Skip to main content

Publishers Whine About EU eBook Lending Ruling

28634589835_a8a671cd97_hAs a rule the major publishers hate library ebooks even more than they hate libraries because they see each library loan as a lost sale. So it should come as no surprise that European publishers are dismayed at yesterday’s ruling about library ebook loans.

As Ars Technica and other sites reported, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) released a ruling yesterday which said that libraries could lend ebooks just like they lend paper books. The ruling concurred with the opinion of

Maciej Szpunar, advocate general to the CJEU, who stated in June that libraries should be able to lend ebooks provided authors are fairly compensated in the same way as for physical books.

You can find the ruling here (PDF).

Needless to say, publishers, or rather, the legacy publishing trade groups,  were not pleased with the ruling.  Both the UK Publishers Association, and the Federation of European Publishers, have weighed in with expressions of dismay.

Stephen Lotinga, chief executive of the Publishers Association, spewed nonsense about ebooks:

This court decision raises concerns about the implications for the emerging ebooks market. In our view there is a fundamental difference between printed books and ebooks in that digital copies can be copied and borrowed by an unlimited number of readers.

While it’s important that libraries are able to develop and that authors are properly remunerated for public loans, that cannot be at the expense of a functioning digital book market.

The FEP released an official statement yesterday which spread similar FUD by misinterpreting the ruling:

Revenues from sales of physical books and e-books to the market are still the main way the sector is financed, and authors are remunerated. Early experiments of e-lending in the Nordic countries (Denmark and Sweden) and in the Netherlands [2] have shown that different e-lending models can have a significant impact on the commercial market. Very simply, it is difficult to compete in a market in which virtually the identical product is available for free.

E-books offered for free by libraries might have a particularly heavy impact on smaller language areas, such as Lithuania, Latvia, Slovenia, Romania and others where the national book markets are limited due to small population and multilingual societies, and where currently, the e-book market doesn’t even constitute 1% of the book market.

Hence, the decision of the CJEU comes as a shock for the book publishing community. Today’s assessment runs counter to the letter and spirit of the Public Lending Right Directive and the Infosoc Directive. Both Directives prescribe the need to distinguish clearly between physical and electronic goods and services and to treat them differently.

The reasons for this distinction are evident. “Lending” an e-book is very different from lending a printed book since digital “lending” in fact means copying. One digital copy can for example potentially be “borrowed” by an indefinite number of users, whereas a physical copy can only be borrowed and read by one person at a time, and is subject to a degree of deterioration.

This is nonsense, for two reasons.

For one thing, the ruling said that ebooks had to be limited to "one copy, one user", so the comparison of ebook and print book lending is simply false.

Furthermore, anyone who claims that ebooks are not "subject to a degree of deterioration" is either being disingenuous or simply does not know what they are talking about.

Library ebooks have DRM, and like any type of digital content ensnared by DRM ebooks can die for no reason.

If the DRM stutters, the ebook dies.

If the DRM servers are turned off, the ebook dies.

If the library stops paying for its servers and they are turned off, the ebook dies.

If the only compatible hardware/software is discontinued, the ebook dies.

eBooks don’t deteriorate? Poppycock.

Go try downloading and reading a DRMed MSReader, Mobipocket, Rocketbook, eBookwise, Data Discman, eReader, or Sony format ebook, and then try telling me that ebooks don’t deteriorate.

The simple fact is paper books have much greater longevity than DRMed ebooks. With proper care a print book can last centuries, and in comparison no DRMed ebook has lasted more than a decade (with few exceptions).

But the FEP won’t admit to that simple fact; instead they want to make it more difficult to borrow library ebooks.

The experience of borrowing an e-book resembles the experience of buying an e-book to a much larger extent than is the case with printed books. It is the role and responsibility of publishers to develop e-lending models in collaboration with libraries that ensure that the incentive for consumers to buy e-books persists, in order for European publishers and retailers to remain in a position to invest in new innovative e-book platforms and third companies’ solutions for the distribution/making available of e-books, to the benefit of authors and consumers.

That is code for imposing artificial restrictions which make library ebooks as unusable as possible and as inaccessible as possible.

I would rather not let them get away with that.

How about you?

image by michael_d_beckwith


Similar Articles


thesfreader November 12, 2016 um 5:15 am

Those same publishers are the ones who campaigned the EU to have ebooks considered the same "lower VAT rate" as books, (in this I’m in agreement with them). Yet, in this case, they explain that ebooks should be considered different. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

That’s NOT their first "contradiction" either. While they wanted the EU to acknowledge that lower rate, here in France, they "had" the government apply that lower VAT rate for ebooks(conrary to EU legislation), and at the same time make sure the EU legislation on copyright is applied/declined as much as possible where it "protects" the copyright holders in deriment to the public…


Chris Meadows November 12, 2016 um 6:31 am

Plus, the ebooks "deteriorate" over time if the publisher is one of those who permits only a certain amount of checkouts per library purchase. (Or did this ruling say that sort of thing was no longer permissible in Europe? I didn’t get that sense from any news story I read about it, but you know how unreliable news reports can be.)

Of course, if publishers really dislike library checkouts of ebooks, all they have to do is stop selling the ebooks to libraries to be checked out. Ta-dah, problem solved.

thesfreader November 12, 2016 um 7:28 am

Chris : As far as I understand, publishers can’t refuse distributors/booksellers to sell to libraries on the same term they sell to users, and as soon as the ebook is sold legally (and provided that ebook is lent on the "one user/one copy" basis –> usage restricted via DRM), the library is allowed to lend it.

Chris Meadows November 12, 2016 um 1:30 pm

So the publishers can’t sell special library-only ebook editions with term restrictions, but rather libraries could just go to Amazon or Kobo or whoever and buy a copy of the ebook there, then be permitted to turn around and lend it to whoever they like?

That would be a noteworthy change.

Ingo Lembcke November 12, 2016 um 2:52 pm

"whereas a physical copy can only be borrowed and read by one person at a time"

Interesting, but wrong, if I lend a physical copy from a library for certain time, any number of people can read it. Sure, only one person at a any given time, but for 30 days (not, sure, but that is what I remember as a standard lending period) I would lend a few books, say 5-8, and during this time I would suggest a good book to my family and give it to them to read, granted there was enough time left.
Not sure if that was (and is still) allowed per the libraries rules (I was only a member as long as it was free for me during being in education/school).

thesfreader November 13, 2016 um 2:02 pm

Chris, as far as I understand, the publisers MAY sell specific licences with different term (for example with a 3 years max, multiple simultaneous users etc.), but yes, libraries would be allowed to buy direct from AMZ/Kobo and lend the ebooks (provided they ensure the "one copy one reader" rule)

Uitgevers zijn niet blij met elektronische boeken in de bibliotheek – ICT en Onderwijs BLOG November 14, 2016 um 12:34 am

[…] moet de argumenten van de uitgevers toch eens naast het boek dat ik in de volgende blogpost ga beschrijven leggen. Eens kijken hoe de […]

Episode 137 – Litsy, Ads For Everyone, and the Future of Audio | Sell More Books Show November 16, 2016 um 6:01 am

[…] Five For Fighting Litsy Bitsy Insider Cover to Cover (1) Cover to Cover (2) Lend Me Your Ears (1) Lend Me Your Ears (2) Electoral Fall-age Unlimited Down Under (1) Unlimited Down Under (2) Took the Words Right Out of My […]

Write a Comment