3 ms·
Usually I'm against restrictions like this, but this doesn't seem that bad. It's only for ebooks and for first 8 weeks, with people waiting years for the next b
by Hitton 7y ago
Usually I'm against restrictions like this, but this doesn't seem that bad. It's only for ebooks and for first 8 weeks, with people waiting years for the next book of their favourite author, waiting 2 more months when they are not willing to buy that book is nothing.
- moate 7y agoThe book is being bought. The libraries aren't getting these books for free. If you, private citizen Hitton, want to buy this book the day it's released and then lend it out to every single person you know, you're able to do this. Why shouldn't the library? Also, there are lending limits on e-books from libraries. It's not as if the library can buy the e-book and then lend it out simultaneously to 20,000 people. They're already required to rate limit how many people can have an e-book checked out at once.
- rini17 7y agoThe limit of 1 (one) copy per library described in article seems fully reasonable to you?
- moate 7y agoNo, of course not. That's my point. OP is throwing out a "let them eat cake" argument about how he's fine with this state of affairs. I'm pointing out that the libraries are buying these e-books in order to lend them out. Personally I feel that the publishers are misunderstanding their market. Library people are library people. It's a small, heavy-use userbase. People who buy books the second they come out aren't going to suddenly become library people because a few dozen more e-books become available early on. There's still limits on how the libraries are allowed to lend them (i.e. they can't buy one book and lend it out 100 times, but they could buy 100 books and lend those out 100 times). This feels like publishers are misunderstanding their users, but at the same time I'm just one user, wtf do I know.