The Librarian's Trap

Why Libraries Trusted OverDrive (1960s–2010)

OverDrive started in 1986 as a CD-ROM distributor for libraries, a breakthrough at the time. When ebooks emerged in the 2000s, OverDrive positioned itself as the librarian\'s partner in the digital future. The First Sale Doctrine, which had protected libraries for centuries, seemed like it would apply to digital content. Libraries could buy ebooks, lend them, and keep doing what they\'d always done: provide free access to knowledge.

By 2002, the Cleveland Public Library pioneered one of the first significant library ebook lending services in partnership with OverDrive. It seemed like a natural evolution. The platform was user-friendly, the licensing appeared straightforward, and OverDrive marketed itself as "the library\'s technology partner." For nearly a decade, this arrangement worked. Libraries built ebook collections through OverDrive\'s marketplace. Patrons downloaded books to devices. Circulation grew. Librarians felt confident they'd secured digital access on the same legal footing as physical books.

But what librarians didn\'t fully understand yet: ebook licensing was fundamentally different from book purchasing. They weren\'t buying copies; they were licensing temporary access under conditions publishers and vendors could change at any time. The First Sale Doctrine, that centuries-old legal protection, didn't apply to digital formats. Libraries had walked into a new legal terrain without realizing the rules were completely different.

The Slow Realization (2010–2020)

In 2011, HarperCollins imposed a brutal restriction on library ebook licenses: each copy could be lent only 26 times before expiring. Overnight, libraries understood the power dynamic had shifted. A physical book could circulate 100+ times. An ebook "license" had an expiration date built in. Librarians didn\'t own anything; they\'d merely borrowed access on a landlord's whims.

The discovery sparked a 2.5-year boycott of HarperCollins. Major library systems refused to purchase their ebooks. The industry watched to see if publishers would capitulate. They didn't. HarperCollins quietly held firm. Librarians eventually returned to the negotiating table and accepted the terms because the alternative (denying patrons access to popular books) was worse than accepting unfavorable licensing.

The Vernor v. Autodesk ruling (2010) sealed librarians" legal fate: the First Sale Doctrine didn\'t protect digital goods. Courts ruled that licensing agreements override traditional property rights. Publishers now had legal cover for restrictions libraries would never have tolerated in the print world.

By 2019, Macmillan escalated again with an 8-week embargo on new ebook titles, limiting libraries to one copy per title during the window. The #eBooksForAll campaign reached 160,000+ signatures. Publishers watched and learned: librarians would organize, protest, and then surrender. The market power wasn\'t in readers; it was in publishers" ability to control when and how many books libraries could access. OverDrive, the "library's partner," collected licensing fees while libraries lost negotiating power to the publishers setting the terms.

The Acceleration (2020–2026)

COVID-19 shifted the power dynamic further. Schools and public libraries desperately purchased ebook access while patrons were homebound. Ebook spending jumped from 5-10% of collections to 26%. Publishers and OverDrive took notice: there was massive demand and no alternatives. Rakuten's 2015 acquisition of OverDrive consolidated power even further. Kanopy, a video platform, was absorbed. 3M Cloud Library faded. Hoopla remained but served a fraction of the market. Libraries had bet on digital and lost negotiating power in the process.

In August 2025, the NYPL\'s SimplyE, one of the few open-source library ebook platforms, was shut down. In December 2025, Baker & Taylor, a 140-year-old library distributor, ceased operations entirely. In January 2026, OverDrive announced a strategic partnership with Follett\'s K-12 ecosystem, locking school libraries deeper into its platform. The industry was consolidating at breathtaking speed.

Meanwhile, OverDrive removed MP3 audiobook support, forcing libraries to repurchase audiobooks if they wanted continued access. RBdigital was absorbed into OverDrive\'s platform. Libraries that had built collections across multiple vendors were forced to migrate to OverDrive\'s ecosystem or lose access entirely. The "library's technology partner" had become the only partner left standing.

By 2026, librarians faced a harsh reality: OverDrive held 95%+ of the library ebook market. Alternatives had been eliminated through acquisition or collapse. Prices continued rising. Licensing restrictions multiplied. And librarians had discovered too late that their "purchase" was actually a rental with an expiration date and disappearing access to books no longer in copyright.

Alternatives: What Failed and Succeeded

Douglas County Libraries (Colorado) proved that library-owned ebook platforms were possible. They built their own system, negotiated directly with publishers, and offered DRM-free downloads to patrons. The model worked, but it required technical expertise, capital investment, and willingness to engage in direct conflict with publishers. Few libraries had the resources to replicate it.

Unglue.it attempted to create a crowdfunded ebook platform where libraries and patrons could collectively "unglue" books from proprietary licensing. It succeeded in demonstrating the concept but lacked the scale to compete with OverDrive's dominant platform.

Maryland's House Bill 518 (2022) attempted a legislative solution: requiring publishers to offer reasonable licensing terms to libraries within 90 days of print publication. The bill passed, but was struck down in federal court on copyright preemption grounds. Publishers argued that copyright law, not state law, governed their business relationships. Federal law sided with publishers.

Connecticut\'s S.B. 1234 (May 2025) took a different approach: requiring publishers to disclose ebook licensing terms publicly. Less ambitious than Maryland\'s attempt, it avoided direct price controls. But even this modest transparency requirement faced pushback from publishing industry groups, signaling that any regulatory approach would face fierce resistance.

The pattern was clear: libraries needed systemic solutions, but the legal and market landscape favored vendors and publishers. Individual library innovation couldn\'t scale. State legislation faced federal preemption. And with alternatives disappearing, libraries faced a choice: accept OverDrive\'s terms or reduce digital access to patrons who increasingly expected it.