yeaaaaaahhhhh. while I get that the library has to agree to licenses, that is a very good example of content owners REALLY BADLY FAILING TO GET THE FUCKING POINT.
To be fair, if I could get any ebook I wanted instantly for free through my local library, there would be no reason for me to ever pay money for books ever again.
It's not a case of them failing to the the point. It's a case of them having tremendous difficulty trying to work out what the new model should be.
The old one is easy: library buys X books, lends them. If it wants to lend more, it buys more.
New one: library buys an eBook. This eBook file could be 'loaned' an infinite number of times without restriction. But is it fair that a library pays for one eBook copy and then lends that copy to hundreds of borrowers?
We know that restricting eBook loans seems 'wrong' to borrowers. But equally, publishers find it wrong not to be paid for each copy of their eBook - which is fair enough, really.
Until someone comes up with a model that satisfies readers and publishers, library eBook lending isn't likely set the world alight anytime soon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
while I get that the library has to agree to licenses, that is a very good example of content owners REALLY BADLY FAILING TO GET THE FUCKING POINT.
again.
ahem
no subject
no subject
The old one is easy: library buys X books, lends them. If it wants to lend more, it buys more.
New one: library buys an eBook. This eBook file could be 'loaned' an infinite number of times without restriction. But is it fair that a library pays for one eBook copy and then lends that copy to hundreds of borrowers?
We know that restricting eBook loans seems 'wrong' to borrowers. But equally, publishers find it wrong not to be paid for each copy of their eBook - which is fair enough, really.
Until someone comes up with a model that satisfies readers and publishers, library eBook lending isn't likely set the world alight anytime soon.