Is my library the only one that, if you check out a book and return it in substantially worse condition, you have to pay for the damage? Why should the most egregious bad book handlers be factored into the cost analysis if the library makes up for them elsewhere?
That varies by library - my local library allows me to download e-books to my Kindle. Not all of them, but some of them. If I go to their Overdrive site, they have their books searchable by device.
My big beef with the downloadable e-books is you can’t push the boundaries of their due date; with a physical book, if I have one chapter left, I can read it and bring the book back a day or two late (yeah, I know that’s not the best library etiquette, but do YOU bring back books on time if you only have a little bit left to read?) I got burned a couple times on e-Books vanishing when I didn’t realize they were due and had only a teeeeny tiny bit left to read.
I’m pretty involved in the eBook discussion within my library and this was a big deal when it happened among librarians. I don’t remember anything about “26 circulations is how long it takes a book to fall apart” being part of the reasoning. But I’ll see if I can find the original notice.
This I don’t believe. Even with the larger upfront expense for eBooks, a physical book has to be handled by at least three people everytime it goes out. That’s a lot of salary to deal with. Theoretically, an eBook is handled by no one. It HAS to be cheaper in the long run.
It’s not really that simple. If a book has circulated 120 times (or even just 26) and the last person brings it back with a broken spine, did they “break” it? Or were the just the last person to handle it before it fell apart on its own? It’s a balancing act and I’m sure I’ve charged someone who literally looked at the book and it fell apart and let someone slide who purposely tossed a book on a table and then watched the spine explode.
Of course eventually when tablets become cheap enough, libraries can just lend them out preloaded with normal permanent ebooks and sidestep the whole issue 
In a university library, this work is rarely done by salaried employees. It’s students receiving minimum wage, some of which is subsidized by the Federal Work Study program.
In reality, an eBook does have to be “handled”. As I said, the head of Cataloging and Acquisitions here told me that eBooks cost more than print books in terms of her staff’s time (not the desk staff’s time) because they have to check periodically to ensure that all of our eBooks are actually still accessible. They don’t have to do that for print books. I have no idea how the true cost works out in the long term, and neither did she, but I can say that it is salaried staff and not minimum wage student workers who have to deal with any problems with eBook access.
On the bright side, that was some first-class obfusciatrism.
I can’t think of any possible reason why publishing companies should give libraries favorable terms or anything. I mean it’s not like publishing companies have any incentive in encouraging people to read more.
Well, if the libraries don’t have them, people are increasingly going to go to the various websites that offer the books for free, since reading on an eBook is becoming so popular. At least if they sell them to the library, they get money for what these people see.
Heck, at least one of the sites I frequent very specifically only has books that are not available as ebooks at any library.
EDIT: Or I guess they could just not read books by publishers that aren’t available at their library.
Hell, I’ve bought new PB books (I picked one book up from the pallet as it was being stocked) which basically exploded when I opened it. Apparently the glue on that batch of books was bad, or they didn’t put enough on, or SOMETHING. When I brought the book back, wanting another copy, the clerk told me that ALL the copies were bad. I was very disappointed, because I had really looked forward to that book.
Getting back to the original subject…I could sorta get behind the publisher’s reasoning if the book was capable of being checked out by multiple patrons at once. So a library could buy the newest Twilight or whatever, and have five or six patrons check it out in one day, and the next day several more check it out, etc., up to the 26 checkout limits. That might be an efficient use of library funding. Otherwise…I’m not a big fan of this idea.
I found the original article I was looking for. It looks like Harper Collins considered the circulation lifespan of a book and the physical lifespan of a book when deciding on the 26 circulations number.
My point is that nothing compels people to read books at all. Plenty of people are happy to fill their entertainment needs through other means like TV or video games.
Publishers should be doing everything they can do encourage people to read. One way to do that would be subsidizing libraries. They should be thinking like drug dealers: give the product away for free until you get people hooked. Then you can move them up to the hard stuff and start charging them.
I think my “Gateway Books” program shows promise. But those close-minded bastards at the American Library Association won’t return my calls.
For some reason that page won’t format right for me.
But considering a number of factors is what they should be doing. And those considerations are still not the same as saying that all books fall apart after a year.
The Internet should make it easier to quote exactly. Instead it acts like a game of telephone, except that everybody comes up with a more biased version than the last.
That doesn’t make the 26 number the right one. Just that the accusations are self-serving rather than accurate. Quel surprise, huh?
And consider also academic libraries, where one goal is to preserve books (and knowledge generally) for the ages. What if all the great books in all the great libraries of the past 3000 years had all expired after 26 readings?
I’m also unable to get it to work for me.
Strawman. This is not even a possible scenario. The limitations are for circulation of a specific edition, not for the book itself.