[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Only overdrive cannot exist without publisher or library. Libraries don't depend on overdrive and will still exist with a limited list of publishers. They are existing right now with a limited list of publishers.

You're contradicting yourself right here, libraries require publishers period full stop. Can they survive on a "limited list of publishers"? Yes, but that wasn't the position put forward. And they'd absolutely not survive on academic publishers alone.

They cannot afford to maximize profits at all costs. Publishers are not always doing things in the best interest of profit. Penguin Random, for example, is a lot nicer to libraries than Macmillan, even before this current mess. For profit? Nah, don't think so. They simply are more interested in a good relationship with the libraries. Libraries are important, even if they are less capitalistic and more socialistic in nature.

Which is why I didn't say they had no other guides on them. More likely Penguin Random House feels they can maximize profits with their approach. Just because this approach happens to coincide with what the libraries want, does not mean PRH isn't making the choice with profit in mind.

You are the only one calling it "depriving the public of a part of their service". Actually, if they wouldn't boycott they are depriving the public of equal access during the embargo time. I am not sure how exactly they will go about it - it could be interpreted that after 8 weeks a book out of embargo can be bought, or that any book subject to the embargo at the beginning is a no buy forever. I suspect it is the former, because the librarians argument for the boycott is the inability to meet demand of their patrons. And no, your argument that one copy is better than no copy, is incorrect. It is contrary to the equal access for everybody in a timely fashion. There is also a chance that Macmillan changes tack sometime and stops further embargos.

Sorry if I'm the only one calling a spade a spade while others insist upon referring to it as only a boycott without focusing on the affects of the boycott. The libraries should be rather familiar with the written language, their statement has been "We will no longer purchase ebooks from Macmillan". That's rather cut and dried, no matter how much you wish to try and romanticize it and the libraries stance with flowery imaginings of things not said.

Define "timely fashion", with physical books it's possible you'll wait just as long if not longer. Should we then criticize the libraries for not providing the public with books in a timely fashion? As there is no requirement to read a book within the first 8 weeks, or even the first 8 years of its release your argument for "timely fashion" is absurd, and has no relevance when the libraries are opting to never provide the ebook to patrons, as opposed to a limited availability which opens to a wider one later.

Stop providing ebooks forever or temporarily after release? Sure they depend on publishers to provide ebooks, but that really is not getting them any money until a library purchases a license. Shouldn't OD complain about libraries for planning their boycott thingy?

Hardly, as mentioned already Overdrive can't survive without both publishers and more so libraries. They know who butters their bread so to speak, it's in their interest to make sure the libraries continue to be happy.

Apparently they are not buying enough, or you wouldn't have people that buy ebooks go to the library to consume Big5 ebooks without buying for themselves.

No matter how successful you are, or how good your product, or how much the public in general loves you and your product, there are always people who will try to get it for free if they can, through legal means like the library, or illegal means like piracy (please note these are two different things and I am still not linking them together save that both are means of obtaining digital goods for free).