Registry Entry: 25 February 2011 — HarperCollins 26-Loan Cap
Artifact. On Friday, 25 February 2011, HarperCollins confirmed that it had revised its terms for libraries offering its e-books. Beginning 7 March 2011, a HarperCollins e-book purchased by a library could be checked out only 26 times before its license expired. The policy did not apply to titles already licensed. The announcement reached libraries through the distributor OverDrive, which sent a letter to customers the preceding week.
Mechanism. The 26 checkouts are counted per purchased copy. When the count is reached, the license terminates; the library may buy a replacement copy or let the title lapse. The rule is not a limit on simultaneous borrowers — e-books were already lent one borrower at a time, often for two weeks, after which the file expired from the borrower’s account. It is a limit on the total number of loans a single purchased copy can ever produce.
Prior norm. Until that date, libraries that paid for e-book lending rights were typically granted unlimited lending of each copy, one borrower at a time. The copy did not wear out. It did not need shelf space. It did not fall apart. It circulated for as long as the library chose to keep it in the collection.
Named loss. Institutional discretion over retirement. A print copy is withdrawn when the library decides it is worn, unused, or superseded. A metered e-book copy is withdrawn when the counter reaches 26 — a schedule set by the seller, not the collection. The library keeps the title only by repurchasing it.
What HarperCollins Said
HarperCollins framed the change as a balance of interests. In a statement quoted by The New York Times on 27 February 2011: “We believe this change balances the value libraries get from our titles with the need to protect our authors and ensure a presence in public libraries and the communities they serve for years to come.”
In a separate statement quoted by the Los Angeles Times on 7 March 2011, the publisher described its prior practice as “selling e-books to libraries in perpetuity” and said it had “serious concerns” that leaving that policy unchanged “would undermine the emerging e-book ecosystem, hurt the growing e-book channel, place additional pressure on physical bookstores, and in the end lead to a decrease in book sales and royalties paid to authors.”
These are the publisher’s stated reasons. The registry records them as such. It does not treat them as established effects. No retrieved source documents the derivation of the number 26 — whether it was drawn from an average print-copy lifespan, a royalty calculation, or another convention. The figure is recorded here as a dated term of the license, not as a finding about wear.
The Distribution Layer
The cap was implemented through OverDrive, then the dominant e-book distributor to public libraries. OverDrive CEO Steve Potash told The New York Times that HarperCollins was the first publisher to limit how many times an e-book may be checked out. He also said OverDrive would move HarperCollins titles out of its general e-book catalog, keeping them available but making them less easily accessible. The Los Angeles Times reported that OverDrive began listing the HarperCollins collection in a separate catalog “in an effort to avoid confusion with books that can be checked out indefinitely.”
This is a reception effect distinct from the license itself. A title that remains purchasable but sits in a separate catalog is discoverable on different terms. The registry notes the move as a dated distribution decision; no retrieved source establishes whether it was permanent or how it affected checkout volume.
Potash also described the practical arithmetic libraries would face: they would “have to consider whether they want to invest in titles that, after a year or 18 months or so, they’ll have to replenish or buy additional units.” That estimate is his, offered at the time; it is not a measured outcome.
The Print Analogy and Its Limits
The comparison libraries reached for was the print copy. Audra Caplan, then president of the Public Library Association, put it plainly to the Los Angeles Times: “When we purchase a print copy, we get to keep it for as long as we want. It may eventually wear out or not circulate, but that’s our choice.”
The distinction is precise. A print copy’s retirement is a collection decision made by the library, informed by condition and demand. A metered e-book copy’s retirement is a license term. The library can choose to repurchase; it cannot choose to keep the copy circulating past the count. The 26-loan cap did not change who may borrow or for how long. It changed who decides when the copy stops existing in the collection.
Two collection outcomes follow from the same rule, and both are worth stating as hypotheticals rather than as documented cases. A branch that buys one copy of a popular title and sees it pass 26 checkouts must repurchase to keep it on the virtual shelf. A branch that buys one copy of a title that never reaches 26 checkouts retires it quietly at the end of its natural demand — the same rule, opposite results, depending on circulation. The cap is not a uniform shortening of every title’s life. It is a ceiling that binds only where demand is high enough to reach it.
Contemporaneous Response
The announcement drew objection from librarians and library bodies. The Guardian reported on 1 March 2011 that librarians were calling for a boycott, and quoted Phil Bradley, then vice president of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals, calling the move “a direct attack on a library’s users.” The Los Angeles Times reported that Chicago Public Library Commissioner Mary Dempsey described the change as striking “at the heart of what we do.” These are attributed positions, recorded as reactions, not as findings about the policy’s effects.
Not every librarian opposed it. The Los Angeles Times quoted Jason Kuhl, library operations director at the Arlington Heights Memorial Library, saying that “many times, books don’t circulate 26 times” and that popular titles see a surge followed by waning interest. His point is the mirror of the hypothetical above: for low-circulation titles, the cap may never bind. The registry records both positions because the rule’s incidence depends on circulation, and circulation varies by title and branch.
What the Entry Does Not Claim
The registry does not claim that the 26-loan figure was derived from print-copy wear. No retrieved source states the derivation.
It does not claim that the policy was later revised, renewed, or abandoned. No retrieved source establishes a subsequent change.
It does not claim that the cap applied retroactively. The New York Times reported that it did not affect books already licensed by libraries.
It does not claim a measured effect on library budgets, publisher revenue, or other publishers’ adoption. The sources report contemporaneous expectations and fears, not outcomes.
Why This Entry Belongs in the Registry
The 26-loan cap is a dated, verifiable decision that changed how a library collection is built and retired. It converted a purchased copy from an asset the library retires at its own discretion into a license whose retirement is scheduled by the seller. The number 26 is the artifact; the effective date, 7 March 2011, is the hinge; the named loss is the library’s choice of when a copy stops circulating.
The entry closes there. The dates and the count carry the record.
Frequently Asked Questions
When did the HarperCollins 26-loan cap take effect?
7 March 2011. HarperCollins confirmed the change on Friday, 25 February 2011, and OverDrive had sent a letter to library customers the preceding week.
Did the cap apply to e-books libraries had already bought?
No. The New York Times reported that the policy did not affect books already licensed by libraries.
Was the cap a limit on simultaneous borrowers?
No. Library e-books were already lent one borrower at a time, often for two weeks, after which the file expired from the borrower’s account. The 26-loan cap limited the total number of checkouts a single purchased copy could produce over its lifetime.
What happened when a copy reached 26 checkouts?
The license expired. The library could buy a replacement copy or let the title lapse from its collection.
Was HarperCollins the first publisher to impose such a limit?
Steve Potash, then CEO of OverDrive, said HarperCollins was the first publisher to limit how many times an e-book may be checked out.
How did OverDrive handle HarperCollins titles after the announcement?
Potash said OverDrive would move HarperCollins titles out of its general e-book catalog, keeping them available but less easily accessible. The Los Angeles Times reported that OverDrive began listing the collection in a separate catalog to avoid confusion with books that could be checked out indefinitely.
Sources
- “A Limit on Lending E-Books,” The New York Times Media Decoder blog, 27 February 2011. Archived at archive.nytimes.com/mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/a-limit-on-lending-e-books.
- “Restrictions on library e-book loans,” The Guardian, 1 March 2011. Archived at web.archive.org/web/20160927201314/https:/www.theguardian.com/books/2011/mar/01/restrictions-library-ebook-loans.
- “E-book limits at libraries stir anger,” Los Angeles Times, 7 March 2011. latimes.com/business/la-xpm-2011-mar-07-la-fi-ebooks-20110307-story.html.