Libraries are getting the short end of the stick with both this decision by Warner and also with the HarperCollins ebook fiasco; that’s clear. But as Didi says, librarians made the HarperCollins decision a high profile issue in a short amount of time because it cost libraries additional money (and there’s little enough funding to begin with).

Warner’s decision does not appear to cost extra money to libraries (in fact, it sounds like it will save them), but the COST is in the VALUE of the materials for library patrons, and once they realize this, I think that’s when the major complaints will rise.

Does this mean budgets are taking precedence over service? I hope not.

Even without a cost differential, the idea that companies would strip their products of value-added extras for library patrons is appalling. There SHOULD be more talk about this issue NOW, within the library community, and I’m glad you took the time to write about it, and that you are voicing the importance of “fight[ing] to keep libraries from being marginalized.”

Also too, the larger issue for me is the principle of the thing: what is the point of discriminating against libraries? As @Matt points out, the more we just give up when businesses change the rules to benefit themselves (or try to force legislators to actually change the laws), the more we’ll continue to lose in the long run. If I’m willing to fight for anything, I’ll fight to keep libraries from being marginalized.

My guess is two of the biggest consumers of DVDs at a library are a) families and b) cinephiles. The large majority of family DVDs (e.g., Thomas, Curious George) are not theatrically released, so this policy doesn’t affect them.

If a family really needs to get Harry Potter and can’t wait 28 days, they can go to Blockbuster or use VOD and pay $3.99 for it. If they choose to steal it, that’s on them (which I think is less likely for the average library patron anyway, in this case — I mean is the dad going to say, “Well, they don’t have Harry Potter. Let me go home and spend some time finding a good feed on bittorrent and we’ll all sit around the laptop and watch it?” Maybe, but not very often).

But the bottom line is that if I am getting to see that film for cheap or free now, I won’t be buying it just to watch it earlier. If I waited this long to see it, what’s another 28 days? Or, if I am clever enough, I’ll just find another illegal way to get it. So, end of the story is Warner won’t make any more money, libraries will buy the movies from other vendors, and feathers will remain ruffled all around.

Per Warner Home Video’s own marketing information (found here: http://tinyurl.com/66dblmw) WB dominated the marketplace in 2010 and has been–for 14 consecutive years!–the number one studio in overall sales.

This is not “just one” company. This is the “largest distribution infrastructure in the global video marketplace.” <—a direct quote from the aforementioned website.

Thanks for bringing this issue to a public forum, Brian!

I know this won’t be a popular opinion – but…it’s not our job to make sure the public can see a movie immediately after it’s released. It’s nice when we can do it, but it’s not vital. It’s not essential. It’s just a very nice convenience, and it keeps people happy so we don’t have to deal with as many complaints. But, we’re not the free version of netflix or a video rental store. If someone wants to see it for free, I don’t see how it’s such a terrible thing if they have to wait 28 days. I mean, even the networks are starting to restrict free online access to their prime time shows until a certain amount of time after it’s originally aired (e.g., Glee – you can’t watch an episode online till 8 days after it aired). Hasn’t killed anyone yet. I imagine it will be the same for this policy.