the masses. While some libraries might suffer some budget cuts, completely closing an avenue to free knowledge is never the answer. Politicians should look elsewhere for their money.
The video below is the evidence of shoddy journalism. Reporter Anna Dalvantes did little investigative work into exactly what the libraries are used for. Chicago borrows more than 88 million books a year, yet that doesn’t seem to be enough to Ms. Dalvantes to keep them open. She completely ignored the librarian that told her that borrowing was going up every year, thus proving that they are worthwhile. Instead, she focused on the fact that it cost $120 million to run them each year. She suggests that the money be used for schools, when Chicago already sends 60% of property taxes to education already.
There was no report on the percentage of users who use the computers for job related searches. There were no interviews with anyone from the Chicago library system. There were no suggestions for the people who can’t afford computers as to how they are supposed to afford ebook readers for the ebooks she says they should buy. The undercover reporting stated that one particular library sees 5,000 people per day, yet no questions were asked of why the people were there.
Ms. Dalvantes spent an hour in one library and randomly asked a few people on the street if they go to the library. There was no investigative journalism here. There was only support for cutting money to fund the libraries. There weren’t any interviews with people who were actually in the library using it. In depth? I hardly think so.
