What would more concentrated power in the publishing industry mean for libraries? In recent years, publishers have blamed libraries for all manner of ills—claiming that they unfairly cannibalize sales, among other things—to justify the imposition of increasingly expensive licensing models. But as testimony in the Justice Department lawsuit has confirmed, the publishing industry isn’t the least bit ill: it’s “thriving,” with years of double-digit growth. And although the economics of the publishing industry was examined at trial in excruciating detail, the supposed threat of library lending was nowhere to be found; libraries weren’t mentioned at all.
The publishing industry often claims that its actions are necessary for the good of authors, but this case does not support such a claim. The Authors Guild has publicly opposed the merger, expressing its phone number library own concern about the extraordinary concentration of power in the publishing industry and how it could harm emerging and mid-list authors.
Meanwhile, at trial, we learned that the vast majority of all published books are of this sort, selling very few copies. Of course, libraries are one of the few markets for such titles: buying them, preserving them, and ensuring they remain publicly available after their commercial life is over. Unfortunately, as the trial made abundantly clear—featuring, as it did, the CEO of Penguin Random House bragging about cutting author compensation for e-books—such matters are not high on the publisher’s priority list.