|
The eBook publishers (and other digital content publishers) chose their path when they came up with the concept "You don't own this, you are just licensed to use it on our terms, that we may choose to change over time. We have ultimate control over what you can or cannot do with it, despite your payment to us."
For me, in part it has come down to this:
(1) "If you BUY this eBook from us, you don't own it, but you pay for it. You only have a license to read it, and only on the devices we let you to read it on."
(2) "If I BORROW this eBook from the library, I don't own it, but I don't pay for it either (other than with my taxes)."
So what's the difference? You don't own it in either case. But in one case you pay for not owning it, and in the other case you don't. Is it any wonder that choice (2) may be getting more popular? My current practice for fiction novels - which has changed over time to be more library centric - is to always, ALWAYS, check the library first, and only then consider purchasing the book if the library route is unavailable/unappealing.
The publishers came up with the "license, not own" concept to increase their profits and control. This was a positive for them. But there are a few negatives as well - as some customers will determine that the license concept is not in their best interest, and decide to borrow from the library instead. And naturally, the publishers wish to shut down this alternate way for customers to obtain books. It looks like they are trying "windowing" now. But rest assured, they would rather cut libraries totally out of the picture if they could. I'm sure they will attempt this total cut-off in the future, if they haven't started already.
|