Raise your hand if you hate libraries.
Even though this blog doesn’t enable me to peer through the screen into your living room (yet), I am guessing there aren’t a lot of raised hands out there. Who could possibly hate libraries?
Here’s one guess: book publishers. I am probably wrong on this, but if you care about books, hear me out.
I had lunch recently with a few publishing folks. One of them had just returned from a national librarians’ conference, where it was her job to sell her line of books to as many librarians as possible. She said that there were as many as 20,000 librarians in attendance; she also said that if she got one big library system, like Chicago’s or New York’s, to buy a book, that could mean a sale of as many as a few hundred copies, since many library branches carry several copies of each book.
That sounds great, doesn’t it?
Well … maybe not. Among writers, there is a very common lament: someone comes up to you at a book signing and says, “Oh, I loved your book so much, I got it from the library and then told all my friends to go to the library too!” And the writer thinks, “Gee, thanks, but why didn’t you buy it?”
The library bought its copy, of course. But let’s say 50 people will read that copy over the life of the book. If the library copy hadn’t existed, surely not all 50 of those people would have bought the book. But imagine that even 10 people would have. That’s 9 additional book sales lost by the writer and the publisher.
There’s another way to look at it, of course. Beyond the copies that libraries themselves buy, you could argue that, in the long run, libraries augment overall book sales along at least a few channels:
1. Libraries help train young people to be readers; when those readers are older, they buy books.
2. Libraries expose readers to works by authors they wouldn’t have otherwise read; readers may then buy other works by the same author, or even the same book to have in their collection.
3. Libraries help foster a general culture of reading; without it, there would be less discussion, criticism, and coverage of books in general, which would result in fewer book sales.
But here’s the point I’m (finally) getting to: if there was no such thing today as the public library and someone like Bill Gates proposed to establish them in cities and towns across the U.S. (much like Andrew Carnegie once did), what would happen?
I am guessing there would be a huge pushback from book publishers. Given the current state of debate about intellectual property, can you imagine modern publishers being willing to sell one copy of a book and then have the owner let an unlimited number of strangers borrow it?
I don’t think so. Perhaps they’d come up with a licensing agreement: the book costs $20 to own, with an additional $2 per year for every year beyond Year 1 it’s in circulation. I’m sure there would be a lot of other potential arrangements. And I am just as sure that, like a lot of systems that evolve over time, the library system is one that, if it were being built from scratch today, would have a very different set of dynamics and economics.

July 10, 2007, 11:07 am

So that means if you put a grazing cow on the hood of your car, you could save some money on a G.P.S. satellite location system. ”


2007
11:35 am
Don’t booksellers essentially foster the same things, though? Barnes and Noble has coffeeshops and chairs scattered throughout their stores, and no one complains about reading those books. They have a better selection than most libraries, too. They also have new authors regularly come to promote their books, and for children, offer both a large children’s book selection and summer reading programs/prizes to encourage reading. They also have a flexible return policy. So, why do we even need libraries when booksellers essentially offer the same services?
— Posted by scunning
2007
11:42 am
I might browse through a book in a bookshop coffee shop, but I doubt many people read a whole novel there, so it has the positive effect for the publisher of introducing their books to people, without the issue that they won’t buy it because they’ve already read it with their coffee.
— Posted by spicey
2007
11:45 am
Hoo-boy! That would be a nasty mess, wouldn’t it? Thank goodness libraries are already established!
— Posted by M.B.
2007
11:48 am
What about the effect of online databases for magazines and journals? Proquest, factiva, ebscohost and the like essentially act as online libraries for hundreds of publications that may be available for free through local library websites. I’m not familiar with the reimbursement structure for a magazine, newspaper, or journal to appear in these databases, but I suspect they still have the net effect of cannibalizing publication sales. Just a curious side note….
— Posted by Orphie
2007
11:52 am
Very interesting point. I think the take away from all of this is that despite the fact that not everyone in the community has to buy a book (and then only enjoy it through specific reading glasses, without marking or modifying any of the pages and signing a EULA agreeing that only they may read the book) to enjoy it, the publishing industry is still alive, innovative and well. It’s difficult to say how many people have started reading because of the resource that a library offers, or how many people began tracking authors after reading some of their work checked out from the local library, but I believe it is a substantial number. Looks like FUD loses again.
— Posted by Toast1185
2007
11:53 am
“I am guessing there would be a huge pushback from book publishers. Given the current state of debate about intellectual property, can you imagine modern publishers being willing to sell one copy of a book and then have the owner let an unlimited number of strangers borrow it?”
Yes, yes I can imagine it. Blockbuster or Netflix perhaps? Here’s an interesting read:
http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal/Papers/history/his tory.pdf
Book publishers hated it 200 years ago and the film industry hates it now. Although the music industry was able to weasel around the “first-sale doctrine” they discuss. We could also extend this debate to software. I should be able to reproduce and distribute my copy of Windows Vista as I see fit.
— Posted by econometrics_ra
2007
11:54 am
If those publishers you went to lunch with publish college textbooks I hope that you spit in their food.
I hate to be bitter, but it’s really frustrating to be a poor college student and have to go buy a new version of a textbook that has maybe 10 changes in it. That’s an extra $50 for every new book they sell. Can you imagine the amount of money they made on astronomy textbooks, and elementary school science books when Pluto was no longer a planet?
— Posted by CollegeCat
2007
11:54 am
The public good…such a quaint old-fashioned notion really.
…..sniff……
— Posted by egretman
2007
11:56 am
Another thing. If it weren’t for libraries, I’d be broke every semester buying books. So thank God for libraries!
— Posted by CollegeCat
2007
11:57 am
“…a licensing agreement…”
Do you mean like the Public Lending Right systems in place in 23 countries, including the UK?
— Posted by cynic
2007
12:06 pm
Well, perhaps ’scunning’ can read an entire book in one sitting at the bookstore but I am a plodder. I doubt the seemingly altruistic Borders would be terribly happy with me after I returned my fifth book in three months.
While I agree with SD and I doubt that few people truly hate libraries, my sense is that they are very under-utilized. Most readers don’t head to their public library to pick up the latest NYT best-seller; they head to Borders. I would be very interested to learn what impact the existence of libraries has on book sales. I would guess very little.
The exception to this might be libraries of academic institutions, not public libraries. Students with long reading lists make good use of the reserve section rather than paying exorbitant costs to the campus bookstore. But they also resell their tomes, both to the bookstores and to each other.
— Posted by jkasbury
2007
12:09 pm
There are 3 sharing networks on the web (it only costs you postage):
http://www.paperbackswap.com/index.php
http://www.shelfari.com/
(shelfari has your book “Freakonomics” as the first one in their opening page)
http://www.bookmooch.com/
I wonder what the publishers think about this. At this point in time, I would think this is not a great concern due to potentially low number of book-swappers.
— Posted by eebs
2007
12:11 pm
“I hate to be bitter, but it’s really frustrating to be a poor college student and have to go buy a new version of a textbook that has maybe 10 changes in it. That’s an extra $50 for every new book they sell. Can you imagine the amount of money they made on astronomy textbooks, and elementary school science books when Pluto was no longer a planet?”
The book is worth $50 to you this semester, but its almost totally worthless after you finish the class. They’d be happy to sell it for $50 if you’re the only user. But they’re also aware you’ll resell the book afterwards. Well they’ll charge you $100, you’ll sell it to the next student for $50. And they’ve raked in the price of 2 books and only had to print 1. In order to stop that book from circulating 20 times for the next 10 years, releasing new versions restricts the used book market.
Both parties are trying to bleed the other one dry. Don’t blame them for playing the game well.
— Posted by econometrics_ra
2007
12:12 pm
One needs to separate efficiency from equity when thinking about public libraries. Public libraries exist for distributional equity reasons - to provide low-cost books to poor people so as to promote literacy for the sake of so-called public good. But is there any market failure that necessitates a public library? Does the market fail to produce the optimal amount of reading? It seems like most of the benefits of reading are internalized by the individual - in the form of the personal joy from the stories and ideas, and in the form of higher wages from the human capital enhancement. And where there are externalities, it seems it is mainly to families that those externalities lie, and not “society” as much. It’d be interesting to know if the cost of providing “free books” in the form of physical public libraries - which are inputs in a family’s production of literacy in their children, at the very least (we bring home books from the library for the kids by the truckload, but neither my wife nor me get our books from the library - I’m still a book collector at heart and buy everything online and at bookstores) - outweigh the private benefits to families.
While Dubner may have a point that publishers would oppose the construction of public libraries (or if not that, maybe they’d rework contracts to take into consideration the lost profits?), there’s still the question as to whether (a) public libraries are efficient and (b) in today’s society, is the market failing even on the equity front. Even if one doesn’t read an entire novel at the bookstore, they still replicate many of the same functions of the library, like house a diverse inventory of books, allow browsing by consumers in a comfortable atmosphere, and have reading programs for children. And while the transaction costs of dealing with a return policy probably are enough to deter someone from “borrowing” books in the same way as one would at a library, it’s still the case that booksellers are doing a lot - perhaps even more - for encouraging reading in the US than public libraries. The selection at your average B&N swamps the average public library, and will continue to do so as B&N and other bigbox booksellers continue to expand into the suburbs, inner cities, and small towns.
— Posted by scunning
2007
12:14 pm
Great question, I guess it would be pretty tough.
But I think we might see a resurgence of private libraries.
http://amateureconblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/booking-you r-own-private-library.html
— Posted by Speedmaster
2007
12:15 pm
I live near a public library in Canada. Since I moved here and started visiting the library regularly, I actually buy a lot more books from Amazon (500% increase). Maybe it’s just me. I feel that the library acts like the sampler at the grocery store, a little sample tasting actually increase my will to buy.
— Posted by adorita
2007
12:28 pm
Speaking of Canada — as adorita just was — we have the Public Lending Right Commission here (as do some European countries).
http://www.plr-dpp.ca/PLR/default.aspx
This distributes payments to authors on the basis of a survey of library holdings and depending on the frequency with which an author’s book is found.
— Posted by Simon Fodden
2007
12:29 pm
The selection at your average B&N swamps the average public library
Really? Wow. I thought B&N stood for Barnes and Noble? Well, anyhow, I go to my Barnes and Noble, look through the lastest books, and then go to the library and check them out. For free. Almost never fails.
Which sort of makes Dubner’s point. I guess.
— Posted by egretman
2007
12:37 pm
I am pretty sure that libraries actually DO pay publishers a certain amount for every time their book circulates. Obviously it is less than the purchase price of a book, but equally obviously when I lend a book (that I’ve bought) to a friend there is no payment involved, similarly, the publisher incurs no extra cost from a book being lent by a library whereas a new book sale is not worth $50 to them, it is worth $50 minus the costs of printing etc.
— Posted by KenK
2007
12:42 pm
egretman - In my town, the B&N selection is larger than the public library selection (not the university, though, obviously). You’ve seen differently, though?
— Posted by scunning
2007
1:22 pm
I recently purchased two copies of Lionel Shriver’s new book, “The Post-Birthday World,” on line from Powell’s because they were signed first editions. I gave one to a friend who’s also a Lionel Shriver fan, and I kept the other one on my bookshelf for posterity. When I wanted to read the book, I borrowed it from the library.
— Posted by dilbert69
2007
1:33 pm
On the other hand … would the publishers be willing to pay for all of the publicity that public libraries now provide free for their mid-list (and lower) titles?
Public libraries tend to purchase on the advice of a reviewer and only purchase the touted best-sellers (in multiple copies, granted) because there will be public demand. An awful lot of quality material would likely not be published at all if the public libraries did not represent a dependable market.
— Posted by librarybob
2007
1:34 pm
in philadelphia, the public library is called the “free” library- this always makes me giggle for some reason, but as this post points out- if it wasn’t for the fostering of the public good by government/philanthropy, the business model would destroy the public libraries (much like GM and the public transit system in CA)
— Posted by frankenduf
2007
1:41 pm
I don’t know, scunning. Obviously, I guess it depends on where one lives. In the last few years, I have wondered whether libraries in Texas are employing the strategy of ordering books that the large book stores have.
On another note, isn’t information that is free better for society as a whole and worse for the individuals who develop the information? And this phenomenon holds for all strata of society. Such as the co-worker who knows something that others in the office doesn’t. It’s the basis of all power.
Of course, how to make a nuke might not be good free information.
— Posted by egretman
2007
1:42 pm
I’d much rather join netboox (a la Netflix) or “bookbuster” and pay for books, demand they provide the books I want, get customer service etc.
I don’t like my library system now. They don’t get many of the book I want, they get alot that I have no interest in at all. (There seems to be a strong idealogical/political bent to selections) Of course I couldn’t care less, except that I am compelled to pay for it.
I’d rather let a market develop to meet my book needs.
— Posted by 711buddha
2007
3:10 pm
buddha, I guess I have a better public library than you do. With a few computer clicks I can have any book in a multi-county system delivered to my neighborhood branch for pickup, often within a couple of days if it is not in high demand. With a little more effort, I can order from statewide or countrywide interlibrary loan, all for $0.
As to Dubner’s basic question, yes the publishers would fight public libraries, unwisely but in today’s political climate, successfully. The fact is that information wants to be free, and book publishers as much as the movie industry needs to deal with reality and figure out how to function in the 21st century.
— Posted by Ken D.
2007
3:14 pm
egretman - I guess it’s an empirical question as to whether providing free-of-charge books through the public library systems is increasing reading moreso and independent of the expansion of book retailers. Is the book price really holding people who want to read back from reading? I understand that some people prefer to get their books from a library, but our incomes have risen so much, and particularly for the more educated, that it doesn’t seem like people aren’t able to satisfy some demand for books. Particularly with so many used booksellers online. My belief is that the real cost of reading is the time, not the pricetag on the book, and so even a public library can’t help me get these books read faster - which is really where I need the most help. Too bad Pigouvian taxes can’t fix that problem.
All this sort of makes me laugh, though, as I love the public library system. But I guess I like it for reasons that don’t have anything to do with efficiency, as it’s not like they seem all that necessary. In my small town of 100,000, we have 2 big-box chains. In the town I grew up of 5000 or so, I grew up in a library. But now, my kids have tons of options to get books.
— Posted by scunning
2007
3:22 pm
I’m surprised to see Dubner argue about the costs & benefits to authors without providing any supporting figures.
I did a quick look around the net and in Canada (where I live), the total household spending on books was $1.1billion in 2001, and the total library spending was $1.4billion.
If you eliminate libraries, do you really expect to see total book purchases double? I think that the biggest individual purchasers of books wouldn’t change since they probably don’t use the library that much, leaving the rest of the population that either doesn’t care enough about books to pay for them, or who doesn’t want to spend the money to buy them.
The used market would do well (and authors would see none of those transactions), and reading in general would decline.
For a start, instead of talking to the authors who may know a lot about writing but don’t know much about publishing, why don’t you talk to the publishers and see what they think? When they release a new book, they can probably count on selling tens of thousands of hardcover copies to the libraries and I doubt they’ll like to give that up.
— Posted by AdrianP
2007
3:23 pm
I lived in New Zealand for a while, and it was very interesting there as books are very expensive and (presumably as a response) libraries are a much bigger part of people’s lives there. I found it refreshing to have crowded, active libraries- in the US, I am surprised that libraries aren’t used more than they are. It’s surprising to me how little traffic there is at libraries versus the chain bookstores, and I am fortunate to live in a community that supports the library system pretty well.
I haven’t seen it in the US as much, but I have seen generalized notions of libraries- community “toy libraries” and village “tool libraries” work well for things that have occasional or limited term use, and it would be great to see more of them. The only version of a tool library that I’ve seen in the US was when I lived in California and the local Fire Department had a chipper you could borrow as an encouragement to clean up brush piles. Probably they don’t do that anymore, though, as I’m sure liability would be an issue.
— Posted by EmilyAnabel
2007
3:37 pm
Well as a purely legal matter public libraries wouldn’t run into trouble. After all it is copyright. Though of course one might think that the book publishers would force legislation through congress that would change that situation and there would be a massive row about the constitutionality of that law.
Anyway I wanted to add a points to your list:
4) Many books simply aren’t good enough/useful enough to pay the full retail price to buy, especially reference books. In the absence of libraries these books might sell almost no copies while by sharing the cost among the many interested parties they sell a few per library. Given most public libraries seem to be filled with FAR more books like this than best sellers it might be a net benefit to the publishers. It certainly reduces the risk they take. It’s the novel authors who might really suffer, particularly the best sellers, but also the ones who benefit the most from your other points.
–
As far as the Library tax (Public lending Right Commission) I’ve always thought this would be a good model for a property less IP compensation scheme. Expand this scheme to the internet and fund payments with tax dollars.
I know most people have the instinct that such a system wouldn’t get the payments ‘right’ but the payments for books now only bear a loose relation to the money needed to incentivizes the authors. Moreover, the preponderance of the fixed cost over the marginal cost leads to grossly failure of pareto optimality. Thus we really only need to make a wild stab at what to pay the authors and we will probably get something that works.
—
Finally never discount the effects of simple irrationality on the part of the publishers or other established enterprise. The people in the business are familiar and comfortable with the way things are now and I suspect much of their opposition to various IP reforms or changes in media usage (time shifting) is as much personal uncomfortability as rational reaction.
— Posted by TruePath
2007
3:56 pm
Hey. The author makes a valid point. If libraries didn’t exist today the book publishers probably would fight against them. But that’s mainly because they are a conservative, slow moving, reluctant to change industry. Since they do exist it is easy to see that they benefit the book publishing industry and even bookstores. I see some parallels with iTunes and the music industry. Even now the music industry is not sure iTunes is a benefit but in time they will probably realize it is.
So… by the way, I am a librarian. And libraries don’t pay publishers for books that circulate. They buy the books wholesale just like a bookstore does. But the services they provide to the public benefits the publishers and the publishers are well aware of it and help libraries as much as they help bookstores.
A couple of other commenters don’t realize a couple of things about libraries. You never ever see a library’s entire collection. Anywhere from 20% to 80% of a library’s books are in circulation. If you go to the public library and look for a best seller they may not have even one copy on the shelf but they may have 20 copies in circulation. Also, in most counties the libraries work together to share resources. In my county, I can pay 75 cents to get a book delivered to my library from any library in the county.
So why do bookstores and book publishers like libraries? Well, libraries usually don’t just buy one copy of a book they buy multiple copies. Also because libraries work on different set of principles they will buy books that bookstores don’t. For instance, lets say a new title hits the best sellers list, a bookstore may buy 100 titles, but a library may buy 10 of that title and then buy the rest of the books by that same author. Also libraries can buy books that don’t have much mass appeal. There may not be thousands of people who want to buy a book on a topic but thousands of libraries may get one.
My final point is that readers are less likely to buy a book that they know nothing about. But they have no problem checking it out from the library. If they like it they might recommend it to their friends. And then some of them may buy it.
— Posted by lou2000
2007
4:51 pm
I don’t know that a publisher has control over the use of books as long as it is read by one person at a time and not copied. Yes, they are trying to restrict that with digital media, but so far, not with books. But suppose they tried with new books. Then the library could “sell” the book to you at some price and “buy” it back at the same price when you return it. To prevent that, you would have to prevent used bookstores from existing. I don’t buy that happening. So worst case, the library buys used books and creates a false chain of buys and sells on the book as it is lent and returned. I don’t see how that can be prevented and thus libraries could be set up.
— Posted by Alex Tolley
2007
4:55 pm
Actually, many major publishers out there love public libraries, and one reason is $ based: a bookstore can buy 5 copies of a book, sell 3, and return 2 in good condition for credit towards their next purchase. Public libraries buy 5 copies of the same book, immediately stamp, sticker, & label them and thus can’t return them. Publishers love that, especially in the areas of the country where public support for libraries is high and book budgets are bountiful. There are millions and millions of dollars being made by publishers from public libraries across the country each year.
— Posted by kersplat
2007
5:12 pm
Interestingly enough, this reminds me of something I was just reading on JP Rangaswami’s blog:
http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/07/08/prince-ly-retu rns-from-the-because-effect/
The post was about businesses needing to deal in what is scarce and not what is abundant. To be specific:
Music: Abundant
Prince Live in Minneapolis: Scarce
House For Sale Listings: Abundant
Useful Information about Neighborhoods, and Help Filtering Listings: Scarce
Insurance Plans: Abundant
Insurance Companies with high probability of being around in 100 years: Scarce
Books: Abundant
Books I Like People to see that I have on my bookshelf in my office: Scarce
I think this Freakonomics post and JPs post really go hand in hand.
— Posted by MisterRisky
2007
5:30 pm
If the book publishers send marketdroids to library conventions, perhaps book sellers do see their own benefit in libraries. As was mentioned in a previous post by Dubner, the book business loses money on most books and makes a killing on a very few. Since libraries tend to buy many more of the less popular books than individuals do, they mitigate the winner-take-all nature of the business. Then more publishers survive this week to publish a blockbuster next week.
We shouldn’t assume that publishers would automatically oppose libraries for this reason. However, the previous article didn’t give them a lot of credit for understanding their business, so I’m just as glad that the decision to have public libraries is already made.
— Posted by pparkman
2007
5:49 pm
Hi friends — thanks for the very interesting discussion! I can’t speak for libraries everywhere, but here where I live (Ohio, USA) libraries are well used. To put this in perspective, we had a statewide circulation of 172,267,056 items in 2005, in a state with a population of just around 11 million.
But you don’t have to take my word for it: this information is available from http://winslo.state.oh.us/publib/stats.html
In my little county of 155,000 people, we moved about 2.3M items in 2005. We love our libraries, and aren’t afraid to use them.
The trouble often is that there are a lot of old school libraries out there, who don’t have content junkie staff out there getting the best of newest stuff. I am pleased to say that we do.
And I must beg to differ with those who say that B&N can top, much less match, our selection. The trick there is that our savvy patrons put holds on all the cool new stuff (which they know we will have in quantity) so a lot of it doesn’t hit the shelves until the advance users (which can often be 200 - 300 people for some titles) are done with it. We buy lots of extra copies when that happens, but it does still take time.
So if you want it *now*, sometimes B&N is the best choice. That’s true even for me, when I need more copies of something suddenly. :-)
But if you want it pretty damn fast, and as part of a public resource that makes our culture something all of us can use an enjoy, come by the library.
Of course, the best thing of all to do is to try stuff out at the library, and then to buy a copy for yourself from the media distributor of your choice. Around here, I can get my DVDs and CDs from great independent stores, and my books from the big box (B&N, Borders) stores, or a very good indie when I can travel.
Best of all worlds folks — enjoy!
— Posted by tramplibrarian
2007
5:52 pm
If someone wants to test the theory, why not start a library for something other than books?
Wouldn’t it be great if you had access to a neighborhood facility that would loan out very useful but infrequently needed items like pressure washers, carpet shampooers, rototillers, etc.? I find it very inefficient for everyone to have to own and store these items.
I have access to many items like this through my personal acquaintances, but borrowing involves trekking across town in some cases.
I already love my local book library, but what if I could check out a truck for the weekend?
And yes, I know that this stuff is available at rental centers.
— Posted by mmrtech
2007
6:03 pm
My community is about 50/50 white/nonwhite. Yet at our public library, which is a good library, practically none of the library-goers are white. Practically everyone reading books, magazines, searching the shelves etc. is someone of color. I assume the white residents are at the Borders that everyone on this page seems to love so much. I am white but personally I find the library more pleasant than Borders.
— Posted by kah
2007
6:06 pm
To #36 — yes, TOOL LIBRARIES!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tool-lending_libra ries
You would think that increasing the number of tool libraries would be a policy that American voters would love. Pull oneself up by one’s own bootstraps, teach a man to fish, etc. Yet there are very, very few tool libraries out there to date.
— Posted by kah
2007
6:40 pm
I’ve often found Mr. Dubner’s observation a good way to illustrate the
deficiencies of the current copyright regime.
It’s essentially a problem of non-excludible goods. We rely on
property and free market to determine allocation of resources for
excludible goods, because economic theory tells us it is efficient.
But when we naturally employ the same tools for allocation of
non-excludible goods, we find the same economic arguments don’t apply,
and end up with obvious problems.
With excludible goods, the market moves them to where their value is
maximized. With non-excludible goods (and here I’m talking about the
actual content of a book, not the physical book itself), value is
maximized by moving them everywhere (provided value exceeds
transaction costs). So what sense is there in intellectual property,
which imposes limits on the transfer of a non-excludible good, thereby
reducing its total value?
The answer is that it provides up front incentive to creators, of
course. We reduce the value of each book, but in doing so we also
encourage more books to be written. There is a complex relationship
here — increasing the incentive to writers decreases the value of
their books to a varying degree. How can this be balanced? How do we
craft copyright law to maximize the total value of non-excludible
goods?
The constitutional framers tried to resolve the problem by giving a
work only a short term of copyright (14 years, with an extension for
another 14 if the author is still alive). It has progressively (and
retroactively) been extended during the last century, and now expires
70 years after the death of the author. When copyright expires, a
work enters the public domain. This is why paperbacks of 19th century
classics are available at bookstores for a few dollars.
The current term of copyright is absurd, of course. But it is a
symptom of the same shift that would make a library system impossible
to build in the current IP regime: the system is severely out of
balance. The trend has been to absolutely maximize the ‘incentive to
create’, even though we sacrifice huge amounts of net value for
extremely small marginal increases in incentive. The library system
is a fortunate hold-out of the past, where dissemination of
information was valued more and there was not a large lobby devoted to
increasing the financial exploitation of copyright for creators.
— Posted by Mango
2007
8:04 pm
One thing many previous posters may not be aware of is the high degree of cooperation among libraries. If we don’t have a book or other materials in our library, I can go to one web site and find out who has the requested item. Through interlibrary loan, we are frequently able to borrow materials or request photocopies of articles from another library.
As librarians, we don’t care why a client needs a specific bit of information, although we may ask a student if s/he needs it for a report. We make available Info to Go @your library!
— Posted by suekamm
2007
11:23 pm
In response to the line “in philadelphia, the public library is called the “free” library- this always makes me giggle for some reason” in one of the previous comments. The library in Philadelphia was called “free” because the libraries before it were subscription. See this Wikipedia entry.
— Posted by bibliofuture
2007
11:35 pm
I think AdrianP was on the right track asking about individual purchasers; Barnes & Noble is cool to hang out in, the library is not. If you’re a publisher of books/magazines that targets the 50+ y/o demographic, you’re probably losing a few sales because of the library - anybody younger than that only hangs out in libraries long enough to be picked up by mommy after school.
As far as the impact online magazine databases have on sales - I think there are more important things to consider: an article that gets referenced in a research paper boosts the prestige of the magazine that produced it. Magazines that regularly produce interesting (i.e reference-worthy) material are subscribed to. That said, providing a free, search-able database of magazine articles to the public is likely an important form of advertising!
And then there’s the classic catch-all answer to these profound discussions: online databases and free libraries don’t impede sales simply because PEOPLE LIKE TO OWN THINGS. And you thought consumerism was a bad thing.
— Posted by royceremer
2007
12:52 am
Disagree. Mega bookstores like B&N exploit their human resources and are for-profit institutions. Much of their workforce receives low wages. It’s great to promote literacy as long as they can make a dollar. Libraries, on the other hand, have a genuine service ethic. When was the last time a librarian asked you to purchase their discount card or promoted the new library credit card?
— Posted by westernthought
2007
2:58 am
One might look at it a different way. Publishers and writers may benefit ultimately from public libraries, but both derive the greatest financial benefit from maximizing a society’s surplus capacity of books — the larger the number of books that are bought new and read once, the better off they are. From an environmental point of view, libraries, secondhand sales and the kind of reader who keeps a spare copy of a book to lend to friends are a Very Good Thing — a VGT publishers and writers have no reason to promote. Discussed in more detail at http://paperpools.blogspot.com/search/label/secondhand% 20sales.
— Posted by ithaca99
2007
4:06 am
As much as I like the concept of public libraries… Back in my time in university, past the second year I made a point not to go to the library if at all possible, and purchase the textbooks for every course I had if at all possible — though I would always prefer digital copies, legal or not, whenever they were available. There were many reasons for it:
1) Loaned books are extremely easy to misplace among my own collection and I often ended up with overdue fines. I tried to exlibris my books, but that didn’t help that much.
2) Whatever books I actually wanted to read, beyond required reading titles, which frequently were also scarce, were never available for loan, I was invariably the last one without a book. This was, frankly, a total disaster.
3) Looking through the paper catalog, even sorted by category, was a pain. Coupled with the scarcity, it resulted in a long time searching through the catalog, and then standing in line for hours only to find that you can’t get the book.
4) Posessing a copy of a book is very handy when you need to get back to it years later on a moment’s notice, and I very much like to have the books close for citing and reference when I write. Digging among my own books always takes less time than a visit to the library. The idea that a course book is useless to you once you finish the course is pure nonsense.
Out here in Russia, it’s a common problem, which is why I now make sure that the students have access to digital copies of the books that are required for my courses, whether it’s legal or not — since the authors are either within hand’s reach and don’t mind, or are too far to care, it’s not too hard. Suing for IP has not really caught on yet. I can’t honestly expect my students to do what I did not bother to do myself back when I was in their shoes.
Publishers fight online publications because they are far more efficent at disseminating written word than paper books, for one thing. While, if public libraries were abruptly introduced today, publishers would certainly fight them tooth and nail, such a demand for books could never have been created without public libraries. Public libraries have a lot to answer for in creating today’s society. Without them, extensive reading would only be available to those who can purchase books, and extensive reading is a requirement for the capability and demand for formal education, which builds up the demand for more books. So the question is purely fantastic, meaning that the situation “our current society, but public libraries have never ever been established” is self-contradicting.
Even if we discount that, such insane licensing schemes as mentioned in t the post require a concept of highly-protected IP having been firmly established in the culture, which hasn’t always been the case. In fact, (while it is probably an interesting research topic) the idea of plagiarism itself isn’t that old, and probably, widespread criminalization of copying did not arise up until the printing press — certainly it’s no older than patents, for which anything firm dates back no further than six hundred years. And it’s definitely not universal.
So while in the US today, public libraries would suffer in this manner were they to be created now, in USSR twenty years ago they’d be extremely obvious — in fact, the idea of a non-public paid-subscription library seems nonsense in Russia even today, and in pre-revolutionary Russia they wouldn’t be something terribly contrary to established practices to invent.
All of which gives us a conclusion that hard-IP conditions we live in today are contrary to established cultural practices and aren’t really well supported other than by publisher’s lobbying, which is the result of them losing money through not being able to adapt to digital age, but everyone knew that, so I guess I’ll shut up…
— Posted by RN3AOH
2007
3:22 pm
Your tree arguments are all aimed at justifying the existence of libraries for the sake of ensuring some profit for the publisher. The thing is throughout the history libraries were never intended to serve such a purpose. Libraries were always intended to help:
- Keeping the knowledge from being lost
- Spreading the knowledge among people who need/want it
Profit was never a priority for the libraries!
I personally prefer to own a book than to borrow it but my mother is a school librarian and I know how much libraries help spreading the knowledge (culture) among those who cannot afford to buy books.
Back to your example with the 50 (potentially) lost book sales and 10 actual sales. Personally I would prefer to live in a world where there are 50 people who are better educated than a world where only 1o people have access to books.
And you are right. If the library culture was not established in the past, when copyright didn’t mean as much as it means today, it would be next to impossible to create such a system now.
— Posted by Kirilius
2007
3:29 pm
This is an interesting topic, partly because Americans have no idea how blessed they are on this score.
In the USA, once you pay for a book, you can do anything you want with it except make a copy of it. You can display it in your window, you can quote it in reviews, you can mail a photo of the cover to your friend, you can cut it up and use it as wallpaper, you can lend the whole book to each person in your life in turn, you can sell it, you can put your favorite line as a .sig file in your e-mail messages — anything except copy it.
This is NOT the case in most of the rest of the world. European rules, for example, have been used to prevent professional academics from quoting the lines from the poetry that they’re analyzing or letters written by historic literary figures.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to justify your opinion when instead of listing a couple of short lines, you end up with a footnote that basically says, “Well, buy a copy of this specific edition, turn to page 62, and read the fourth and fifth lines from the bottom of the page — which I’d put here for your convenience, but the author’s estate doesn’t like the point I’m making, so they refused me the right to include that text in the blatant hope that you’ll discount my point as ‘unsupported’ instead of going to the trouble of looking it up.”
The default European “fair use” rules generally allow you to quote the LESSER of one-quarter of a poem (so much for line-by-line analysis) or a total of 800 words in your entire book (hope you weren’t trying to talk about a long poem).
James Joyce’s estate is a famous example of this abuse of powers: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060613-7048.html and http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/story/2007/03/24/jamesjoyc e-copyright.html?ref=rss have more information.
Ultimately, this case was settled with the agreement that if the quoted documents were in the US, then the liberal US rules apply — but if the documents were in Europe, then the world isn’t allowed to know what they say unless the reader physically shows up at the document depository and gets permission to read the originals!
Keep this in mind the next time someone tells you that the US needs to make its copyright laws match “the rest of the world’s.” The world would be better off if everyone else’s copyright laws matched the generous ones in the USA!
— Posted by htb
2007
3:43 pm
Libraries should not be compared to Bookstores. They are FOR PROFIT. They can have as many copies as they would like. They are trying to sell those books.
Libraries are for the greater good. They are on a budget, which is cut all the time because politicians and the public think everything is on the Internet.
— Posted by meshuga
2007
4:06 pm
If you cut children’s books and new bestsellers out of the equation, many facets of the question change.
For example, most of the publisher profits from reference books come from library sales. Demand for many mid-list titles continues to be strong in libraries long after bookstores have abandoned them. A lot (if not the majority)of the ongoing sales of nonfiction books in particular categories (philosophy, literary criticism, some types of history) come from libraries.
- Jesse
— Posted by banjolibrarian
2007
6:31 pm
Actually, “more than 28,635 librarians, exhibitors and library supporters attended the 128th ALA Annual Conference at the Washington Convention Center from June 21 to 27.” (I guess that means it was really 28,636?) That’s a lot of librarians.
As a librarian and writer, I’d be very happy with a strong library backlist title. Publishers should be happy, too, but I agree with your main point, which is that it would be very hard to establish fair use in this day and age, with so many forces working against it and a “license a sip at a time” attitude becoming ingrained in the public.
The comparison with Britain’s public library is interesting, because yes, they do have a different agreement, but public libraries in the U.S. are far more popular and better-used. It could be that the copyright arrangement over there has put a damper on book purchasing and therefore weakening the library’s ability to attract users.
I think the more interesting question is how all of these equations will change as formats change and other services become available. Libraries are buying fewer reference books, replacing them with licensed databases and free Web resources. The license agreements we cut for the fee-based services will become the de facto standard for tomorrow’s “fair use,” and we don’t even house that content. Paper-based books are popular now, but in fifty years, maybe twenty years, who knows what the dominant format will be. Even library services such as interlibrary loan have to compete against the convenience and low cost of online used booksellers. All very interesting.
— Posted by kgs
2007
7:21 pm
To the person who doesn’t like their library because it doesn’t stock the books he wants to read–Every library I have ever been in or worked for has had the policy of buying books that people want to read. If your library doesn’t stock what you want, make an appointment to talk to the librarian in charge of selecting the books and sit down for a little chat. They may not be able to afford to buy all of them, but what they can’t buy they can borrow (as long as it is older than 9-12 months old. The InterLibrary Loan code in general prohibits asking to borrow another library’s brand new books. Still, it never hurts to ask.) (Also, its easier to listen to a complaint if the person if somewhat respectful of the library and the librarian)
— Posted by booklady
2007
12:43 am
Not all book publishers are intellectual-property obsessives - check out the Baen Free Library, at http://www.baen.com/library/ - even if you don’t like the books, the letter on the main page explaining why they’re doing it is plenty worthwhile to this debate.
— Posted by Alsadius
2007
9:36 am
As a previous poster noted, we pay wholesale prices for the books that we purchase for our library. I’d be VERY happy to work out a deal with publishers to pay them some reasonable amount for each circulation, in return for a serious discount off wholesale.
For the long-tail majority of our books that don’t circulate very much, I’d be more willing to turn them over faster (because they’d be cheaper.) For the popular books with heavy circulation, I could evaluate the trade-off of whether to buy additional copies or pay incremental licensing costs, and that decision would probably vary according to whether my library were well-funded or not.
Of course, I wouldn’t want the publishers to be able to determine which of their books to offer on this model (Grisham, yes; dry, little-used reference tome, no) but if we could work out an equitable structure for ALL our acquisitions, not just a segment, having them as partners with us would put a whole new layer on our relationship.
— Posted by akg
2007
5:05 pm
“1. Libraries help train young people to be readers; when those readers are older, they buy books.
2. Libraries expose readers to works by authors they wouldn’t have otherwise read; readers may then buy other works by the same author, or even the same book to have in their collection.
3. Libraries help foster a general culture of reading; without it, there would be less discussion, criticism, and coverage of books in general, which would result in fewer book sales.
”
…stunningly relevant to the ongoing webcasting rate hike and the persecution of music downloaders by the biggies. just flip it around and these are the arguments that the old dudes can’t figure out, or care not to.
— Posted by buster
2007
9:45 pm
Over a year ago, “fuz” made a very similar comment on this blog about this.
I’d like to see someone start a software library. I only use my copy of word about once/month. Why am I paying more than 1/30th of the cost of the license? If someone bought a full license and was able to loan it out to others (one at a time), how would this be different from a book library or tool library?
It’s odd to me that it’s “less moral” to share something that doesn’t physically exist (such as software, digital music, or a pdf copy of a book) than something that does exist, just because the potential of making an extra copy exists.
— Posted by theberle
2007
1:14 pm
One thing you dont realize about a library is the services it gives to poor/low income families/ senior citizens, etc. in terms of computer services. Besides having computers that can be used for free, the library provides services like classes for seniors to teach them what the internet is and how to use it, essay writing tutoring for students, resume workshops for the unemployed, cheap printing of school essays and projects, english as a secund language online programs, citizenship classes, buisness certificate programs, and much much more.
Libraries are a resource to bring our community together and raise our countries literacy rate, employment rate, and basic economic stability.
America is the domanant society at leaste for now. Looking back at our only other comparison society (rome) we see that they had some of the best and most advanced libraries of the time. They realized that a society can not maintain itself without a place for the community to get together with the focus on learning.
Looking at libraries from a “publishers” point of view is a very capitalistic idea. Although we live in a system of capitalism, there are people who fall through the cracks, To have a strong and stable economy, we have to take care of those people as a community and give them ways that will enable them to work hard and achieve the American dream.
— Posted by mrsxbartz
2007
6:56 pm
Please enjoy this protest staged by Improv Everywhere claming to be a group called Writers Against Piracy at a public library in NYC. One of the slogans chanted was “Only crooks check out books.” Some members of the public supported their efforts but to many it was a gross offense against a core American value. http://www.improveverywhere.com/2002/01/19/writers-agai nst-piracy/
— Posted by plaidfarb
2007
1:36 am
I think a bigger point is being missed here.
The reason a library exists is to legally bring printed content to a person. The goverment buys this piece of content and is subsidizing it for it’s own citizens.
The problem with people like sculling is they are essentially stealing content from the author, just like downloading illegal music or buying copied DVD’s. It’s all the same. The point of libraries is that the goverment is paying the cost and it is allowed legally to distribute that content.
I recently just bought a magazine from B&N and someone had ripped out all the recipes. I failed to notice this when I purchased it but found out several hours later. So not only did this person steal from B&N they stole from me too, the consumer.
— Posted by caligardengirl
2007
12:03 am
1. The difference is that even if no one had invented libraries until this time the fact would remain a book is a book. Only one person can read it at a time. Unlike a DVD, it usually takes a while to read a single book….so if 100,000 people want to read it it’s just going to be easier to print 100,000 copies than 1,000 copies for libraries to lend out to 100 people.
2. There is no problem loaning out media that has a similar feature. For example, many libraries lend out CD’s. Why? Because again only one person can listen to a CD at one time. But with electronic media how do you keep the one person you loan it too from posting the file online and ten million people get hold of it? Even if you have specialized readers there’s still the question of when someone will hack it.
3. Publishers might refuse to sell books directly to libraries but libraries could easily purchase them from bookstores and wholesalers.
4. Many books have a very limited audience. The 20,000 copies sold to libraries may end up being a huge portion of the sales the books make. Libraries, then, are more friends to the publishers than potential enemies. This ties into #1. A really popular book is only going to loose so many sales to the libraries. Those few lost sales are probably worth it to publishers since the libraries represent millions in sales of less popular books.
— Posted by Boonton
2007
11:57 am
“So, why do we even need libraries when booksellers essentially offer the same services?”
First off, I’m a librarian. Now that my bias is public…
I think this was, at best, a poorly conceived comment. Booksellers and libraries have many things in common, like books, shelves, and maybe some comfy seating. But how about differences like: 1) Librarians connect people with information. Booksellers, by definition, must be more concerned with making a sale. 2) Free computer use. Yes, many bookstores have wireless, but libraries serve everyone, not just laptop owners. 3) Libraries also often provide: meeting rooms 4) tax forms 5) voter registration 6) job-seeking/resume-building advice, 7) children’s story times… and so on, and so forth.
My point, clearly, is that the services offered by libraries and booksellers are radically different. I shop at Borders often, but they are there to make a sale. Libraries are public service oriented. jkasbury’s comment about reading an entire text while sitting in a bookstore is an excellent point, as well.
— Posted by Bald Librarian
2007
3:55 pm
Unfortunately I have to disagree completely with the premise of this blog entry entirely. At any public library, you can see why: there are shelves with movies and music CDs, two industries that are foremost among copyright protection currently. Yet neither industry is suing libraries (that I know of). The reason is that libraries do not copy the product in question.
It is a fairly strong part of American culture that a person is allowed to do whatever he wants with the physical object he buys, including giving it out as a gift or loaning it to as many friends as he wants. What is illegal and problematic is unlicensed copying and distribution of the product.
The reason that book publishers are not as worried about their products is because books are much more difficult to copy than music or video. But it is already illegal to copy books. Taking a textbook (which is expensive) and photocopying pages without permission is already illegal. So in conclusion, I think this blog entry is incorrect. If there were no such thing as a public library, what would happen today? Nothing much.
— Posted by yijian
2007
1:52 pm
A friend of mine pointed out to me years ago that the whole file-sharing controversy should be a moot point, as public libraries had been ’sharing files’ (lending media) for years, and nobody complains or runs for their lawyers. With a precedent as set in place as that, the free online distribution of mp3s should never have been made illegal. Besides, when I freely borrow a CD from the library, I always take it home and copy my favorite tracks to my computer as mp3 files. Let’s face it - libraries were the original (and still reigining) Napster.
— Posted by Reverend Flash
2007
5:32 pm
I used to love libraries. Then they became a partisan in the cultural war that I feel we are engaged in. I mean, when a library–long considered a safe haven for school children and gentle adults–INSISTS on making pornography available to the masses, they have chosen the wrong side.
The argument is not about censorship. No one is saying that a person cannot so indulge in the privacy of their own home, etc. Rather, the argument is about the library believing that it MUST offer such fare in order to support the First Amendment.
Just shows how far we have come from the original intent of the founding fathers.
— Posted by Aaron
2007
11:11 am
Hmm that’s funny, except it wouldn’t be a Public Library anymore… it would be a Book Rental Store. So I guess your logic is flawed. Sorry.
— Posted by John
2007
4:09 pm
htb: Did I get this quote right? “In the USA, once you pay for a book, you can do anything you want with it except make a copy of it.” What?!?!? If I buy a book, I can make as many copies of it as I want. and, I can GIVE those copies to anybody I please. I can’t sell them but I sure can give them away. That books and its content are mine. Books ain’t like computer software.
— Posted by WPN
2007
4:13 pm
first sale doctrine: Once a legal copy is sold, the copyright holder has no further control over its distribution.
— Posted by WPN
2007
10:50 am
My library has Freakonomics in book and audiobook format. That didn’t hurt sales, as 3 million copies in print proves.
I have bought as gifts, books which I have borrowed from the library and liked very much, one of which was Freakonomics.
Libraries are offering downloadable audiobooks now, and that lending model is based on a licensing contract. My library serves a community of 11,000. We must authenticate each user of these audiobooks, electronically through ID and PIN numbers, and the surrounding communities cannot use this service, they must get their own.
The vendor can run reports of all of the loans and which books circulate the most at which libraries, etc. They will probably refine the pricing model after studying these statistics.
In addition, libraries foster book discussion groups and a network of personable recommenders, the best of which are the library staff themselves.
Without neighborhood libraries, many readers would be reading in isolation, and other folks, not at all. Many a favorite author has been found by borrowing a library book. That leads to gift books from family and friends.
When there is no one to talk to about what you have read, it is not as enjoyable. Lots of exchange goes on at the library. This library/publisher analysis is a good topic to play out the economic pros and cons of, in your next book, Stephen.
— Posted by Colleen
2007
4:27 am
Great question. I don’t think it would happen. But as things are as they are now, people want their libraries, that’s the way it is. If publishers and the like can’t deal with that, then that’s that. Personally, I think media is being over produced in a shrinking market, and somethings gotta give. And look at the writers strike for example.
— Posted by iteotwawki
2008
12:40 am
It’s just plain silly to compare libraries to p2p file sharing networks! You can’t easily make a “copy” of a real book and send it to thousands of strangers at once, who then can do likewise.
In addition, Libraries only have maybe two copies of a title to lend at a time, which can’t be loaned out again until it’s returned. Even for a medium-sized, popular read, this equates to maybe a single title being loaned out at most maybe 2 times a month per library if it’s even returned on time! Even with thousands of libraries carrying the title, this would hardly be a dent in book sales.
It’s because of the limited availability and inability to copy, that publishes haven’t cried foul. So I would think things haven’t changed much.
On a side note, with audio book repositories such as Netlibrary and Overdrive, which most libraries now subscribe to, publishers may now have something to complain about.
Most libraries do not have limits on how many times these ebooks and audiobooks are downloaded, so yes, they can now distribute hundreds of copies of books, rather than just one at time. Also, although DRM protection is great and keeps most folks from redistributing, it’s surely not unbreakable for a dedicated hacker.
Right now, I’m sure the amount charged by these service subscriptions take these risks and losses into account. I just hope people remain civil enough not to abuse this wonderful system to the point where the providers need to charge so much that it’s no longer affordable.
I love my free audio books and hope they never go away!
— Posted by mcaramb
2008
3:08 pm
Libraries also function as price discrimination mechanisms. They aggregate demand from readers, many of whom would forgo reading the book at its list price. I pay taxes that support my libraries, and my implicit calculation is that the $x per book of value that I derive is at least as large as the substantial cost to me through my taxes. For most books that I borrow, $x is much less than the cost of ownership. As other readers have noted, libraries acquire their books through legitimate channels, so payment for my benefit eventually makes its way to the publisher and author. This might not be as efficient as an explicit rental system, but it’s what we have.
Still I think the answer to the original question is “no”. Publishers have mastered price discrimination via hardback vs. paperback, but I suspect they would not have accepted price discrimination via libraries.
— Posted by EGL
2008
4:37 am
So, in other words, a public service that would benefit citizens and improve the knowledge and skill-levels of the country would be prevented by corporate lobbying…
…any lessons here for health and education?
— Posted by Dave
2008
3:57 pm
I disagree with an assertion from one of the earliest posters that bookstores “have a better selection than most libraries.” Bookstores have a greater collection of current books than libraries (because they’re in the business of attracting people with whatever is new and hot), but their selections are far inferior. There’s no inherent reason why a recently published history, cookbook or sports book is better than one published in 1990 or 1970. But only the library will carry the older book. Libaries also don’t clutter their shelves with hundreds of garbage books (Garfield compilations and the like). In short, bookstores and libraries each have a purpose, and that purpose overlaps only minimally.
— Posted by kevin
2008
4:54 pm
Apparently, the author hardly goes to a library…he probably has no idea that a well-read book can hardly survive more than 3 circulations. He probably has no idea how long a patron has to wait for a popular book before he or she could get it, because it is always out. And apparently, he never liked any book so much that he would buy one just to read it over and over again. I did. So I know, all the writers out there appreciates the existence of library and librarians. They are by far, the best marketing tool ever invented for them. And how often do you find those academic/research/serious reading materials right there as you walk in any chain bookstores like Borders? You have to special order them, it will take at least a week or two or longer to ship to you. And then what?! You may have missed the most important piece of info for your research because the paper is already due. If public libraries is not important, it would have already disappeared at the rise of the Internet technology. What happened instead is that the library is even more important these days.
— Posted by VK
2008
12:04 pm
1. Libraries are the biggest purchasers of books and magazines. If we went away, the publishing industry would start to collapse.
2. Libraries don’t surplant book purchasing but enhance. The publishing industry would not be what it is today without out libraries.
3. A few “best sellers” got there start in libraries. Many people purchase copies for themselves of books they found valuable to them, that were originally checked out from the library.
4. Public libraries are the peoples’ university. Available to people on a more equal basis.
5. I don’t see anyone griping about schools taking away from the publishing industry with there text books and required readings. Libraries carry many extra books just to support the require reading of schools.
6. If libraries didn’t exist today, I believe people like me and others dedicated to sharing our knowledge would “make it so”. Free libraries are essential in a democratic society.
7. The joy of seeing someone, usually a child, get her first library card. The look on a person’s face knowing that any of the many books in front of them is available to expand their world. A comfortable, inviting space away from the world. Why would anyone even suggest that libraries wouldn’t exits today.
— Posted by DW
2008
1:24 am
I’ve learned that my library uses a rental service to temporarily increase its holdings of popular titles. For example, three of its copies of Freakonomics are permanent, and four are rental. McNaughton (http://www.books.brodart.com/products/mcnaughton.htm) and Baker and Taylor offer these programs. McNaughton traces its origins to a rental library in a drugstore.
— Posted by EGL
2008
10:08 pm
my dad used to read books with management tips for his job. he’s obsessed with management, i swear, but he’s got a high-paying job so whatever that’s all beside the point. anyway he would go to barnes and noble and actually take out a notebook and write down stuff from the book. like he’d read the whole book and write it down.
my dad’s crazy though, so whatever. just goes to show what kind of people there are out there though.
— Posted by hbomb
2008
12:10 am
Not everyone owns a computer, or has internet access, both of which it provides to a person.
— Posted by doost
2008
11:39 am
mcaramb -
Nothing silly about comparing a library to a p2p file-sharing system. As a member of the Bergen County Cooperative Library System, I can go onto my computer at home and request 5 titles a day every day, from ANY of the 75 or so libraries in the system (that’s a large selection) and have them delivered free to be picked up at my local branch. If I want these titles to be CD box sets, they can be just that. Then I’m free to take them home and make all the mp3 copies of the songs I want and proceed to share them with whomever else I want. I can also make copies of audiobooks and movies. Furthermore, every library card holder has the option of using this vast system to borrow almost any book and read it, virtually circumventing the need to pay an author or publisher for their intellectual property ever again. Your contention that there is not enough freeloading to cause a significant dent in sales is like saying it’s okay for people to steal a candy bar every now and then from the supermarket, as it wouldn’t cause a significant dent in the market’s overall profit. (I think the now-defunct Tower Records would back me on this.)
If Limewire is stealing, the library is stealing. Or if the library is legal, then Limewire should be legal.
— Posted by Reverend Flash
2008
7:53 pm
I LOVE libraries and I LOVE BOOKSTORES too.
These feelings started in childhood and have definitely shaped my personality in positive ways, one simply being strong intellectual curiosity and healthy skepticism.
On the subject of libraries vs bookstores: I can not possibly afford every book I’d ever need or want to read or reference (the purchase cost as well as the storage cost, i.e. huge house for huge home library). And I don’t WANT a huge home just to have a place to put all these books that I would have to buy if there were no libraries. And donating books isn’t that easy - only so many copies of a book are really ever going to be needed. In a hundred years most of the personal copies of the popular fiction novels will have probably made their way to the recycling center.
The idea of online social networks for sharing books is only worth doing for hard to find titles. What’s the point of wasting money, time and resources to “mail” a poplular book for someone to borrow when you can get it from the library (or depending on the cost of shipping been able to just buy it)?
Don’t get me wrong. I buy tons of books! And love them and REALLY have a hard time parting with them unless I have passed them along with a recommendation to a deserving reader.
Another reality check for everyone who thinks online books will replace books. For those of us who are in front of screens 40+ hours a week at an office doing intense computer work, I can’t wait to read a “regular book”. The number of reasons are too lengthy to go into here, but if I had to read novels on a computer I’d stop reading them!!!! And for me that would be like not breathing!!
— Posted by reality check
2008
11:11 pm
Late to the debate here, but I don’t see many making the point that publishers benefit tremendously from the existence of a public library marketplace. (kudos to commnets #74 & 75 - spot on!)
The Bowker Annual would have the figures, but isn’t the total percentage of book sales to libraries north or 10% of all book sales? That’s a big chunk of change, and includes MANY crappy books no one else would be buying or even consider buying, especially in the academic market. It also includes multiple copy orders of mass market titles that turn out to be duds. Latest Tom Wolfe novel anyone? lol. Libraries had to have that, based on expected demand that never materialized. Same thing happens every month in every well-funded public library system in the country. Without a library market, many, MANY books wouldn’t have a market.
Also, the notion in the comments that libraries exist for the poor and unwashed, eager to improve their lot, is romantic and off-base. For the most part, libraries serve the *middle-class*. Those with money to spare often simply buy their own, and the poor don’t have the luxury of time or the interest. I believe that holds true for library computer use as well. These are gross generalizations, but reality.
— Posted by kruthy