Thank you to those that recommended the library for SF
Thank you to those that recommended the library for SF
I recently posted asking if Kindle Unlimited is a good value for SF because I was reading a lot and it was expensive. Some of you suggested I try the library instead. I'm in Los Angeles, so I got a digital library card for the Los Angeles Public Library.
I had noticed that a lot of the books I had already read were on KU, but not many of the ones on my list to read were. That sort of makes sense because I read a number of series books (mostly trilogies) and KU seems to mostly cover older things but not more recent popular works. Unfortunately my reading list is now mostly up to recent popular stuff.
The library has a similar issue: they have the recent/popular stuff, but there's usually a waiting list for it. I reserved three books that had different wait times, the longest being two months out, but the shortest came up available the next day.
It works nice. When you get the book, you can read it on their web interface or app, but you also have them send it to your Kindle app, which is what I did. It shows up like an Amazon purchase, but with no cost, and then pops up in your Kindle library. You can have up to 30 books on hold (in your queue, waiting to be available) at a time, so depending on how fast you read, you can reserve a bunch so you're in line while you're reading others.
I think this will work good for me. It's all completely free, and I had spent over $200 on books in the last few months, so it's a giant savings of I keep this up. Thanks again.
You're viewing a single thread.
It just feels weird to me that digital version of a book is treated as having limited amount...
It's just bytes in some computer.
Why would user A need to wait until user B is finished with the book, before being able to read it?Because if it was actually legitimately unlimited, nobody would pay for books. There's Hoopla that my library also supports that has instant borrows of anything, but it's capped at 6 per month.
There are authors who make decent money, but there are a lot more who don't.
I understand the rationale, but that only means the author's contracts should be adjusted so that their revenue is function of the reads, not the sales. (Or some other metric)
And how do they get paid if everyone is reading from the library, who's allowed unlimited loans? Unless you raise their cost per title, which they can't afford.
I read 25 books some months, but some are 50, and some are more. Do you really want your library to pay for every book I read if they get charged per read?
If they don't, even the handful of authors who are making money now are in trouble. If that best seller is free without restriction from the library, what are the chances that even they sell enough to survive?
I think the point is if you like the book you hopefully buy a copy for yourself? I tend to read like 40 books a year and if I didn’t use the library extensively the foundations on my house would crumbled under the weight. As it is I still end up acquiring probably 5 or 10 new books a year despite everything.
(But at least they’re ones I know are good.)
If you knew you could borrow it any time for free, and you do your reading digitally, would you really buy it? Would most people?
I personally have bought a handful of physical books from my favorites with no intention of opening them just to have them on my bookshelf, but there are also multiple series I listen to 2-3 times a year that I haven't purchased because they're either available through my library or because they're available through scribd (where I read more than enough new books per month to justify the subscription). Unrestricted free availability is bound to cut pretty heavily into people paying for content, especially if we're talking people who are doing their reading digitally with ebooks and audiobooks anyways.
Well, yes. I probably still would. But that's me. And also, you're talking about "instant access" when actually if you want access to a specific and popular book there's usually a wait of a couple weeks to a couple months. So some people who really want that book are going to want to read it right now and might buy it for the instant access whenever they want?
At any rate, there are people who use the library and people who don't. I read like 2-3 digital books a year usually—only when the library failed to get a physical copy, basically. But I only buy a few of those books for home use (physically again) because there are only a few that I really like enough to own. But that has been the case with library users practically since libraries were invented, so it's not that new a situation.
Scribd I can't speak to as I don't use that at all, but it kind of sounds like Kindle Unlimited, so… if they're paying the authors, it needs to be adjusted enough to where the authors are getting a decent cut per use. This is the same as with Spotify and music. It's something that has to be worked out obviously, but there's nothing to say it couldn't happen as far as I know.
It's just the cost model. The authors usually write as their primary source of income, so they're selling each book. If they just sold one and everyone copied it, it would either have to be tremendously expensive or it wouldn't pay their bills. I brought my kids up not to pirate music and movies for the same reason - it doesn't support the artists. I'm actually a bit uncomfortable using the library for the same reason since I can afford the books if I just reprioritize a bit.
The same happens with movies in theater. When we switched to digital, a decades ago, they was like "everyone can have the movies at the same time, not like with limited physical copies".
It was a lie. Sure, everyone can have a copy on the release day, but not everyone will have the time-key for delock it from X days since Y date. So some theaters will have it first weeks, others only the third ones.
Again, this is not because the tech is not enabling this, but an attempt to extort more money (for earlier delock) from the theaters is there.