4 ms·

Publishers have historically viewed a library copy as a threat of patrons who would have otherwise purchased their product. The economics of publishing itself a

Publishers have historically viewed a library copy as a threat of patrons who would have otherwise purchased their product. The economics of publishing itself are transformed with digital formats. There is (virtually) no material cost. Replication is immediate and easy. Transportation is (again, virtually) free. Book Publishers largely are the ones to lose out in digital publishing. The only thing they have left to offer is connections for distribution. And since most of their costs were associated with the production and distribution of a material book, most of those costs disappear too. Cory Doctorow has asserted in the past that the biggest issue any author has is discovery - do people actually know the work I wrote exists? Once you've crossed that barrier, if you ask people to pay for your work many of them will. Even if you don't prevent them from freely replicating your work.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Yes, indeed - that's the conundrum I'm posing. Why should a publisher promote a book, or pay an advance for a book, that might sell very few copies in a world of free and peer to peer distribution? They (and their authors) can exist in a system where people pay $10 for a book, instead of $0 for a book. Digitally enabled libraries are a tricky spanner in the works for them, so they create a walled garden app that simulates lending. Thinking a little creatively, a simple modern alternative for digital lending might be a building with some nice chairs and coffee and 5k e-readers with a Kindle Unlimited (or library equivalent) subscription on them, and anyone can walk in. Then library services can also issue a fleet of them to people who sit below a certain income level.