library disruption

dear readers

well, helloooooooooooo (in my best julia child or mrs. doubtfire voice).

if you will recall, dear reader, in my last post, i was bemoaning the fact that there wasn't anything new on the horizon to talk about.

well, guess what? that's still the case (haha - gotcha). but i did find this little entry worth a mini-blog entry.

it's about disruption. no, not volcanic (besides, that's eruption). but disruption as in some outside influence upsetting the apple cart, changing the status quo, rocking the boat.

business insider (one of my FAVE websites) posted an article originally posted on quora, titled "craigslist has been disrupted, it's just not obvious yet". the basic gist of the article is that craigslist has a LOT of competitors, but these competitors just haven't been able to take hold of their marketshare . . . yet! checkout a few competitors: clist rideshare/use pickuppal, clist arts&crafts/use etsy, clist tickets/use stubhub!

i know, i know, get to the point. well, one of our savvy compadres over at "a digital outrigger" created a chart to show how academic LIBRARIES can be/are being disrupted. take a gander at this (scroll down): for example, alternatives to using the library's catalog could be worldcat, google books, library thing or netflix. need a journal? how about citeseer, doaj, or scitopia. if citations are your cuppatea, there's zotera and endnote. but what about chatting with a librarian, you say? what about yahoo answers, ask.com, or answers.com?

is this disruption (as in i won't use the library website, i'll go straight to these sources) or are we comparing apples and oranges? are these supplemental web resources that students will use in addition to their library catalog. or in lieu of? (insert ominous background music here)

just something to think about.

happy reading . . . no matter the format.

what does eminem have to do with libraries?

hello dear readers

i know what you're thinking. it's sunday and your dear blogger has had one glass of wine too many. that very well may true, but that is beside the point. the last few days i have been wringing my hands and gnashing my teeth because i couldn't think of anything to blog about. sure, apple came out with an iPad 2 (check out that snazzy smart cover!!) and the motorola xoom android tablet is out. dedicated e-readers have basically taken a back seat to these new-fangled "tablets." i mean why be stuck with a piece of equipment to just read on when i can have one that surfs the web, gets my email AND lets me play angry birds all...i...want!!

as far as the naked library was concerned, it was snoooooooozerville. schools were still experimenting, consumers wanted lower e-book prices, i already told you about overdrive and their 26 checkout limit on e-books through libraries, plus there was a new edition of angry birds i had to get.

but, lo and behold, in the midst of tons of chaff came one small stalk of wheat. and i, dear reader, dove in and retrieved it for you. hence the title of this blog.

now, i know you know who eminem is. i'm just linking to it for consistency. so what could eminem possibly have done to warrant inclusion in the annals of this blog? well, he filed a lawsuit against his record label, universal, for more money. (thanx, techdirt). YES, this is news. now, wait...before you doze off, let me explain.

the lawsuit he filed against his record company involved something that should be of interest to every library in the united states of america that is loaning e-books. DIGITAL ROYALTIES. the basis of the lawsuit stated, and i quote, "...that music sales generate a much lower rate of royalties than music licenses (for use in TV shows, commercials, etc.)—and since sales of iTunes songs are considered licenses (except whenever it’s most convenient for the record labels to claim they’re “sales”), Eminem felt he should be getting a bigger cut of the pie."

WHAT? notice i put the word "licenses" in bold.

when i gave a presentation at the charleston conference back in november of 2011 on whether to lend e-reading devices or not, one of my key considerations for libraries to think about is that e-books are not a physical property. when you purchase an e-book, what you are really purchasing is a "license" to "view" the "electronic" version of that book. you don't own the book any more than you own the story. it's the equivalent of going to the movies.

apparently, the music industry was trying to slip through an intellectual property loophole of some kind of selling music in a physical format such as CDs and vinyl (huh?) vs. selling you, average consumer, the right to listen to this music.

eminem...WON.

what does this have to do with libraries and e-books you're still asking? i don't know. let's replace the characters in this scenario. let's replace eminem with dan brown and let's replace universal with farrar straus and giroux (i just like their name) and let's replace iTunes with google books. let's say that dan and fsg come to an agreement about royalties for book sales. so physical books sales go through the roof at barnes & noble, borders, costco, walmart, and every indie bookstore you can think of. but those sales don't come close to the e-books that are being downloaded on kindles and nooks and sony readers and iPads and 'droids and available through google books ...you get my drift.

artists get a lower royalty on music "sales" vs. music "licenses" (when you use music in a commercial or on broadway or little league or high school drama performances). so if dan brown's book is downloaded to your kindle (nook,iPad,droid,etc) did you buy the book like the chick/dude at costco? or are you "watching" it like your daughter's performance in oklahoma at genius high?

should dan expect a higher royalty cut from your kindle version than your neighbor's costco copy? and if the courts say yes, what does that mean in terms of pricing of e-books? right now, consumers are complaining when e-books cost more than $9.99 (the artificial price point created, basically, by amazon). this is why when an e-book on amazon is priced above $9.99, amazon places the "this price was set by the publisher" disclaimer so you won't pour your haterade on amazon.

i just thought this was a very interesting turn of events. soooo...

happy reading, no matter what the format...for now.

ps - here's teleread's take on the eminem ruling.

don't shoot until you see the ...

27th e-copy distributed!!!!!

"what in the world is she talking about??" yes, i can hear you, dear reader. yes, i can. can so. can so. cancancancancancancan...can!

okay, enough of that. i literally just finished reading about the boycott being organized by librarians around the country against harpercollins and their subsidiary, overdrive.

a little background info, maestro. overdrive is the company that provides a lot of libraries with their e-book distribution mechanism. and great strides have been made in this area, specifically not having to physically visit your local library in order to download e-books (as long as you are a member in good standing). and availability across multiple e-book reading platforms, including iPads. so with things going so well, what's all the hubbub, bub?

according to the blogger librarian by day, harper collins has decided to limit the number of e-book checkouts to...26. yes, that magical number 26. is there some significance in the heralds of harper collins historic lore attached to the number 26?

the e-book library lending saga began on shaky ground with publishers equating a digital copy to a physical book, the one copy/one user model. so libraries could only "lend" an e-book (remember, e = electronic = digital file) one at a time to one patron on one platform. so if you wanted to start reading on your laptop and then read on your amazon kindle on the train to work, fuhgeddaboudit.

now, this magical 26th loan. remember, an e-book in a library catalog is not really the library's book. it's a license that allows a library patron to access that digital file. like going to the movies. your ticket doesn't buy you the movie, only the right to access that movie for a specific date and time. the end.

so harper collins has decided that the license to access a library's copy of a harper collins (and its smaller publishing houses) will expire after the 26th view.

okay, now granted i work for an academic library, not a public one so it's a little different. but let's use an old world example. title: the media in american politics. cost: $51.99. checked out: 107 times. cost per checkout: $0.49 (and counting downward). new world example: license expiration after 26 checkouts. cost per checkout: $1.99. IF it's checked out 26 times.

now, of course this is all subjective, except for the old world example. but the costs of a license expiration could be a budget buster for many libraries, especially public libraries in cash-strapped states and municipalities.

i have to admit that i thought the introduction of the internet, electronic resources, a computer in every home, a chicken in every pot, e-books, e-readers, actually all things 'e' would make things easier, better and more accessible to the masses. i thought price points would drop, and they would become as ubiquitous as cell phones. almost EVERYBODY has a cell phone.

i thought that not having to go to the library would be great. no transportation issues, no overdue fines, no hold queues, no weeding, no excessive watching of hold queues (i'm number 76, now 58, now 40, still 40, still 40? oh for pete's sake bring the book back!)

after working up this little model, i can see both sides of the equation. the publisher sees a profit potential that's essentially lost in the old-world library lending model. the library sees a big behemoth gouging the little guy with the noble cause.

personally, i think the '26' model has set e-book library lending back a few steps. the fear that came from libraries not "owning" materials maybe wasn't so far-fetched after all?

the future is here . . . but can we afford it?

happy reading . . . no matter the format!

btw - if you can't see the number 26 in the graphic, you're colorblind. but you probably already knew that.