The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds

I feel like the Seattle Public Library part of the original title (The Seattle Public Library Is Reducing Our Maximum Digital Holds. Here’s Why.) is relevant. Could drop "public", "our", and "Here's why" if it's a length issue.

> As a consumer, when you buy an e-book or e-audiobook, it costs about the same or sometimes even less than the print book version. But for libraries, the e-book or e-audiobook version of a title actually costs up to three times or more than the print version.

> This is because publishers use a licensing model for selling e-books to libraries. Each copy of a digital book title requires a purchase of a license. While there are many types of licenses, the most common license needs to be purchased and then re-purchased every year.

This is why I have zero sympathy for Publishers' efforts to go after the Internet Archive for their scan and lend digitap library. The publishers have been price gouging libraries in ways that shoild be straight up illegal and most Authors have gone along with it.

> While there are many types of licenses, the most common license needs to be purchased and then re-purchased every year.

Forcing libraries to repurchase their entire collection every year should be illegal. I would also settle for a loophole that would allow the library to OCR a physical copy they own and then own the resulting digital copy.

"What do holds have to do with the cost of digital books?

This may seem surprising, but patron holds are the single biggest factor in rising costs. To maintain reasonable wait times, the Library buys additional licenses of a digital title when patrons place more holds on it. That means that when hundreds of patrons place holds on a single New York Times bestseller, the costs of “buying down the holds” can quickly become astronomical."

How odd - I know it's the licenscing and I can understand the reasoning behind, but at a distance it seems like ritual almost. When they get the e-book, the data is there, and when you hold it, you get a copy, the "original" is untouched, but the library has to act as if it was unavailable.

It feels like how electric cars add artifical engine sounds.

> Forcing libraries to repurchase their entire collection every year should be illegal.

We could have public libraries be entirely outside the copyright system. I doubt it’d have a material effect on production of new books.

If as a society we have a problem that our libraries are too popular, then that’s probably a good thing.

> I would also settle for a loophole that would allow the library to OCR a physical copy they own and then own the resulting digital copy.

Something about this reminds me of that company with the thousands of tiny antennas that got sued to oblivion.