From The Examiner. More info in the article. The “capital district” referred to is Albany, NY, the capital of NY State:
HarperCollins new policy will have an immediate impact on library services in the capital district. According to Technology Librarian Karrie McLellan at the East Greenbush Community Library, the Upper Hudson Library system has officially responded to the policy with a boycott. “As of today [March 4, 2011], the directors’ group made a resolution to boycott HarperCollins by not purchasing any of their ebook content.” McLellan also said, “Along with the boycott, the libraries plan to educate patrons as to why some of the more popular titles are unavailable, and give them both electronic and paper options for getting their voices to be heard by HarperCollins, as well.”
I can hear the party in Harper Collin’s office from here ……..
Public libraries exist to serve the public need. Boycotting a particular publisher’s ebooks seems to fail that mission. Also, is it good “public” policy for a “public” entity to boycott any legal enterprise because they disagree with their business practices? I would answer no.
If the publisher is charging substantially more for their product than all of the other vendors, then I see nothing inappropriate in a library system informing its users of the policy to not purchase that vendor’s product.
One of the public needs is fiscal responsibility. If the choice is between two equal books, doesn’t it make sense to get the book with the better value for the library?
Harper Collins is not charging substantial more than other publishers for similar content. Second, this is not a choice between two equal books. Each publisher has a different set of contracted writers.
Look, I want my library to be fiscally responsible when delivering their services to the public. However, boycotting a private enterprise is a long and twisted path for a public entity to engage.
FWIW, most ebooks, from all publishers, cost less than their hardcover counterparts. Maybe libraries should boycott DTB in the name of “fiscal” responsibility? But, you say, that would be unfair to patrons that do not own an ebook device. You would be right. But, how is that different from denying the availability of ebooks from a particular publisher any less unfair to library patrons?
I orderd two paper books today where the ebook was essentially the same cost as the paperback, and I could get the books cheaper in paper with a coupon and member’s discount. Given that I consider a paper book to have more value and therefore worth more money than an ebook crippled with DRM, this was a wise fiscal choice. When there are two best sellers, one crippled with lending restrictions and one not,, which one is the wiser choice for a library?
Thanks for linking to my article.