That’s publishers. In fact, this is all publishers. We lieberrrians don’t have anything to do with it and hate it like hell and all Montagues.
Again, each library system purchases books through Overdrive on a per-title basis.
Preach it, fellow librarian! (Children’s or adult services? I’m children’s.)
Wish publishers wouldn’t be so stingy about the whole thing.
I have a fairly new Kindle and I like it, but still enjoy paper books. What I’m probably going to do is get most of my paper books from the library, but if it turns out to be a really good book that I’ll enjoy re-reading again and again, I’ll get it on Kindle.
Gone with the Wind, Watership Down, and The Godfather are some of those “go-to” books for me. I already have GWTW on Kindle.
Hadn’t been back to this thread but… I don’t want to buy it. I want to borrow it, like, you know, a book from the library. I’m perfectly happy with it disappearing from my device when I’m finished with it. What’s unsatisfying it that they are treated exactly as if they are physical books, which is an absurd limit on the format. I’m not saying unlimited downloads is the answer, but something more along the line of what Justin Bailey suggests below:
This exactly. Ebooks cost much less for the publisher to produce and deliver, they cost less for the library to store and handle; is it unreasonable to propose that the licensing system to be different? Perhaps for a new best-seller, offering something like a 6 month bulk license for, say 20 copies, which drops to five after the book’s been out a while?
-
A link to Overdrive Console’s unhelpfully brief page about their “one copy, one user” lending policy:
http://help.overdrive.com/article/0720/How-does-the-One-Copy-One-User-Lending-Policy-work -
“Since the policy for selling e-books to libraries is one copy-one lender, this means only one person may check out that e-book at a time regardless of how popular it may be.”
Excerpted from: http://authorsadvocate.net/2012/08/16/demand-for-e-books-increases-at-libraries.aspx -
A much longer article from 2010, with more information about the book-publishing-industry-instigated OCOL policy and discussion of other e-book issues and controversies:
http://www.thebookseller.com/news/pa-moves-calm-unease-over-e-book-lending.html
Since this article was published in 2010, the OCOL policy may have changed, either in whole or in part. But since this is the Pit, not GQ, those who find themselves worked up about this issue can look it up their own d@m# selves. 
FWIW, I have a mile (1.6 km)-long list of complaints about the Overdrive Console system. Thus, this post should not necessarily be construed as a defense of their policies or practices.
Talking about adjustments in relative pricing and time-limited bulk rates is one thing, but if you want to undo OCOL then you’re talking about sabotaging the system that pays authors. Everybody who loves reading should want libraries to pay more for access to more books, or for more access to books. Unless you think the books already published are all we’ll ever need.
Bullshit, plain and simple. There’s nothing stopping the publishers from creating a new royalty system for bulk purchases and/or site licenses.
They could create a new system with various tweaks, as I said. But a system which abandoned the discrete-copy principle (in which libraries pay [publishers pay] authors for each copy, which can only be possessed by one reader at a time) would stiff writers, and cause them to withdraw from it entirely.
You can’t possibly know that. No publisher has switched to a different model for paying authors of bulk ebook purchases so we have no idea how such a payment system would be setup.
Besides that, you’re treading dangerously close to the “Every copy pirated is a lost sale” mentality. And I don’t anyone outside of the board rooms of giant media companies believes that.
Nobody here is arguing against discounts for bulk purchases. I’m talking about discrete copies, that can only be read by one person at a time.
If you were a writer, how much would you need to be paid for a digital copy of a novel that you spent two years writing, with the understanding that you would be paid only once, and any number of people could read (copies of) that copy?
I don’t know, but a bulk purchase/site license copy would cost a hell of a lot more than a single copy of a book (even at inflated ebook prices). Some sort of agreement could be reached, I’m sure. Maybe big names like Stephen King or James Patterson wouldn’t go for it, but I imagine plenty of authors would.
But no library is interested in paying a huge one-time fee for unlimited access to a little-read work, nor should they be. The idea isn’t even meaningful except for popular authors whose titles are in demand by many people at the same time.
I’m not arguing that. In those cases, one copy one borrower makes sense.
Do you suppose that if libraries were invented today instead of centuries ago, publishers would bitch about the very idea, because good, capital-fearing consumers should each buy a copy of every book they want to read, and not be able to borrow a copy from some heathen, communist circulation system? Just a thought.
Well, that’s 1 book a month from a very limited selection. It’s just a tiny bonus for Amazon Prime subscribers.
That’s rather different from an unlimited monthly service a la Netflix.
(As a Prime member myself, I sure wish they offered more.)
I don’t think libraries would be invented today. I suspect that ebooks and the internet are rendering libraries as we know them obsolete.
[QUOTE=coffeecat]
Do you suppose that if libraries were invented today instead of centuries ago, publishers would bitch about the very idea, because good, capital-fearing consumers should each buy a copy of every book they want to read, and not be able to borrow a copy from some heathen, communist circulation system? Just a thought.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not here to argue any point, pro or con, just wanted to point out there’s a capitalist happy medium between the polar opposites of your two scenarios. Any reader of Jane Austen’s novels can point to Mudie’s Subscription Library as an example.
Well, crap! I was trying to say two different things at the same time and ended up mangling my facts.
Jane Austen mentions subscription libraries in her novels. Anthony Trollope mentions Mudie’s by name.
So even libraries use different models for books with different states of demand - we lease very popular books. Because nobody wants five jillion copies of Fifty Shades of Grey ten years from now.
Before I got my ereader, I sorted authors into various categories. Some I would buy in new hardback, some in either new hardback or paperback, some I would only buy used, some I would read if I’d borrowed the book, and others I wouldn’t read at all even if the book was free. If I didn’t know much about an author, I’d buy in used paperback. If I bought an author in new books, it was because I’d been pleased with the author’s previous books. Nowadays, if I’m pretty sure that I’m going to re-read a book, I’ll try to get it in an ebook edition.