Librarians Want the Big Five Publishers to Negotiate ‘Fair’ Digital License Terms with Libraries. Here’s What That Might Look Like
What do libraries want from the major publishers in the digital library market? Hint: it isn't to destroy copyright. Librarians and ReadersFirst organizer Michael Blackwell weighs in on the group's just released proposal for fair digital license terms.
Libraries and publishers have been partners in the reading enterprise for centuries. But in the digital marketplace, the balance that once governed that relationship has shifted.
Unlike print books, which libraries can buy, own, and lend at will, digital books—both ebooks and digital audio—are now licensed. And for more than a decade, the five largest publishers, whose books drive the bulk of the digital demand in libraries, have been dictating expensive, non-negotiated, time-limited license terms to public libraries.
From the outset, librarians have warned that these high prices and restrictive terms are not only unfair, but unsustainable. And in 2026, with many librarians now reporting that their digital circulations are outpacing print, library ebook legislation at the state level is gathering momentum in several states, with bills in Connecticut, Washington D.C., and Rhode Island having passed, and bills advancing in several more states, including Illinois and New Jersey.
But contrary to misinformation from publishing industry lobbyists—which has been been debunked elsewhere and need not concern us here—library ebook legislation does not seek to undermine copyright or strip authors of their rights. In fact, these bills have been carefully crafted to respect copyright.
Rather, as Connecticut Library Consortium executive director Ellen Paul explained after Connecticut passed its library ebook law in May 2025, these new state bills have one overarching goal: to compel the Big Five to do something they have never done—to finally come to the table and negotiate fair, “commercially reasonable” terms for the digital library market.
A Starting Point
Which, of course, raises the obvious next question: what, might fair terms in the digital library market look like?
To begin to address this question, ReadersFirst this month released the “Readers First Digital Library License Standards Project.”
DC Ebooks Bill Becomes Law
Years in the making, the project was developed by Whatcom County (Washington) Collection Services librarian Carmi Parker with input from our 43-member ReadersFirst working group.
The project has three parts: The Digital Library Book License Standards, which is based on a study of ebook use and describes a model that is basically print equivalent. Implementing the Standards gives detailed instructions for how librarians can use data to do things like develop more sustainable holds ratios, or to automate their OverDrive Marketplace carts for easier ordering. And the Publishing Stakeholder Companion is for “distributors and publishers” with “information to contextualize the standards and invite mutually beneficial conversation about digital licenses.”
So what do we propose?
Like the Urban Library Council’s recent Joint Statement to the Big 5 on Library Ebooks, the ReadersFirst working group advocates for two general types of licenses: one based on the number of circulations (for example, 26 lends, rather than by time), and perpetual access. Many other license types are also explored, including those with 100 circulations offering simultaneous access, single use, subscriptions, and even library ownership of digital titles.
Andrew Richard Albanese
Our proposal also divides books (both ebooks and audio)—into two broad categories. The first is what we call “Discovery Books.” These are titles librarians want to collect for reasons other than high demand. And “High Demand Books,” which include the popular titles we know our patrons will want and expect.
For Discovery Books, we recommend a perpetual access license, one-copy/one-user, priced at the retail cost of the item.
For High Demand Books, we further divided these into two types: adult books, and for children.
For adults, we recommend a cost-per-use of $1 (or the equivalent of $1 USD for Canada) for a metered access book—for example, $26 for a 26-circulation license in the U.S.
We justify these costs with a comparison to what we pay for print on average (which is significantly less than $1 per circulation, even including the processing and shipping of physical books) and adjusted up to reflect some efficiencies with digital.
For perpetual access, we recommend a price point of three times the cost of a 26-checkout license. So, for example, $78 for a $26 book. We recognize that “forever” access should come at a premium. Under these terms, libraries may get a few perpetual copies to ensure long-term access but will almost certainly look to metered access to fill immediate demand.
We also recognize that our recommended cost for perpetual access may seem high to smaller libraries looking to get just few copies of titles, and we invite thought on the idea of adjusting prices by library size. But at three times the retails cost, we believe having a title that can be kept rather than constantly re-licensed should make a perpetual access license attractive for small or less well-funded libraries.
For digital audio, we recommend licenses at a 15% premium over the consumer ebook price. And we encourage the Big Five (and indeed, any publisher of a High Demand Book) to offer both metered (by number of circulations, not by time) and perpetual one-copy/one-user licenses.
For all children’s and teen books—even High Demand Books—we suggest a lower maximum cost. The standard note is that we all benefit when young people in our communities have ready access to a wide range of ebooks and digital audio, without having to wait as long as their adult counterparts. Furthermore, our experience with the print collection is that youth materials usually cost less than adult materials. Plus, we all have a stake in developing readers.
Specifically, we suggest prices for children’s and teen books at $.50 per circulation (or the equivalent in Canada) for metered access ($13 for a 26-circulation license in the U.S.). A perpetual use license at three times the cost of a 26-checkout license would be $39. And digital audio again at a 15% premium over the ebook license for the same title.
Again, these are the basics, and librarians, publishers, and all who have an interest in a healthy digital library market are encouraged to take a deeper dive on the ReadersFirst website, where there is much more detail and justifications for our figures, including how our proposal would likely help author earnings.
What Are the Chances?
How realistic is it that our proposals might actually become the basis of a new understanding in the digital library market?
We acknowledge there is work to do. While librarians have begun to coalesce around the types of licenses that are acceptable, the prices we propose—while substantially less than the Big Five currently charge—are still higher than many librarians might consider fair.
To those librarians, we say that have done our best to derive our price recommendations based on our print costs, and we think we have estimated well. But we also acknowledge that without a broader, detailed study of print costs with digital costs of the same titles and overall number of circulations, it is hard to know for sure. (If anyone wants to mount such a study, we’re happy to help).
The larger question, meanwhile, is whether our price recommendations can bring the Big Five publishers to the table?
DC Ebooks Bill Becomes Law
Our Publisher Price Watch shows that as late as December 2023, HarperCollins was fairly close. Its 26-circulation ebook licenses averaged $28.39 at the end of 2023, not far off our $26 number for the U.S. But as of March 2026, HarperCollins has raised its prices to an average $40.80, about $1.56 per circulation.
Penguin Random House, meanwhile, charges $55 for a two-year license. An average library can get about 34 circulations on a very popular title on those terms—which comes to about $1.62 per circulation.
At $55 for two years, would PRH ever agree to $78 for perpetual access? The fact is most two-year old ebooks don’t get re-licensed that often—libraries just lose them because we can’t afford to keep renewing access to books we’ve already paid while also licensing new books. But we note that PRH does offers both perpetual and metered licenses in audio—so we know the Big Five could offer both options if they wanted to.
Let’s Be Reasonable
Librarians have long indicated their desire to talk through the issues in the digital marketplace. But without negotiation, the incentive remains for the Big Five to keep prices high. This is why library ebook legislation is gathering momentum—after 15 years of being rebuffed, it’s reasonable to conclude that change will only come if something forces it.
Andrew Richard Albanese |
For us, the basic issue revolves around this question: why do the Big Five publishers insist on making digital books so much more expensive for libraries than print?
It’s certainly true that there are some advantages to digital for libraries. Ebooks don’t need mylar covers or stickers. They don’t have to be shelved or shipped between locations and handled by people. They don’t require a physical space. Ebooks can act as large print. And while hardcover books can often last for hundreds of circulations, they do show wear and must be replaced at some point.
The publishers have a point here: perpetual access ebooks at consumer costs doesn’t seem like a fair deal when compared to print—even if many Indie publishers currently offer such terms (for which we thank them).
But print books have many advantages over digital. With print books, we can own them, collect them, display them, and loan them freely. If damaged, we can ask for and usually receive some compensation. When they no longer circulate, we can donate them or give them to friends groups or sell them. There are no worries about the digital divide or lack of access because of limited data plans.
Above all, print offers far better “bang for the book.” Print costs per use—even factoring in shelver salaries and processing—can be in the pennies. Because of these costs, we are more likely to take a chance on new author or mid-tier title in print than in digital, ensuring richer, deeper, and more diverse collections for our communities.
After many years, we can say with confidence that the advantages of digital simply do not justify such high prices and restrictive terms from the Big Five. And with digital circulation now exceeding print at many libraries, we are at a tipping point. Every expensive, temporary Big Five license we must buy to meet surging demand translates into two or three books we cannot buy from midlist, debut, and indie authors.
So why do the major publishers still refuse to even discuss acceptable terms with libraries?
“Because they can,” the more cynical among us might answer. The major publishers know that their heavily marketed books are the ones most in demand from our patrons, and that librarians focused on serving their communities will almost certainly license them at any price.
With print books, we can buy any print book that is in stock, usually at a discount. But under copyright law, the publishers set the terms for their digital licenses. We do not dispute or seek to undermine that (despite the misinformation being spread by industry lobbyists). And while the Big Five publishers might insist that their data suggests their digital prices and terms are fair, it can be argued that any contract forced upon a party without negotiation is fundamentally unfair—and that is especially true when we are talking about a market dominated by five major conglomerates competing for limited taxpayer dollars.
It really comes down to this: print or digital, these are books. And at a time when reading rates are in decline, both publishers and libraries have ample reason to come together and strike fair, mutually agreeable deals for digital access, for the sake our joint enterprise.
One Size Does Not Fit All
Back in 2019, when Macmillan unilaterally announced its plan to embargo library ebooks, most librarians reacted with outrage. But not all. One library director I spoke with told me he approved. Somewhat surprised, I asked why—and his answer made perfect sense.
Andrew Albanese |
While the crux of Macmillan’s embargo was to block libraries from licensing new release books for the first 60 days of publication, the policy also allowed libraries to buy a single, perpetual use copy for $30. For most libraries and consortia, Macmillan’s plan relegated them to free advertising for two months while their hold queues exploded. But for this director, whose small library couldn’t afford more than one copy, the Macmillan plan worked.
My takeaway from that conversation: that a single, one-size-fits-all set of digital content license terms will never suit all libraries. And at ReadersFirst, we know we have more work to do.
But the fact remains: Libraries will not be able to fulfill our missions if the Big Five’s high prices and restrictive terms continue to force us to spend more and more public dollars on smaller, less diverse, and temporary collections.
It’s been said that a reluctantly agreed upon middle ground that wholly pleases nobody is the essence of compromise. In that spirit, the ReadersFirst Working Group’s proposed terms are a good faith attempt to balance the advantages digital offers, while considering the market as a whole.
At this crucial moment—with legislators from both sides of the aisle nearly unanimously voting to pass ebook legislation—we encourage librarians and publishers to engage with these proposals, and to join the conversation. It’s clear that when the facts are presented, state lawmakers understand what’s truly at stake. But wouldn’t it be better for everyone if publishers and libraries could finally come together outside of legislatures or courtrooms, and resolve our differences through negotiation?
Michael Blackwell is the Director of the St. Mary's County Library in Leonardtown, Maryland and a long time advocate for fair digital library access as an organizer of Reader'sFirst.
