Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds

shelftalkblog.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 159 posts

Re: The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds

#31

Post by sojournerc »

praxulus wrote: post #23
waveBidder wrote: post #20

Honestly at this point, I feel like the ethical thing to do is "steal" digital and buy/borrow physical, the copyright surrounding digital goods has been so thoroughly gamed in the favor of publishers.

Is there reason to believe authors aren't getting a cut of the library license costs? I used to buy my ebooks until I realized libraries had ebook catalogues. A large portion of the books I've borrowed are sales the author lost, they ought to be compensated somehow.

Maybe just cynicism, but publishing houses are not known for generosity towards authors. (Much like music studios)

Re: The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds

#32

Post by MattGaiser »

greyface- wrote: post #22
dmbche wrote: post #8

"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 bec…

People say that if public libraries didn't already exist and were proposed today as a new thing, they'd be found illegal. I agree that they've sort of lost the plot by taking this digital lending stuff seriously.

I imagine today you would have libraries, but they would be like Netflix with maybe some small physical outposts in really major cities.

So instead of the Seattle Library, it would be the some big tech nonprofit at best that would lisence content in bulk.

Re: The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds

#33

Post by lgas »

praxulus wrote: post #23
waveBidder wrote: post #20

Honestly at this point, I feel like the ethical thing to do is "steal" digital and buy/borrow physical, the copyright surrounding digital goods has been so thoroughly gamed in the favor of publishers.

Is there reason to believe authors aren't getting a cut of the library license costs? I used to buy my ebooks until I realized libraries had ebook catalogues. A large portion of the books I've borrowed are sales the author lost, they ought to be compensated somehow.

I don't know how anything about getting a cut works, but my understanding is that authors don't have to allow their books to be in the library at all, and libraries specifically need to get permission to lend e-books.

Re: The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds

#34

Post by jldugger »

I don't live in Seattle and I don't use that many digital holds; for me most are just video games. But recently my county library added a limit for physical holds. "Wait times" seem to be one of those Goodhart's law metrics: by capping holds, you haven't really reduced wait times, just moved most of it out of sight of the reporting API.

But there's also kind of a mismatch of incentives at play here. As a patron, I really care more about throughput than latency on every hold I place. It takes me days or weeks to enjoy what I've checked out. But so does everyone else, so there usually isn't something I want on the shelves. In order to keep up throughput, I need something in my holds list ready when I return something. So I have a few dozen holds that go into the system as basically lottery tickets.

If it were just me, a policy of "unlimited holds, 2 out at a time" Netflix style would probably work, and I try to implement that by pausing (when I remember). As long I have an item or two out, I'd rather the librarians didn't consider my holds as any kind of "wait time" to optimize.

Re: The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds

#35

Post by kazinator »

If libraries want to be part of the e-racket, maybe they need to drink the full commercial Kool-Aid, and introduce a two-tier model: a free, regular membership and a paid, premium membership. The premium memberships fees go toward buying content, and are rewarded with perks like longer loan periods, priority holds, and exclusive access to new material.

Re: The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds

#36

Post by LeafItAlone »

kazinator wrote: post #29
dmbche wrote: post #8

"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 bec…

It's beyond odd; it's simply idiotic. You would not "buy down" holds for physical books, or not to a ridiculous degree. If there are 100 holds for some book, you're not going to go out and buy 75 or whatever. Why do it for e-books? Cause, wee, they don't take up shelf space in the stacks? If a book is popular, let the patrons "buy down" their own copy, or else wait behind 90 other people. There is always bittorrent a…

> It's beyond odd; it's simply idiotic. You would not "buy down" holds for physical books, or not to a ridiculous degree. If there are 100 holds for some book, you're not going to go out and buy 75 or whatever.

Libraries certainly do this. Might not be at (your suggested) 75/100 rates, but if a physical book is popular, library systems do purchase more copies.

Re: The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds

#37

Post by EnigmaFlare »

dmbche wrote: post #8

"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 bec…

Don't forget that printed books also have license fees included in their price. The printer also has the data there and could just print extra copies and sell them at cost+profit but they're not allowed to because copyright.

I don't think a latest bestseller should be in a library in the first place. Maybe a couple of years later when the hype has died down if it's still a good book, they can have it for the few people who want it for what it is rather than being trendy. But I never expect libraries to have anything new and fashionable. Movies and music too are always old or obscure, at least where I am.

It's funny that these artificial licensing constraints for software seem much more natural and acceptable. Especially software where the complete thing is distributed for free but you have to buy a license to activate it. It's even more in-you-face with network licenses where every computer in an organization can have and use a copy but you have to wait for somebody else to finish using theirs before you can use it on your computer. Oh, and then maintenance fees, and lapsed maintenance fee fees, and different prices depending on whether you buy a network or node-locked license.

Re: The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds

#38

Post by LeafItAlone »

paxys wrote: post #17

While the change makes sense, I can't help but feel that the system can be managed more intelligently. For example, if I have 15 books "on hold" on Libby, there's no reason for the library to treat the #15 book with the same priority as #1 and spend more money to buy additional licenses for it.

For that to work, holds would need to be ordered, which isn’t the case for Overdrive/Libby.

The book I place On Hold today might be more important to me than the one I added two weeks ago.

Re: The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds

#39

Post by yosito »

evmar wrote: post #7
teeray wrote: post #6

> 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.

Does this mean they library can also "give up" their licenses once a book becomes less popular? (This is still worse than the system for physical books, but at least it lets them dial back the rent over time.)

This would be terrible for libraries' abilities to keep archives of old books. What would be better is for less popular books to have cheaper (free) licenses for libraries.
Post reply on HN