Thinking of upgrading

[the.Mtn.Man]

Originally Posted by DNSB

What's to demonstrate? The library pays more to have "multiple" copies to loan which increases the payments to the publisher and author which improves the chances of them remaining in business.

What needs to be demonstrated is the notion that allowing libraries to lend an unlimited number of digital books would significantly affect the profits of authors and publishers.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by the.Mtn.Man

What needs to be demonstrated is the notion that allowing libraries to lend an unlimited number of digital books would significantly affect the profits of authors and publishers.

Given that libraries currently pay more for the ability to lend multiple copies while you would have one price for unlimited loans, it seems moderately obvious that the current system is likely to lead to the publishers/authors obtaining more money unless you want the publishers/authors to increase their pricing for a single copy.

[the.Mtn.Man]

That doesn't really support your position.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by the.Mtn.Man

That doesn't really support your position.

I would disagree with your position. If a company takes in more money for a zero to minimal increase in costs, I find it hard to believe that someone would argue that their ability to produce profits is not going to increase. Perhaps in an alternate world where fairies, unicorns and droids cavort in the backyard...

[the.Mtn.Man]

Sure, they could theoretically make more money if they gouged their customers (assuming the customers allowed themselves to be gouged), but that's not what I was asking. I was wondering if there was any reason to think that simply allowing libraries to lend digital books without restriction would significantly impact the profits of publishers and authors. In other words, charge as much as they're charging now but allow an unlimited number of people to borrow a book at any one time. How much money would they lose? Would they lose any at all?

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by the.Mtn.Man

Sure, they could theoretically make more money if they gouged their customers (assuming the customers allowed themselves to be gouged), but that's not what I was asking. I was wondering if there was any reason to think that simply allowing libraries to lend digital books without restriction would significantly impact the profits of publishers and authors. In other words, charge as much as they're charging now but allow an unlimited number of people to borrow a book at any one time. How much money would they lose? Would they lose any at all?

As I've pointed out before, the only way to maintain their current income level while allowing an unlimited number of simultaneous loans would require that the average cost of ebooks made available to libraries would have to increase. If this increase did not happen, income would drop, costs would not diminish noticeably and corporate profits would drop.

You have noticed that some ebooks have a restricted number of loans? One ebook at the library branch I normally borrow from had to be repurchased after 26 loans while other ebooks must be repurchased on an annual basis? Assuming a 2 week average loan, about the same time period. Check HarperCollins Canada, Penguin Group and Simon & Schuster for examples of this type of behaviour. I don't know what the behaviour is in your part of the world but here the best way to describe the majority of ebook pricing for libraries is predatory -- $12.99 for me to purchase the ebook, $100 for the library. One comment from an author suggested that none of the extra cost is being passed on in the form of extra royalties for the author.

One item from Quill and Quire is found at: Canadian public libraries campaign for lower ebook prices.

Anyhow, I think this thread has drifted so far off topic that one of the Voyagers is about to drift into view so I think it would be best to agree to disagree.

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery." Charles Dickens, David Copperfield

[koboy]

agree to disagree sounds good.

best wishes koboy

[the.Mtn.Man]

Agree that I'm right, and you have a deal.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by the.Mtn.Man

Agree that I'm right, and you have a deal.

Buckley's chance of that happening.

To quote Thomas Paine, “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”

[the.Mtn.Man]

"Never joke with someone who has no sense of humor."
-Mountain Man

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by the.Mtn.Man

"Never joke with someone who has no sense of humor."
-Mountain Man

Prior to now, I've never met a sufferer from Nichtlachen-Keinwortz syndrome.

“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” Mark Twain