The rationale offered by the publisher is since paper books wear out and need to be replaced if they are to remain in a library’s collection, the same should be true of their electronic formats. The publisher argues that it should not be denied revenues that come from reselling replacement books and resources. Because the publisher assumes digital resources never deteriorate, they have set an arbitrary limit to the number of times an electronic resource can be accessed. Not planned obsolescence. Forced obsolescence.
The argument against the arbitrary number is twofold. First, replacement of books in libraries is based upon the condition of the book, not the number of times it has been checked out. It is not unusual for popular books to be checked out 100 times or more before the wear and tear of circulation takes its toll and the book has to be replaced or repaired. Second, eBooks, too, eventually wear out. The electronic file formats become obsolete in a matter of years as technology progresses and customer interests change. Remember the switch from VHS to DVD or cassette to CD?
They also posted this video on Youtube which demonstrated the falseness of HarperCollins claims.
image via Flickr