Publishers vs. Libraries: Facing the E-Book Debacle

Can libraries survive in a digital world?

This is an article that  I just read.  I think it was very well-written and speaks to some of the major issues libraries are facing right now as they struggle to stay current and relevant in their respective communities-- while also looking to and planning for the future. The title of this article is a question I think we all ask ourselves, and there are so many different opinions that attempt to answer it...

One thing that stuck out to me was this whole HarperCollins policy of restricting the use of library e-books to 26 check-outs before the library has to pay more money to renew their license. This is clearly going against our values and even our raison d'etre of providing open, public access to information as freely and readily as possible. Josh Marshall, the president of sales for HarperCollins, says that the "26-use" model is supposed to make the cost-per-circulation of titles less than the cost for physical books. Well, that's great, but I'm pretty sure there is quite a BIG difference between renting and owning a book... Just like when you rent an apartment, you shovel lots of money into living someplace, and then when you move out, you're left with nothing. On the other hand, when you invest in buying a house to own, you can choose to do what you like with that house and in the future, you can sell your property. With this 26-use model proposed by HarperCollins, libraries will be left with exactly what the person renting an apartment is left with: NOTHING. There is an actual investment when a library buys a physical book-- and I'm not saying all books are worthy of long shelf-lives, but what do you do when a patron comes in looking for a book that long ago ran out of it's 26-use license? Do you shell out more moolah so that the patron can access the book he/she wants? Or are they out of luck?

I also dislike those saying that, once E-Books become the norm for all readers, libraries will go the way of the dinosaurs. First of all, not everyone likes reading from a screen, even a Kindle. Many readers like their old-fashioned ink on paper, and I don't think I'm being idealistic or sentimental when I say that  physical books will not soon be replaced by E-Books in any case. Second- as this article points out- these people are grossly misunderstanding the purpose of libraries- they are not simply peddlers of books. As Nora Daly, digital curator of the British Library so succinctly puts it, "[Libraries] exist to collect, sometimes create, but always preserve... knowledge, regardless of what format it is in and to help make it grow through advocating and assuring free and fruitful access to it." The increase in use of digital and digitally-born material is not threatening that purpose, it is simply redefining how that purpose is carried out.

The last point I want to highlight from this article is that made by author Cory Doctorow: How are publisher's bettering their relations with libraries and their users when they are pushing for policies that basically offend by insinuating suspicion and distrust? As Doctorow states:

"In an increasingly digital world, there is no way to coerce someone into paying for something if they want to take it for free... The only mechanism we have for convincing people to do the right thing, the legitimate thing or even the profitable thing is to appeal to their sense of ethics. I don't think you start doing that by saying that 'by the way, we don't trust you, we've developed this book that explodes after 26 uses and you can no longer own books anyway'." 

From a business standpoint, maybe HarperCollins thinks that this model of temporary access to digital content will be profitable. However, I don't know how profitable it will be when they have driven away the majority of their customers- namely, libraries- with such restrictive policies.