Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomk2
Libraries are expensive, inefficient, government mandated and taxpayer supported entities. 11% of the budget goes to the library collection, 89% goes to the staff salaries, and overhead, which includes providing meeting spaces for the public and computers. If a library can only provide less popular and older works, some of those taxpayers might get to thinking that all that library tax money is not well spent. So the libraries will defend themselves against a publisher who runs the risk of marginalizing libraries, in case taxpayers take notice that the libraries are expensive and inefficient providers of (now older) content.
Is that too harsh? I like and use my library for ebooks, but I do not think I am inaccurate in what I have said.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Loo
|
Ok so lets review
Macmillan restricts the purchase of *multiple* ebook licenses from libraries for the first 90 days of release. They can still purchase a license for those 90 and however many licenses they wish after the 90.
This does not limit the kinds of books the library has, old vs new, popular vs unpopular. It simply limits within a relatively small timeframe, the number of copies of new releases.
The library in question decides 'nah we wont buy any new ebooks from you'
Using your example, those taxpayers are going to get a whole lot madder with the library's decision than the publishers decision.
Sure the library has the right to try and get the better deal out of the publisher. But the figures which others have quoted show that the libraries need the publishers more than the publishers seem to need the libraries. So making power plays by not buying books is a rather questionable move.