[UtopiaPunk]

I mean, that's the status quo under capitalism. But a huge reason I love libraries is that they are this amazing exception to the capitalist status quo in America. It's so refreshing to be in a space where no one is try get me to buy something.

My dream is that a different service comparable to Libby/Overdrive woud exist without any profit motive. Give it a similar funding model similar to libraries, or something directly from the federal government. It's hard to think like that in this neoliberal status quo, but the public library is a shining example that a different way of doing things is possible.

[stinkytaco]

Do you expect authors or publishers to operate without a profit motive? I think I understand what you're getting at, but in any library model someone is getting paid. We buy books from the same wholesalers that serve book stores and subscribe to magazines that review them and catalog them with software we license (or if you're using open source you often have a support contract). It seems somewhat arbitrary to single out Overdrive as the ones who should go non-profit here. Overdrive provides a service that they charge for; that, in and of itself seems pretty standard, which is why I'm curious what else is going on.

[UtopiaPunk]

Well, I'm practically some flavor of communist and would like to see all of society organized in a fundamentally different way :)

But that's not helpful, and I think it's not what you're asking. To answer your question pragmatically, no, of course I do not "expect authors or publishers to operate without a profit motive." I think art is very important, and under a capitalist society, I want artists and (to a lesser extent) publishers to get paid to they can buy food and have a nice place to live.

Public libraries themselves do not work on a profit model, though. Libraries buy books, but libraries themselves are not profit-driven. They do not sell a service, and instead receive money through other ways. Rather than understanding Overdrive/Libby as a product to be bought by libraries (analogous to physical books), I would rather see Overdrive/Libby/something-else to be understood as a service that is offered by the library (analagous to the librarian checking out books). The service would have to be owned by a different kind of entity, maybe some kind of non-profit that is beholden to libraries, or some kind of federal government entity. And the service would need a different funding model (one more similar to how libraries are funded, or one more similar to how inter-state or federal projects are funded).

Perhaps you disagree, that's fine, but I hope I've articulated my position reasonably well.

[stinkytaco]

What you are suggesting does exist, at least partially. SimplyE is the largest open platform I can think of, but it does work by leveraging partnerships with traditional vendors like Overdrive. There's also Ebooks Minnesota and likely similar platforms in other states, though those are often run using proprietary platforms even if they contain open access material. There's also Internet Archive and Open Library, but both have been in some trouble. One I'm unfamiliar with was also mentioned in the original article.

I'll say that given my experience in identifying and spending funds for nebulous projects like software or service improvements, I'm not optimistic. It's easy to buy a bulldozer and shop and get the best price and then show you have a bulldozer. That's much harder to do for software and it's why so many government platforms seem to suck and why I think Overdrive will be comfortable at the top for a while. I'd like a world where libraries had control over the electronic content they purchase, but people will migrate to easy and we have to follow them there.