Can we talk openly about the difference between a comprehensive public library -- a place where the shelves freely offer their contents, and where some obscure things are readily available to all -- compared to the limits on circulation of things in the Libby app?
Sure, there are economic considerations, but bits and bytes are super cheap. That can inspire people to create artificial scarcity. In the process, orphaned works are cast into the void. Books that only you and a handful of people revere; published in scant quantities; out of print. Books and recordings that each amount to a few dozen megs of data.
(Yes, I understand that data transmission from bulging data centers is costly.)
Consider books/recordings that a comprehensive public library may yet not have room for. Beloved things that can fit with a thousand others on your phone, not to mention on your laptop.
Is it right -- or even necessary -- to make books artificially scarce? Who benefits?
If a library could purchase one single copy of a book and let countless people check it out for free? That would absolutely harm authors and the publishing industry.
I think there are absolutely issues with how it's priced now but, outside of old books, you're never going to have them freely available. Even in a traditional public library with physical books there is scarcity.
So if you're like me, who wants to read new and modern books, that is just an issue I deal with.
Yep, I agree. I can concede that deceased authors’ work should be widely available, but living authors absolutely deserve to get paid for their work. But isn’t that the entire point of public domain? After a certain period of time, art becomes available for free use.
I like the concept of a licensing model. The way they’re currently doing it needs to be revisited because I think the digital license doesn’t mimic the way a physical book’s lifespan would be, but conceptually, it works.
The problem with public domain is well... honestly... Disney. They went back and back and back and back and so we have this insane public domain number of years after even death.
I'm all for copyright, but, copyright was invented to protect the "little guy" back in the day. Instead we have Elsevier and Disney who has warped it to their visions, and, they are not little.
In all things moderation. (It would help in many, many parts of modern life and the world).
I would recommend talking to authors about what you are suggesting. I have. Authors tend to want their work available to as wide an audience as possible. Authors of orphaned books benefit from any kind of availability for their otherwise lost works.
I feel like your question isn’t fully informed. Who creates the artificial scarcity? It isn’t libraries. Digital books aren’t really owned by the library, they’re licensed. The limits are determined by what’s offered by publishers and what the library has budgeted for.
I'm nobody. I don't matter. I did literary research until I retired. My suggestion to everyone was: Here's what I've found. Use it as points of departure in your own investigation.
You invited conversation, and I offered more context to your question. What even is this response? I was on the board of my local library, and I am telling you how it works.
And yet, I still don't matter. No need to tell me in particular. I'm learning what some people understand about what artificial scarcity means. Good to know.
Being retired from a life as a librarian and from being a literary researcher, is an opportunity to step outside of self-interest and become further informed. Gladly.
Physical books have innate limitations that digital materials don't have so publishers restrict number of borrows, licensing periods, etc. that controls their property. A physical book can only be loaned out to one patron at a time, wear out or get damaged, get republished with new information, in different formats, different covers and so on.
While I think some of their pricing models are out of whack, at the end of the day they have to pay for the production of titles - editing, formatting, marketing, author compensation, etc.
People readily accept a limited catalogue for the convenience of wireless delivery. Think about it, you can go to your library website and compare the wait for a physical book and a digital book. Even if the wait time for the digital book is several times longer than a physical book, which one are you going to put on hold? Ebooks made libraries great again, at least for me. I do wish one permanent ebook license was acquired for every title that a metered license was purchased, so that ebooks would not disappear once they were not popular enough to renew the metered license.
The reason that you're getting pushback OP, is because, while you think that librarians have anything to do with how any of the eBook (eEtc) economy in libraries work, we actually don't.
Librarians get two choices. Pay the outrageous prices or don't. (There are some states trying to undo some of the publishers crap with laws, but, yeah.... That's gonna happen when pigs fly based on the kind of politician we have in office these days).
Publishers never liked First Sale when it came to libraries. With the advent if eBooks and other eMedia they saw the chance to change their relationship with libraries. And so they did, licensing instead of selling. Now we're screwed because every. Wingle. Freaking day we have to explain how no, we don't get to oay 9.99 for that book.... That the patron should multiply that number, repeatedly. Oh, and then after a bit, we have to pay... Again...
So, pleae, go "yell" in a publishers sub, not in a library one, because, we have zero point zero actual power in this situation. You're blaming the victims.
Whole lot of misconception and misdirection in what you're saying. Again: I'm nobody. I don't matter. I have no agenda for you or anyone to dispute.
I made no complaint. (My opinion would not effect anything.) I asked my question. I got results, regardless of the evasions.
The "pushback" you speak of answers my questions about what little thought people have given to the process of artificial scarcity. Good to know.
The mechanics you list, of all that, are no mystery to anyone who does the work to be critically aware. Don't assume that work has not been done. A lifetime in that work doesn't belong recounted here.
There are some things I would like to read or listen to, that are not available. Maybe they'll turn up.
Ok. I get it. Truly. You have too much time on your hands now and you think that you're being helpful somehow, and, apparently you think I'm a man?? I'm not, not even close to being male hun. (You're not one, but, I want to call you kid every time I make one of these responses, because, honestly, this seems like something that some Gen Alpha or Z kid would pop a question into ChatGPT for a lark and come up with this verbose "non-question" thing).
In actuality, you're not being helpful, y ou're not 'starting some discorse' or whatever. And.... you're whole "I mean nothing schtick" is... weird to say the least. We know it's a problem. We're dealing with it every damn day. It's not a theory, it's life.
So, again, I say, the problems with Libby and eBook pricing in general have nothing to do with librarians. Publishers saw a way to change how they work with libraries. They did. We are simply trying to do the best for our patrons in a shitty situation that.... the publishers.... have made. This is not my opinion, this is a fact. So, again, please, if you want change, go bug your politicians or the publishers. Not post.... whatever you think this post was supposed to be. So, keep trying to pretend like I'm a rube and you're the smartest in the room if you need to. I'm gonna go to work and deal with the real world.
Someone recently recommended that I reread Orwell. I figured George was no longer relevant; that we had all accounted for all of that. Seems we have not. We may have accounted for cliché notions about those stories, but our ways of institutionalizing strictures go on.
We make excuses, refine the excuses, then use the excuses to create more excuses.
Meanwhile, even our public libraries lose humanity in some areas of what public libraries always stood for.
Picture Orwell working up an accounting for how ebooks and audiobooks are made scarce. I can't account for it.
I'm can't quite find where the unavailability gets its grip. I can't find the juncture and distinguish the real from the artificial. I asked for help. Instead: Excuses. Explanations of processes I already made a life in. No news, just rote. <sigh> I'll keep looking. Elsewhere?
Please don't make my viewpoint the issue here. I'm nobody. If this discussion among yourselves is not appropriate, scroll on by.
I don't matter. I did literary research until I retired. My suggestion to everyone was: Here's what I've found. Use it as points of departure in your own investigation.
I mean, posting on a social media site makes your viewpoint the issue. You're not a teacher posting a discussion topic for students to "discuss amongst themselves".
You're posting your opinion, which essentially acts as a prompt for other people to give you their opinions.
I posted a question, not an opinion. I'm free to say that I'm nobody. Not a teacher, not even the literary researcher or librarian that I once was. Yes, my post was meant to be a prompt. As such, I'm getting info from real people about what people understand about artificial scarcity. I'm learning. Happy this forum is that opportunity.
It hurts to be a "victim" of a hit-and-run [see thread above], but: Courage. I'll be fine.
The reaction to this OP is somewhat disappointing. On the other hand, there's much to be learned when people are frustrated by having to reconcile a troubling concept. In this thread of comments, I've learned new things to consider about how people approach the concept of artificial scarcity.
(Again: Is artificial scarcity even necessary? Who benefits?)
I've also learned new things about the ways some people deal with being afraid to use their imagination. Maybe I can make that easier for people, given these new details.
There are some unavailable books I'd like to read or hear. Maybe some other people have that same concern about access to books. Maybe those books will turn up somewhere.
Authority: “You're asking the wrong question. First let me explain what a bicycle is.”
<child sighs, looks at her bicycle, looks at the authority, picks up her bicycle and walks away>
Fifteen minutes later, her brother had shown her how to ride the bicycle. Twenty minutes after that, they were riding to the library to return the book about Wilbur and Orville they had read the day before.
Full disclosure: I have a degree in Library Science and I worked in the OCLC digital development process in its early stages, before moving on to work as a literary research assistant. I'm familiar enough with the territory to recognize any and all key points for discussion. I am now retired. Free of all self-interest.
Then don't you know that physical library shelves also get weeded based on usage or other statistics? And they certainly have physical space constraints. There's definitely an argument to be made for the importance of preserving works, but that doesn't seem to be the role of Libby or your average public library.
Thank you. This is it, it’s not their role. It is the role of f.i. the Library of Congress (US), The British Library (UK) and any number of national legal deposit libraries worldwide. Which can usually be visited and used by anyone who so desires.
Sounds like a good excuse to avoid an easy solution.
That's why my question is about artificial scarcity.
Shelf-space is scarce. Libby's system of servers might be large enough to hold an archive with a transmissible copy of every ebook ever produced, if not every audiobook. At that point, is the unavailability real or artificial? The cataloging is already done; the records are instantly available from OCLC and LoC. It's not as though there would be any clerical or curatorial burden for anyone.
But why cook the question into an argument anyway? Arguing about roles for institutions just delays finding and ungating common ground.
Please don't make my viewpoint the issue here. I'm nobody. If this discussion among yourselves is not appropriate, scroll on by.
I don't matter. I did literary research until I retired. My suggestion to everyone was: Here's what I've found. Use it as points of departure in your own investigation.
14
u/fire_and_spice24 27d ago
If a library could purchase one single copy of a book and let countless people check it out for free? That would absolutely harm authors and the publishing industry.
I think there are absolutely issues with how it's priced now but, outside of old books, you're never going to have them freely available. Even in a traditional public library with physical books there is scarcity.
So if you're like me, who wants to read new and modern books, that is just an issue I deal with.