4 ms·

> if librarians face large demand for popular titles, they may have to buy multiple licenses—otherwise readers might face a very long wait. Artificial scarcity

> if librarians face large demand for popular titles, they may have to buy multiple licenses—otherwise readers might face a very long wait. Artificial scarcity really annoys me, because it's just pure greed. I understand paying multiple fees for multiple physical objects - there's a real cost to manufacturing & distributing a physical object. But duplicating & distributing digital information is so cheap as to almost be free, but pricing doesn't reflect that.

xhkkffbf 4y ago
But it's not greed. It's an attempt to spread out the development costs among all of the users. Here's an assignment: spend 6-24 months writing a book. Then watch someone give away copies for free. In the past, book writing was a good way for society to fund information synthesis and research.
- gigama 4y ago
  Some authors may feel that way. Personally, I'm glad to see my non-fiction work made widely available (thinking globally) and preserved forever in the media commons of the Internet Archive. They also only allow single-copy checkouts of currently copyrighted works for very brief periods of time, like a few hours at a time. Suitable for researchers and public reference.
  - xhkkffbf 4y ago
    Sure. THat's you're choice. I'm all for authors making the choice that's right for them. But I personally know many authors of non-fiction works who would not be able to find the time to write them if they weren't getting paid. It's not just a hobby for rich kids and people with bosses who want their employees to write books as publicity. It's also a job. So it's nice that you want to give yours away for free. But don't ruin the business for the people who need to work for a living.
- dr_dshiv 4y ago
  Q: should the publishers work with IA to get a particular dollar amount per use from the federal government based on the public benefit of positive media consumption?

xhkkffbf 4y ago

But it's not greed. It's an attempt to spread out the development costs among all of the users. Here's an assignment: spend 6-24 months writing a book. Then watch someone give away copies for free. In the past, book writing was a good way for society to fund information synthesis and research.

gigama 4y ago
Some authors may feel that way. Personally, I'm glad to see my non-fiction work made widely available (thinking globally) and preserved forever in the media commons of the Internet Archive. They also only allow single-copy checkouts of currently copyrighted works for very brief periods of time, like a few hours at a time. Suitable for researchers and public reference.
- xhkkffbf 4y ago
  Sure. THat's you're choice. I'm all for authors making the choice that's right for them. But I personally know many authors of non-fiction works who would not be able to find the time to write them if they weren't getting paid. It's not just a hobby for rich kids and people with bosses who want their employees to write books as publicity. It's also a job. So it's nice that you want to give yours away for free. But don't ruin the business for the people who need to work for a living.
dr_dshiv 4y ago
Q: should the publishers work with IA to get a particular dollar amount per use from the federal government based on the public benefit of positive media consumption?