Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
IMO, a lot of people are looking at this completely backwards -- including both critics and the publishers.
On a fundamental level, libraries do in fact cost sales. The reason why we loan out books anyway is not because it promotes future sales, but because access to reading materials is a public good. It is beneficial for society as a whole to provide this resource to the public.
The ability of patrons to pay, or that it cuts into sales, should not be a consideration. The real issue is: Who has to pay to fund this public good?
The answer really ought to be: The libraries.
They are public institutions, they are funded by the public, they are overseen by and answerable to the public, and thus the costs of providing a public good should be handled by them -- rather than as a somewhat vague and uncredited form of taxation on the companies.
As such, the Harper Collins approach seems to be the best solution, perhaps with a slightly more generous number of initial lendings (e.g. 30 or 35). We can develop a fair idea of how many sales are lost per loan, and use that as a basis for the library's payments. It should be done in a format-neutral method, which is Overdrive's goal. Libraries should accept they cost publishers sales; publishers should accept they are part of providing a public benefit, but should also not be punished for their role either.
I.e. everyone needs to understand that if we want to provide this public good for our citizens, then the critical job here is to support the libraries.
|