EBook Libraries Don't Need To Be Local

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Mikou

The book might not need to be repurchased at full price, but if it is published by Hachette, the license will have to be renewed, for a fee, after the ebook has been loaned 26 times. I believe they are the only publisher that does thus, but I wouldn't be surprised if other publishers eventually follow in their footsteps... Of those who haven't disallowed ebook lending altogether.

Read more here.

It's HarperCollins with the 26 loan limit.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I have given you nothing but facts. You might wish that a library could loan out a e-book forever, but that is not how it actually works.

I see, thanks.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

He is the way that it works: a library buys a license for an e-book. That license allows the library to loan the e-book out x number of times. When that number of downloads is reached, the library must either purchase a new license or must cease loaning out the book.

Libraries should simply purchase the ebook not a license. Digital files don't wear out, this re-download is puzzling.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Thus, a consortium of libraries pooling their purchases would result in the same number of purchases, as the number of downloads would remain the same, and the number of downloads determines the number of purchases.

The number of purchases should determine how many copies can be loaned out at the same time.

[QuantumIguana]

That e-books don't wear out is why the publishers will only license books for a certain number of downloads. With paper books, the duration of the book determines how long the library can lend out the book without buying a new copy. With e-books, the book lasts forever, and publishers aren't going to sell a book to the library if the library never has to purchase a new copy.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

He is the way that it works: a library buys a license for an e-book. That license allows the library to loan the e-book out x number of times. When that number of downloads is reached, the library must either purchase a new license or must cease loaning out the book.

Who else besides HarperCollins caps the number of times an ebook may be loaned?

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

That e-books don't wear out is why the publishers will only license books for a certain number of downloads. With paper books, the duration of the book determines how long the library can lend out the book without buying a new copy. With e-books, the book lasts forever, and publishers aren't going to sell a book to the library if the library never has to purchase a new copy.

That is a perfect summary of what I was trying to point out is broken.

The library should not purchase any licenses, they should purchase the ebook.
The fact that digital files last "forever" is a law of physics, this is an advantage not a disadvantage. To claim otherwise for profit is scamming the tax payers and should never be allowed.
The publisher should have no say in whether a library can or cannot purchase a book. If it is for sale, it is for sale.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

That is a perfect summary of what I was trying to point out is broken.

The library should not purchase any licenses, they should purchase the ebook.
The fact that digital files last "forever" is a law of physics, this is an advantage not a disadvantage. To claim otherwise for profit is scamming the tax payers and should never be allowed.
The publisher should have no say in whether a library can or cannot purchase a book. If it is for sale, it is for sale.

Good luck with that.

[RDaneel54]

In Central Ohio, we have a consortium of 14 library systems which include various city, county and regional libraries. E-books are shared among these 14 library systems, I have no idea how. Because of this, we have 17,319 titles currently. Considering most of the big (small minded) six are not included since they have bigger things to do, that's a lot of ebooks.

A national library system would be great if grew out of consortiums such as this. I would not like to see the U.S. federal government get involved as Big Brother has his hands in too many pies as it is.

Even with the consortium I indicated above, there are ebooks I can't get here. So, I am also a member of the Free Library of Philadelphia.

Prior to e-books, libraries wherever I lived would do interlibrary loaning. I've lived in tiny towns and big cities and interlibrary cooperation have always been an aid for patrons to get books their library did not have on the shelf.

I'm sure there is a lot more to it than I see as a patron.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Good luck with that.

Thanks! I do see your position, but your momentum is completely unknown :-)

[QuantumIguana]

A consortium that was too large could cause problems as well, for example, if the consortium decides not to buy certain books. A consortium that got too big might have too much power over what people could read.

[RDaneel54]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

A consortium that was too large could cause problems as well, for example, if the consortium decides not to buy certain books. A consortium that got too big might have too much power over what people could read.

If the various library systems could each have a say, it would be more democratic than one giant library like a huge city, state or national. That way each community would have input on which books to get.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

Thanks! I do see your position, but your momentum is completely unknown :-)

Or as Heisenberg said when the police officer pulled him over and asked if he knew how fast he was going, "No, but I know exactly where I am!"

Seriously, my position is simply that publishers shouldn't object to library consortiums, because they won't result in less purchases. What sort of policies publishers and libraries actually negotiate is a different matter.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by RDaneel54

If the various library systems could each have a say, it would be more democratic than one giant library like a huge city, state or national. That way each community would have input on which books to get.

Possible, but tricky. You could have libraries buying into certain books. They might say that they want to buy into books A, B and C, but don't want books E and F. It would only be fair that since they didn't buy into books E and F, that library's patrons shouldn't have access to books E and F, otherwise other libraries would have to shoulder the burden. Another library might say that they will buy into books A, E and F but not books B and C.