[1123581321]

It’s even worse as publishers sell digital lending copies to libraries that cap out at fewer lends than a physical book would be good for, forcing repurchases! Most libraries are small and this policy prevents them from building up large digital collections over time.

[iggldiggl]

> that cap out at fewer lends than a physical book would be good for

Oh yes - my favourite local library branch [1] is mostly volunteer-run and as such was the last one to get computerised lending, so any books older than ten years or so still have that paper slip in the back onto which the due date used to be stamped. Looking at those, quite a number of books (and not just the ultra-popular ones) would have already expired if they had been subject to the same lending caps as digital books, but in practice are mostly still in an okay (or even a bit better than just okay) condition that still looks good for quite some more lends.

On top of that, it seems that some publishers now use licenses that simply expire after a fixed term (two years or so!) regardless of the number of lends (compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20982315).

[1] A former US Army library in Germany that was donated to the city when that particular Army base was closed in the mid-90s and now effectively functions as a dedicated English language section of the regular city library.

[eigenvector]

The cost of a digital copy for libraries is also many multiples of the cost of a paper copy, which libraries purchase at normal retail prices. I talked with a local high school librarian who told me his library simply couldn't justify having ebooks as they could cost as much as $200 for licensing that still isn't perpetual.