Actually, the answer to the library question is simple. Most libraries, especially university ones, buy special library versions of the books. They typically come in hardback, printed with special ink on acid-free paper. The upside is that the book will last, supposedly, much longer, possibly a couple centuries. With no acid in the book you also won't get that nasty breakdown you do with older books that turns the pages brittle and the covers all '60s techni-color. The downside is that this edition of the book costs around $100+ for something as simple as Dean Koontz's new thriller.
Otherwise, libraries typically buy the best quality edition of the book they can and rebind it in hardback. But there is a huge market for publishers making special library editions that aren't available to the public.
"“Did you have permission,” she asked during the question period, “to use Havasupai blood for your research?” The presentation was halted. Dr. Markow and the other members of the doctoral committee asked the student to redact that chapter from his dissertation."
The article, which is all we have to go on, implies there, and elsewhere that the researchers knew they did not have informed consent to perform extra research beyond the scope of the diabetes research. I have no problem with them profiting from a cure for diabetes if they found it. But if they profited from a cure for alcoholism from these DNA samples, then they did so in bad faith and by unethical means. That is the problem. Their extended research was predicated on tissue samples that were obtained for another purpose and may have been obtained in bad faith. I do not support unethical medical treatments or research. Unfortunately with a settlement we may not know definitely if they obtained the tissue samples in bad faith.
Let's organize this thing and take all the fun out of it.