What's missing from this discussion is the impact of reduced book availability on the poor or middle class.
I grew up without much money, and spent much of my time reading books borrowed from libraries. If library books were not available, it's unlikely I would have been able to read much beyond my school textbooks.
If the argument is that print book eventually wear out, forcing libraries to replace them, then by all means figure out the average number of "lends" before a library replaces a book, and provide books to libraries with limits along those lines. I assume that print books last far more than 26 lends.
In the face of radically improved theoretical access to information, changes to the library model that reduce the availability of books for people of limited means should be very carefully considered.
And yes, I know that libraries can still purchase and make available print books, but they have limited budgets. Libraries will be pressured to offer e-books, and if e-books cost substantially more than print books did per lend, that will result in a smaller number of available books for the most disadvantaged.
Same here. The public library was basically my weekend babysitter and I would read 2-3 books on an average weekend. It's hard to imagine how that would happen at a time when public book availability drastically declines without a corresponding increase in e-book readers for low-income residents.
If the lower and middle class keep getting squeezed out of things like libraries and media, perhaps pirating is the best option. That alone would apply strong downward force in cost of media already created. We see this by the fact that movies take on range of weeks before in retailers. It used to be sometimes even years.
I can only see where these ebook loaning schemes go. I had a friend in the uni who bought an engineering text as an ebook. It was 50% the physical book price, so no big deal.... Until he found out of the conditions of sale as a EULA. He could only print 10 pages, and the book would self destruct after 180 days. So, I do what I do and cracked it for him. Took perhaps an hour.
I understand what these libraries are fighting against. And I also know what's at stake for people who can't afford books. And then there's this short story about a right to read...
As a librarian I can tell you that the people who loose here are not only readers, but communities. It's very difficult to explain to a user who wants title X in e-book format that the publisher doesn't offer it, that we can't buy certain titles or that availability is limited due to publisher limitations. They simply see a failure of the library model. Most of these users will not turn to pirating, they will turn to buying. This is bad for them, for the library and for the community that relies on and benefits from that library.
Of course, this will also drive piracy, but to a smaller degree that people think (most of our e-book users are not technically literate). I do think, however, that over time as more users find it's difficult to get reasonably priced content to their readers, they will turn to alternate methods, and force publishers into a DRM free, reader friendly system. Of course, that, like music, locks out libraries.
Our only real hope is that publishers can work with authors to come up with a 21st century compensation system that allows for subscription purchasing (ensuring an ongoing revenue for publishers and unfettered access for library users) or that more authors bypass publishers all together and make their material available in a library friendly manner.
> It's very difficult to explain to a user who wants title X in e-book format that the publisher doesn't offer it, that we can't buy certain titles or that availability is limited due to publisher limitations.
To you, perhaps. But not to the old lady who just got a Kindle for Christmas. Or to the soccer mom who bought her kid a nook thinking she would never have to buy books for it because you could get everything at the library. Those people are upset and ultimately it's the library they are upset with because that's where they expected the service. Publishers are ephemeral, they are big companies most people don't have direct contact with. The library is a building that you can vote against next time there's a referendum for a new building or tax levy hike.
I think that publishers which try to make things more inconvenient for readers so that they sell more books are going to lose in the long run.
If a widespread technology makes things easier and more convenient, and you're not able to maintain an effective monopoly, then people are going to choose easy and convenient.
I grew up without much money, and spent much of my time reading books borrowed from libraries. If library books were not available, it's unlikely I would have been able to read much beyond my school textbooks.
If the argument is that print book eventually wear out, forcing libraries to replace them, then by all means figure out the average number of "lends" before a library replaces a book, and provide books to libraries with limits along those lines. I assume that print books last far more than 26 lends.
In the face of radically improved theoretical access to information, changes to the library model that reduce the availability of books for people of limited means should be very carefully considered.
And yes, I know that libraries can still purchase and make available print books, but they have limited budgets. Libraries will be pressured to offer e-books, and if e-books cost substantially more than print books did per lend, that will result in a smaller number of available books for the most disadvantaged.