It's not disruption to make me wait 5 weeks to read a digital file through my local library's Libby service. It's an outdated business model using artificial scarcity that isn't effective at getting books onto readers devices. Spotify doesn't make me take out a hold on the artist I want to listen to. Netflix doesn't make me queue to watch the latest release.
Netflix has licensing restrictions too, but the limitation is time/exclusivity (rather than number of copies). You can only watch whatever Netflix owns distribution rights to. Although Netflix does charge more per device, so that's a bit like charging per "copy" of their service on top of the limited distribution.
I'm wondering if you'd really prefer a library system where you could get some titles instantly, but the majority of content is unavailable because some other digital service provider owns distribution in your region for the next 12-16 months. I'd hate that, personally.
I do pay for my library card, because my city doesn't have a library (unless you count bookmobile), and the nearby cities that do have libraries charge you to get a library card if you aren't a resident. And it is approx. $9.99/mo.
Wow... mine is $25/year. I live in a rural county, but work across the border in a less rural county, with a much bigger library system. For $25/year I get access to probably 10x as much stuff through them. I expect it might go to $30 this year.
The reason Spotify and Netflix don't make you wait is because they give the copyright owners money for views. A library does not, nor do I think they should.
The current business model of selling libraries ebooks that can only be viewed a max number of times before needing to be repurchased, or only for a limited amount of time, is a money grab pure and simple.
