Redstate

That's really the long term answer.

of the idea that public libraries will eventually be outdated, if they are not already so.

You've posed an interesting question, but I think I'm firmly in the camp against closing public libraries.

First of all, public libraries do much more than lend out books. Some of the more significant tasks they are responsible for is the providing storage and access to gov't documents. Since there's a ton of historical public documentation such as census data, property maps, and so forth, closing down libraries will severely limit the public's access to these documents. Arguments can be made that these should be digitized and placed online, but as someone who is heavily involved in digital library and digitization projects, there is not enough resources and expertise to digitize and make available online all of these resources and documents.

Secondly, while people can read stuff online, the trend in copyright law is moving towards more control, not less. You can find public domain books online and read them, but as copyright terms are extended, less content is entering the public domain. If you're someone without the resources to purchase these books, you're out of luck. You make a point that megastores can fill this gap, but these stores are market driven and not as "mega" as you would like to think. Is Barnes & Noble going to devote shelf space to a large tome that one person is interested in, when it could fill the same space with three bestsellers? A private megastore will not come close to stocking out-of-print and older books for which there is not a big market. Take a look at your closest megastore and tell me how many books from the 1960's and 1970's you see. The megastores may have more books on their shelves than the small library, but how many of those are movie novelizations or the gazillion different editions of "Lord of the Rings"?

Online sources provide a way out for the older and less well-known books. However, this generally presupposes that the person looking for the book has access to a computer and a credit card or debit account. Given that libraries are often a community's free Internet access point, closing off the library will eliminate some people's access to these online sources.

Finally, there's the issue of browsing. Given a library's wider and deeper selection of books than the typical B&N, it's a lot easier for people to browse stacks, look at books, and just explore. I do like exploring the book megastores, but I typically find a wider variety of stuff in my public library. Also, the library is a valuable public space where a community can essentially aggregate knowledge for the benefit of its citizens. People use libraries as places to work and write and get away from the chaos of everyday life. Libraries have also started lending out content other than books. At my local library, I can check out films and music. Will the local megastore let me unwrap a DVD and watch it when I'm in the store?

Personally, I think that libraries are very important in our day and age when information is becoming an increasingly important commodity and the trend among the producers of the information is to limit the access and distribution of that content. Libraries act as a bulwark against that trend and continue to support the principle that it's good policy to have a population that is educated and able to access "the sciences and arts". If there was more of a movement toward a more robust and stronger public domain, then the case for keeping libraries might be weaker. However, that is not the case, and I believe that libraries are more valuable now than they ever were.

(I also work in a university library, so I'm a bit biased. While my job is software development for the university as a whole, I've come to realize that libraries do much more than just lend out books.)

for the reasons explained here.

It seems like we have a lot bigger targets to go after than the public library system. My kids check out 10-15 books a week from the public library system. I can't think of any single skill more important to growth and development(and future avoidance of welfare) than the ability to read well, and the enjoyment of learning that goes along with it. We probably have 2000-3000 books in the house that we own - so it's not like we are hosing Amazon or Borders either.

When you consider what percentage of my tax dollars end up supporting the library system, it is probably the one and only area of government where I  feel like I'm getting decent value.

Although I agree in principal, I think the libraries should for practical reasons be way down the target list.

This is exactly what I was hoping to see from someone.  Let me make some rejoinders and qualifiers to my proposal.

First, university libraries are already private entities (although I could see them becoming more open if public libraries were closed).  Thus, university libraries (along with medical ones, etc) are not affected by this proposal.

Second, the aggregation and community aspect of public could be replicated by megastores which now have life music, reading hours, and many of the other "community" events that libraries used to monopolize.  Further, at least in my hometown (Tulsa, OK), megastores have much larger collections than most public libraries (excepting the main central library downtown).

Third, if the problem of access to online materials could be achieved in another way would public libraries then fall into the negative in a cost-benefit analysis?  If stores had free online access as a lure for example.  Or could libraries become smaller kiosk style internet shops instead of buildings housing many tomes?

Finally, the points about historical selection and the state of digitization of libraries are very valid.  My weak defense would be that if there is demand for more historical selections, they would appear someplace (if only online).  And as for digitization, I believe it is a matter of time before it is far enough along to make online libraries more feasible.

Thank you for the very informed commentary.  I suspect that technology will either revolutionize how public libraries function or turn them into an outdated service in the future if they haven't already.

Doverspa, you certainly raise an interesting idea, that's worth exploring.  I'm curious now to look into the usage (vs. money spent) data as well.

krempasky, "Google it", good answer. I like that, heh.

cjkarr, I understand what you're saying about the nostaligia of browsing a library and its other merits.  however, if Doverspa's idea was looked at this way...think about this re: resources for digitization - wouldn't there be a tradeoff if you cut out expenses for manpower, buildings, and administration to then finance digitization?  

If anyone knows where one could find statistics such as the percent of the population who borrowed a book from a public library in a given year please share.

Try asking the librarian down at your local library. Or calling your library's help line.

I think you have an interesting idea here but you need to deal with at least a few issues.

1. Librarians are terrific research assistants. In my experience they much prefer a challenging request than saying "Shh" over and over again. What will incentivize the megastores to provides librarians? Not some surly high school student but an honest to goodness trained information professional.
   
2. Access to the internet. Does this become a right paid for by tax revenue?
   
3. The superstores are interested in stocking "The Ann Coulter Diet" and will be very resistent to stocking "The Library Digest" so that you can find out about library usage.
   
4. Megastores thrive by selling books. They will not stock out of print, out of favor or other hard to find items. The public library in a small town can obtain very difficult to find materials through the interlibrary loan program.

I'm sure there's more. But my point is simply that there is a lot more printed/archived information in the world than is currently in print and of any profitable value in the market place. I don't think we want market forces deciding which bits of our intellectual heritage have value.

Aziz, can I ask what changes you think public libraries should go through in response to changing technology and expanding services provided by the private sector?

Are public libraries fine operating on the same model we've had since the late 1800s or should they move toward being an online entity or an internet access point mainly?

I suspect it is far too early for this kind of proposal to make much traction, but I like to try to be forward looking.  What should a library look like in 10-20 years?

I believe universal access to these resources is vital.  I also believe that there may be more efficient ways of doing it.  The operating costs of keeping a lot of small buildings full of books and staff is not negligable.  If those costs could be foregone by using megastore infrastructure, all those Carnegie Endowments could go directly toward rental fees and providing computers or internet access for those in need.

I wish I had more data on library usage and costs.  I also think there may be enough private funds to still run a couple non-profit libraries in a city without costing the city-county anything.

Finally, this is definitely not a top priority right now.  I'm much more interested in getting a PRA.  But it was a new idea and I think the blogosphere is a good place to put up trial balloons.  Thanks for your response.

Third, if the problem of access to online materials could be achieved in another way would public libraries then fall into the negative in a cost-benefit analysis?  If stores had free online access as a lure for example.  Or could libraries become smaller kiosk style internet shops instead of buildings housing many tomes?

In making the assumption for the free online access, you're making a huge assumption with respect to intellectual property rights and that copyright holders would allow B&N to host their content online for free. I just finished attending a conference on digital libraries, and the issues surrounding IP rights was one of the main topics. We have the technology to put these types of things online and make them publicly accessible, but rights holders will NEVER consent to something like this. In my work on the Oyez project, we deal daily with rights clearances from gov't sources and it's amazing what hoops we have to jump through to get access to Supreme Court and Nat'l Archive content and make it available online. Working with private entities is orders of magnitudes worse.

Finally, the points about historical selection and the state of digitization of libraries are very valid.  My weak defense would be that if there is demand for more historical selections, they would appear someplace (if only online).  And as for digitization, I believe it is a matter of time before it is far enough along to make online libraries more feasible.

The problem is that there are limited resources to digitize materials. Do you spend taxpayers dollars to digitize and store a property map from the 1940's when the cost of doing so exceeds any expected benefit? Libraries are important because they are not as driven by these commercial considerations. It's true that we spend a fair amount of money on libraries, but what is that money compared with the billions of dollars we've spent in Iraq or the $40 million dollars that the president is spending on his inauguration? To the average person, the amount of money spent on libraries looks to be quite large, but it's not so much when comparing it to other gov't expenditures.

I wish we had national data on it so this would be more informed.  However, I do try to look for savings or efficiency in every nook and cranny I can.  I think most people recognize why national defense costs more than public libraries do.  The important framework for the discussion should be cost-benefit.  I could spend only $50 million on Rock 'n' Roll museum, but that would called pork (I hope).  If I spend the same $50 million on military personnel, it is a public service.  Now if $50 million supports a library system of buildings, staff, books, and maintenance, wouldn't it be nice if we could cut that down to $30 million and spend it only on direct rental fees and internet access.  Drop the spending on buildings, maintenance, and some staff and make it more efficient.  The details are obviously nebulous and shaky, but the general thrust for a more efficient system that compliments technology should be given a fair shake.

cjkarr, I understand what you're saying about the nostaligia of browsing a library and its other merits.  however, if Doverspa's idea was looked at this way...think about this re: resources for digitization - wouldn't there be a tradeoff if you cut out expenses for manpower, buildings, and administration to then finance digitization?

Assume that we digitize all the content in a typical library. (A huge task by any measure, when one factors in the human labor involved in scanning, OCR, IP rights clearance, and so on...) The library will still need to host the servers the content lives on, hire system administrators to run the servers, provide a climate-controlled place for the servers to live, and so on. Furthermore, librarians do more than run the checkout counter, so librarians would still need to be employed. While I firmly support the creation of such libraries, I'm not convinced that you'll meaningfully cut the building, manpower, and administration costs.

Are you pro-education? Personally, I've found that a public library has been much more educational than most days I spent in school, but I'm not advocating their demise.

Yes, there are big stores that folks can browse in, but they are private property. That means, among other things, that kids who appear lower class are not welcome to hang out. How do we persuade BN to let these folks hang when we know they won't buy anything? Force? Seems unlikely.

They are also available in big cities, only. Most small towns that have libraries but no bookstores and many small towns that don't have a library yet, particularly if they are on the edges of a growing city, are working hard to build one.

I'm also not limited to the books that happen to be in the library I use. Yes, small branch libraries may have a wider range of books than the average BN, but they also have access to all of the other books in the library system as well as other libraries. On-line card catalogs have made local libraries far more useful than they were only 20 years ago. You may not be able to browse through all of these books, but you can have them delivered, often for no cost to you.

This is an interesting idea that I think could work in a city where you will find the large bookstores.  I don't believe it would necessarily replace many libraries though.  I think the more urban public libraries would be affected by using megastores, but what immediately came to mind when I read this were rural libraries.  I grew up in a small town (~1,700) about 30 miles from a medium-sized city (200,000).  The library system was set up so that you could "order" a book from the system and it would arrive in a few days.  It was nice because our small library in town didn't have a large collection, but combined the amount of titles was pretty good.  The rural libraries could tap into the large collection in the city and distribute it pretty effectively thoughout the region.

I don't see the main benefit of libraries to be necessarily a source of information for adults.  Especially in smaller towns, libraries are a great after-school location for kids.  Granted, I am more than a few years out of elementary school, so my memories are slightly sephia-toned, but the library was one of the few places in my small town where you could always go and find other kids (the other being the park).  Still, in the town I currently work in (~2,500) I walk past the library on my way to the UPS box daily, and I always see kids running in and out.  I don't know if I would trust a Border's or a Barnes & Nobles to keep an eye on my (hypothetical) kids.  And I don't really see anyone opening up a big box in my old hometown any time soon.  

My two problems with replacing libraries with megastores:

1. Eliminating the large city libraries' collections will diminish the regional library system's ability to provide titles to rural libraries, and the odds of megastores opening in the smaller towns is low.  (However, I could see opening small satellite stores that carry a few titles, where you place an order in to a larger store for anything they didn't have on site, much like the current regional library systems.)
   
   
2. Closing libraries makes for one less place for schoolkids to go after school.  Not that having kids go to a Border's or a Barnes & Nobles would be the worst thing for them, but these places (currently) aren't really set up for this purpose.  I am making an assumption here, but megastores aren't hiring employees to supervise children, they are hiring employees who can stock shelves and deal with (mostly adult) customers.
   
   
3. I don't know if I would feel all that comfortable going to a place to read a book and having the pressure of buying it afterwards.  This is just my neuroses here, but if I went to a bookstore and read an entire book, I would feel some obligation to buy it.  I attained some form of enjoyment/knowledge from reading the book, and some compensation is in order.  When I get a book from the library, I know that I am already compensating the library with my taxes.  Again, this is just my slightly perverse beliefs, and I wouldn't expect it to be an overarching social entitlement problem.  It would just be uncomfortable for me.

It's an interesting topic, though.  I am in complete agreement that libraries need to be wired.  I look forward to hearing other thoughts on the issue.

I agree with the savings and efficiency argument. However, I don't think that closing down the library and substituting B&N, Borders, and Amazon is a valid substitute for the service the library system provides, as each serves a different set of principles.

I do agree that libraries have a lot to gain by going digital - indeed, that's a large portion of how I earn my paycheck each month. There are many ways that the discovery and retrieval of information can be streamlined via digital means. However, the people best equipped to do this is not the megastores, but the librarians themselves. Ask yourself this - would you be willing to replace the university library with the campus bookstore? If not, why is replacing a community's public library with megastores any more valid? People use the library for recreational use, but they also use it for education and research. The typical megastore seems primarily focused at the recreational reading and not so much of the more serious reading. Furthermore, when looking for a particular bit of information, is a trained librarian or Borders clerk going to know where to look for the most comprehensive and authoritative information on a particular topic? A lot of simply incorrect information is published every day and a librarian's task is to know how and where to look to find that information. If anything, we need more librarians, not less, to deal with the flood of new content.

I agree with you that bringing libraries up to date with technology is needed. (I've written applications in this space that librarians love.) Almost every librarian would also agree with you. However, depending on megastores is not the way to go. Let's put more effort into making libraries work better and more efficiently so that they can do their duties to the community, and let the bookstores continue to sell books as they see fit instead of combining the two.

Am I missing something here?

The difference between libraries and megastores is that megastores don't let you have books unless you buy them.  Some, but not all, will let you read books in the store.  None will let you take them out of the store.

Libraries -- free access to free books.

Megastores -- books for sale.

Doverspa, am I missing something in your proposal?

If you want to discuss hard copy books vs. online access, that's also an interesting discussion, but as has been pointed out, online access to copyrighted material is becoming increasingly unavailable.

I really, really hope I'm missing something here.  So far on RS I've seen arguments for privatizing the post office (uniquely cited in the Constitution as a service Congress is authorized to provide), schools, and now the library.

Is there any legitimate function or service that government currently provides that is not a candidate for privatization?

Thanks -

As my example of the Mount Prospect library shows, libraries have always been responsive to changing technologies and information sources.

The private sector offers some range of services that overlap - but these are not free. Why shift the cost for using them off the taxpayer budget where you get more bang for your buck and onto the individual? Point of note, most libraries are run by local budgets. The MPPL expansion was delayed for twenty years because it was never approved by voters. Then, one year, teh citizens of MP woke up and said, we want more. It was done, and with enormous benefit (and note that teh old library was noi slouch in its service to the community either).

Abolishing a library is of course the prerogative of any community. This isnt a federal , a state, or even acounty government issue, Its a municipality and township-level one. In that sense, the proposal is a bit of a red herring.

in 10-20 years, libraries will look much teh same - but also be different, just as today's MPPL is both different and same from the one I learned to love to read in, systematically going through every single book on every single shelf in teh sci fi section. Theres abundant evidence that libraries are supremely adaptive precisely because they are professionally invested in teh field.

How much have bookstores evolved in eth past 10 years? far less than libraries, if comparing the same Barnes and Noble that has been at the corner to the library down the street is any indication. MPPL has grown, B&N has stayed teh same. Theres simply no comparison...

note: regarding internet access specifically: internet is just one of teh many services a library provides. The MPPL provided internet access as far back as 1990.

Do you think the founders would have mandated the government to provide telephone service and internet access if they knew about it?

Mail was the primary personal/business/government communication medium of the day. Is that the case anymore? Are these new technologies related?

Libraries are important for more than just books.  The library system here has public access computers, periodicals, large-print editions, books on tape, music CDs, and so on.  Many of the items that the library has are simply not available at the major booksellers.

Libraries are important, too, as archival sources.  They keep the back issues of the magazines and newspapers that they carry.  You can't go to Barnes & Noble and read a specific article in the July 1998 Economist, for example.

Economies of scale alone don't persuade me, Dover.  What about the use of libraries as public spaces, as cultural centers, etc?

I don't mind Amazon so much, but I despise the megastores, despite my frequent purchases there.  They've broken every locally owned store of any size or value in every place I've lived.  Libraries preserve communities every bit as much as museums, galleries, and other small, non-commercialized places.

I thought those were already partially privatized.

I think Doverspa's point is that Borders could do all the library functions if the library no longer existed.

I support libraries, but just for fun...

Would Borders ever do it? In order for a bookstore to buy off on the proposal, the marginal benefit of expanding their services would have to exceed the marginal cost of a lending system and all the other library functions. I'll bet a large percentage of the typical mega bookstore revenue comes from the bestsellers category. I doubt there is enough marginal revenue to be had to ever make it feasible for the bookstores to function as the library, unless government subsidized the effort. However, that is whole different argument.

what would laura bush do?

Right you are...

First, let it be known that I believe the onus is always on pro-government views to argue why their is a market failure.  The military, trust busting, and (at one point) mail delivery all fit that bill.  Libraries definitely filled a needed infrastructure investment that had positive sum gains for society (i.e. it is not just redistributive).

That given, I wanted to see what justifications were still valid for the existene of public libraries given the changing nature of information distribution.  I admit that there are many strong arguments in favor of public libraries and I expect them to be around in the near future.  However, I think it is important to re-evaluate these types of institutions when times change so they do not merely perpetuate themselves.

Given two major new developments, the emergence of a large national network of private book suppliers and the proliferation of internet access to centralized libraries and their functions, I thought it was time to rethink the 1870 model of libraries that Carnegie so rightfully pushed at the time.

The one thing I think you are missing in my original analysis is that public libraries crowd out any rental system for books.  Would the megastores create a rental system and carry a wider historical section if libraries didn't do it for free?  I don't know, but they might.  And we could use a fraction of the money we spend on libraries to provide rental fees for children and those lower on the income scale.  This gets rid of the building, maintanence, and staff costs of running a scattered library system in a big city.  It uses the national infrastructure that now exists in book sales to run book rentals also.

The "other" functions of a library are a very good counter argument that I am ready to concede are insurmountable at this time.  Storing historical documents of government, getting assistance from librarians, and free internet access to all are hard to replicate in a marketplace and thus fall into the "market failure" justification of government services.

I should also note that this applies mainly to middle-sized cities and larger.  Rural areas are not tapped into the national network yet.

However, some other arguments do not hold up in light of technological advances.  Specifically, the ordering of books at your local library and getting them delivered can be done by Borders who is teamed up with Amazon (and thus has access to more books than your library is my guess).  Also megastores can be communal centers.  For-profit institutions can be community builders as coffee shops, barber shops, and malls have done for years.  They can provide live music, educational groups, book clubs, and child-focused reading times.  In fact, many already do these things.

I didn't mean to offend anyone with this proposal.  I meant to start a debate.  That succeeded and reminded me of the many functions of the public library.  I do think technology and the national private book sector will both revolutionize or ossify the library system as we know it.

I don't think taxpayers would fund a "cultural center" at the price we spend on libraries.  Their purpose is to make sure everyone has access to knowledge materials, mainly in the form of books.  If that access could be provided in other ways, it should be considered.

I think you have an overly dismal view of commercialized places.  Coffee shops, malls, broadway theaters, and bookstores all create community spaces and often house free music events, public meetings, and other cultural interests.

It's my philosophical disposition to let the market direct resources.  There are market failures that need to be addressed, the question is whether the market failure that lead to the creation of libraries still exists.  It seems that it probably does for now, but it may be solved by the market through digitalization and other technological innovations in the future.

Data as to usage might be helpful in assessing whether maintaining public libraries is a just use of taxpayer money.  Leaving aside the question of whether the government should perfom this function in the first place, it would be hard to justify public libraries if users are primarily people who could afford to pay for the service if it were not provided free of charge.  It would be analogous to taxpayer funding of public radio or TV which caters for the tastes of relatively affluent audiences.  

Another way of looking at it might be to ask what benefit accrues to taxpayers who do not get around to using the library themselves.  Does this subsidy of others' library usage bring enough value to the non-using taxpayer to warrant compelling him to continue the subsidy?

A very good cost-benefit framework.  I wish I had the relevant data to look at as it would help inform this debate.

FWIW, my movtivation for this article was a coworker mentioning that it would be nice to rent books at Barnes and Noble instead of buying them.  In fact, s/he buys books and reads them in the 3 day limit to return them.  It works as a free rental policy even if its not meant to be one.  I then thought that if libraries didn't exist, B&N might have an incentive to provide that service.  Just thought the anecdote might give relevence to the motivation.

What are your thoughts in the idea I presented above where the libraries serve as a counterweight as information products become more commercialized and more tightly controlled via IP laws? Is there a compelling public service that libraries provide in light of the fact that less works are entering the public domain and thus are not available to everyone?

As I understand it, most public libraries in larger cities started out as (not for profit) private societies that were eventually absorbed by the cities in which they were active.

Libraries are local, and they do suffer when cities are running short of cash, but they also are a point of civic pride. They will have to be long past obsolete before cities will abandon them.

For a guy not linked into the library scene, let me ask a few questions.

How do libraries get an exemption on these restrictions?  Is it becasue they only rent out materials instead of selling them?

More importantly, what is it about a public library that can't be done by a private entity with respect to IP laws.  What is the market failure?

That is my understanding of public libraries as well.  With the high level of non-profit interest in education and libraries, I also think that many could run on private donors alone if they had too.  By the by, that is my general view on NPR as well.  Let the private donors who listen stump up and pay for the service instead of using my money for it.  There is obviously an audience for those programs, run it as a non-profit, tax-exempt organization.

I meant their use as public spaces as an additional reason to value libraries, not an exclusive reason.  Obviously, the primary reason for libraries is knowledge.

Yes, 'tis true some places host aspects of local culture, but I think it pales in comparison.  Just my opinion, of course.  But I'm also the kind of person who prefers Cup-o-Joe over Starbuck's, so I'm not unbiased.

As for market failures and the like, my philosophical disposition doesn't pay the same homage to the market yours does, so we must agree to disagree on that point.

Where I live, Madison, Wisconsin, the library gets allocated some share of revenue, but does not get all of its costs paid for by government funding. If it wants to build a new building or take on some other major project, it has to do fundraising for it.

Our NPR stations also get far more from listeners during their begathons than they do from government funding.

If there is such strong support in the private charity market, why don't these institutions get 100% of their funding from there?  I have always been a fan of private charity over forced taxation.  There is something about the willing choice of funding communal goods and non-profit enterprises that creates an ownership over communal space.  I often think government run institutions alienate more people and feel more impersonal than true "community" efforts.

People like to see some good things for their tax money. Building new jails may possibly improve our quality of life over time, but for most people in America, we want good, constructive things from our government as well. Almost all cities of any size in the country have chosen to fund libraries. Apparently constituents, even the ones who never go to the library, approve overwhelmingly of spending tax dollars on a library.

I would generally agree that most communities have no problem with funding libraries.  But they also haven't thought of other options most of the time.  Similar with UPS and other government "services."  If similar services were still available and taxes were lower (the charity scenario), I doubt many would complain.

if Borders could make money on the book rental system, let then try. Let them even go to the Netflix model (netPages?) if they like - bully for them. what relevance does that have to whether towns and municipalities choose to build libraries or not? I think using government to force closure of libraries just to create an artificial market for Borders and B&N to try their rental schemes is just as much an abuse of government power than market intervention.

The market in books and knowledge is essnetially unregulated. If private industry can make libraries obsolete, let them try. Lets see teh demo :) But this seems completely irrelevant to whether libraries serve a role in public sphere or not.

NPR receives only about 2% of its budget from direct government funding. Most of it's revenues comes from corporations and member stations fees.

source

I really think you are underemphasizing the role libraries play in their communities.  It is not exclusively about knowledge delivery, and never has been.  I've mentioned some other reasons in previous posts which you have dismissed.  I agree, if the only purpose libraries serve are delineated purposes like the post office provides, the private market might one day be able to completely subsume that function.  But we disagree on the original purpose and on the value of the institution.

The libraries are highly subsidized and thus crowd out other businesses from doing the same work.  That was the original motivation for my writing this entry.  Would the private sector create a rental program if libraries didn't have a subsidized (to the point of being free) one already set up.

If libraries gave away subsidized books for free, Borders and B&N would never have spread as far as they have with their bookstores.

With regard to these restrictions, libraries typically get around them by negotiating special licenses for their users. This is a big deal when dealing with things like Lexus-Nexus. The library essentially uses its clout and community standing to obtain licenses where members of the library can use the electronic resources while in the library. I doubt that publishers would be as generous with for-profit entities as they are with libraries.

Since I don't come to this question from a market standpoint, let me approach it from a different angle and see if you see the point. Traditionally, libraries have been equalizers of a sort where all members of a community were given the same level of access to information and content. The poor had access to the same content as the rich. The library is essentially the place where the community could create a shared pool of information and content for all citizens.

In contrast to the library model, as more information becomes electronic, and thus more easily controlled via technologies such as DRM, content has become much more individualized. As a consumer of that content, I am typically unable to share the content I have access to with others as the provider of the content stipulates that any additional users must have their own license to consume the content. This is a stark contrast to the traditional library model.

Traditionally, producers of content were granted a time-limited monopoly where they could recover the cost and rewards of their creation via the use of copyrights. However, as shown in the Eldred v. Ashcroft case, Congress has the power to set copyright terms as they please. Given the amount of lobbying of Congress on the part of corporate copyright holders, we currently exist in a state where copyright terms are effectively unlimited and no new content has fallen into the public domain in some time. Now, as I understand it, the purpose of the copyright clause in the Constitution ("to promote the sciences and useful arts") was written to maximize the amount of creativity possible by providing market incentives to create new works. However, the "limited times" portion of that clause signifies that this monopoly is not intended to be perpetual and that creative works must fall into the public domain for the benefit of all citizens.

Since we effectively no longer have the benefit of the public domain for those without resources to obtain access to creative works, libraries have been a way around that. Basically, the library acts on behalf of its community (rich and poor) to obtain access to copyrighted works for all of its members.

In your proposal above, you seem to think that private entities are better equipped to do this. I'm skeptical about that as these private entities' motives are not the free and equal access to information and content, but rather enhancing shareholder value. If B&N finds that poor people who take up space and read books don't end up purchasing books, it will evict them for someone who will actually purchase a book and contribute to the bottom line. Alternatively, if they find that they could make more renting out copies of popular books, they are going to limit their selection to the books that make them the most money. The allegience of the booksellers is not toward promoting the public good, rather it is maximizing profits. There are good things (such as hosting gov't documents, providing free Internet access, and maintaining copies of older and less-used books) that libraries do that are contrary to the profit motive.

Also, I'm not clear on whether you have made a specific proposal, but this idea of providing "rental vouchers" seems to simply being a means of diverting public funds into private coffers. The rental idea seems like a good idea until you realize that to do it on the scale that libraries currently do is not a profit-generating proposition. Imagine taking a model like NetFlix and applying that to books. NetFlix loses money on customers who use their lower-tier rental programs and rent many disks a month. Given that DVD discs are small and cheaply mailed, imagine trying to do something on the scale of NetFlix with the number of books people check out weighing many more pounds than the DVD disc. You think that a company can make money on a book-rental business, but I'm not sure. Or to put it another way, I doubt that private market-driven mechanisms are the most efficient way to fill the roles that libraries currently fill.

And from a taxpayer point of view, I'd rather have my taxes go towards funding organizations looking to serve the public good, organize and preserve our cultural heratige, and make that heritage available to all citizens as a fundamental human right than take those same dollars and subsidize booksellers whose sole allegience is towards their shareholders and profits. There are many things that libraries do that are not profit generators and will never be. Even if some portions of the library operations were profitable and able to take advantage of maarket efficiencies, I'm not willing to jettison the other non-profitable but valuable portions in order to save a few bucks.

Assuming a commitment to equal access that libraries now provide, how is dismantling libraries and letting B&N and Borders do it any better? Some people won't be able to afford books and given the equal access consideration, someone has to pay B&N to rent out books to poor people. How is this not subsidizing bookstores instead of libraries to provide content to local citizens?

First, thank you for the detailed and thoughtful responses.

It seems copyright law is getting out of hand and that is probably a special interest problem (a cancer that hits both parties just in different areas).  Many of the concerns you voice are true and reasonable.  I may take all this feedback and develop a more nuaned alternative system at some point.

Let me propose one more new twist.  A Netflix Model would be impossible because of the weight of the book.  However, there are electronic ways to send things that weigh nothing.  I'm sure companies are reluctant to use these methods at this point in technological development, but it could be possible to give one or two access to a particular computer for a small fee (or a monthly fee system like Netflix).  It is these technological advances that I think really challenge the old library model and are at the heart of my challenge to the orthodoxy.

1. Unless copyright law is radically revamped, there's no way that electronic distribution will become a reality. I doubt that libraries now have the right to create digital copies of their books. Copyright law will have to be radically revamped to accomadate this new reality, and there are many entrenched monied interests who will have none of it. The technology is already available for what you have in mind, but lawyers have stifled any progress in that area. If you're interested, take a look at Project Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/ .
   
2. There are also serious ergonomic issues. I don't know about you, but I cannot read the same volume of text on modern computer displays. I think that it's unrealistic to expect people to abandon the "check out a book" model for one where they have to go to a library and sit for hours staring at a computer screen to read a novel. Some of us still like to check out our thrillers and read them in bed after business hours. :-)

every decent library offers video (VHS and DVD) rentals for free, of the latest releases. This does not hurt Blockbuster's sales. Why would books be any different?

I understand your market philosophy, but teh result would be pure corporate welfare. You're proposing doing away with the competition just to create a revenue stream for the bookstores. In the process, you impose user fees on end users that werent there.

aside: cjkarr, your writing in this thread has been absolutely inspiring. Bravo.

A wealth of information about libraries is available at the American Library Association website - http://www.ala.org .

For those interested in costs, there's a good page on this

http://www.ala.org/ala/alalibrary/libraryfactsheet/alalibraryfactsheet4.htm

From there I found a PDF detailing operating costs in 2001. In the US, there were 9129 libraries that were operated for roughly $30.02 per capita per year. Seventeen cents was federal money, $3.82 state money, $23.20 local money, with other resources covering the rest. The cost of operating the libraries didn't vary much as the populations served changed. It cost $34.71 per capita for a library to serve  less than 1000 people, and libraries serving over a million spent $29.71 per capita. Source:

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003399

The federal cost incurred for all libraries in the US for one year is less than $51 million dollars. In contrast, a single V-22 Osprey costs more than $80 million dollars. If one is wishing to cut costs, there's better areas to look before worrying about libraries.

Oh boy do I agree with that one.  There are much better places for the federal government to look to cut costs.  I would start with the Medicare Bill, the upcoming Transportation Bill, and the other bipartisan pork politics.  I'll start a whole new thread if we want to list places to cut federal spending.

However, cities and counties should be thinking outside the box themselves.  I don't claim that this is a panacea, but it is innovative and forward looking.  Saving money is saving money.  And this may be one way for cash strapped areas to try.  Let private retailers take some functions away (rental), let private charities fund internet cafes for all people including research assisting staff, and put important government documents online.  

Public money wouldn't be spent on the property, maintenance, staff and other upkeep costs.  It could go directly to paying the cost of renting books.  Thus we could pay less for the same result (in theory).

I cannot imagine what the Federal government is doing with that piddly bit of money in the mix.

I'm glad to know that removing federal funding will have essentially zero impact on my local library. I hate it when the feds try to blackmail state and local governments into doing something that they cannot require directly.

The only thing bookstores and libraries have in common is books, videos and CDs. The business of the two is remarkably different. There would be added staff and they would need more space and money to maintain a lending library. People will not buy books that appear to have been read already.

I doubt that B&N would be able to sell a book off the shelf that it's been lending out. I certainly wouldn't purchase the used book. If B&N did get into the lending game, it would have a separate collection of books that it lends out (and space to house it) and it would have staff to man that operation. These would be people who check that everyone's turned their books in, shelved the books and retrieved the books when one is to be checked out. This is an additional cost that would definately be factored into the cost of a rental, and I don't see why you would think that cost just vanishes.

What would be done if the city's local book megastore closed its doors and moved out of town? I doubt that you're going to grant the gov't the power to force Borders to do business in Smallville because of its new library responsibilities. If a megastore moves in, kills the local competition, and then moves out or goes out of business, what then?

... and put important government documents online.

Like a list of foreign lobbyists?

http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=332&sid=100

Sorry, I couldn't resist that. Despite my opposition to your plan to privatize libraries, I do believe that you are right to think out of the box and look for ways to improve their operations. I also think that you're not fully aware that librarians are also well aware of this and are working to improve their situations. In all of my dealings with public employees, librarians rank highest on my list for forward thinking and doing their job well. I'd hate to "fix" something that isn't broke. :-)

...and just note that hardcopy isn't going anywhere.  Electronic storage is wonderful, electronic storage is useful, electronic storage is cheap and electronic storage requires a reliable electrical supply to do anything with it at all.  A library with ten thousand volumes in print form and a blown fuse is a working library; a library with ten thousand books on CD-ROM and a blown fuse is a frisbee museum.

We won't get into how much easier it is to corrupt electronic data, either.

There are many good arguments in your analysis; however, I believe you underestimate the market somewhat.  If megastore moves out, either a) another megastore moves in, b) smaller, mayble local stores move in, or if books are not profitable then c) local charities create a way for knowledge distribution to happen (maybe through a library).

However, I am mainly teasing this idea out for larger cities.  I understand rural areas need an outlet for these services and government is probably the best way to provide it.

When I first saw that story, I was in stitches. If you are going to tell a lie, at least tell a believable one.

and in all my 62 years I've had a wonderful relationship with libraries.  Schools use them to introduce the students to the wonderful world of reading.  Classes will walk down to the local small town library and be taught library things by the staff of the library.  The wonder that all these books open up to a child's mind can't be imagined by adults.  This has to do with disadvantaged kids who wouldn't have a dime for anything, let alone reading material.

Libraries have bookmobiles.  They take books to nursing homes and other institutions where the mobility is difficult.  The bookmobiles take books to small towns without libraries.  I spent many a summer day reading and broadening my world this way.

Books on the internet don't do it.  First, not everyone has a computer. Second, I don't enjoy sitting at a computer screen trying to read a book.  It isn't mobile for one thing.  The smell of books is wonderful.  Of course, B & N have good smelling books too!  When I go traveling, I take out a book on tape then return it when I'm done.  To have to buy all them is ridiculous. My daughter and her husband couldn't afford a movie for their anniversary so they went to the library and treated themselves to borrowing a movie.  

I buy new books from the Megastores (online or one hour away at the big city or smaller selection at the Mall).  When I'm done I donate them to the library.  We just passed a levy to help the library continue to function since the government had run low on funds here in Ohio and had to cut. The cost for one year is the cost of a new book.

I usually only buy books that I wouldn't be able to get at the library such as religious books.  There is a private library in our area that was funded by someone's estate.  When the stock market was low in the last 4 years, the library had to find some funding other places and it took away from the funding for our local public library which didn't go over very well.  They eventually sold a Rockwell painting at Sotherby's and received some income that way to continue operating.  This library was the private collection of one man's books donated to the community for the community's good.  And it even gave scholarships to college. But it didn't seem to be able to make it on its own during a downturn.  When our branch library was built, local people donated to help build it.  It now has a nice lounge where our state representative can receive the community as well as other community affairs meeting there.  Teachers use libraries to find and order for use materials for projects in the classrooms.

Libraries are an important part of the fabric of America.  I'd hate to see yet another icon of our heritage wiped out by the computer.  Don't you know computers are of the devil anyway?! :)

Seriously, as an early childhood educator, I use the public library system all the time.  The school library usually doesn't hold all the titles I like to use when teaching a particular unit.  Therefore, I head to the public library and raid their shelves.  When I bring in those newly obtained books, it is like Christmas for my kids!  They love it!  I could never afford to purchase all the books I use and the government couldn't afford to move them for me every 2-3 years if I did.

No-leave the libraries alone and FORGET about digital books.  There is nothing like curling up on a rainy day with a cup of hot chocolate and a few good books to read.  Sure beats the heck out of reading a computer screen!!!!  

are a hero.

I plan to make the libary a central pat of my daughter's life. Shes only 2 yet, but I have plenty of time.

I still remember how proud I was the day I donated all my "baby" books to the library...

A library is only successful if people use it.  Take her often, it truly is like Christmas for little kids.  At least it is for mine. :)

Doverspa -

As always, thanks for your thoughtful and well-stated post.

In reply to this:

"First, let it be known that I believe the onus is always on pro-government views to argue why their is a market failure"

I offer my own belief that it is completely reasonable, useful, and good for a community to decide to pool their resources to provide some benefit for themselves.  I also believe that it's completely reasonable, useful, and good if they decide to do so through the agency of the government.  I certainly believe that doing so is consistent with the Constitution of the US.

There's nothing wrong with doing this in response to a market failure, but I don't think a market failure is a necessary precondition for this.

While I'm not an economist, macro or micro, I also offer my opinion, based on my own observation, that efficient as the market is, it is not always the best and most effective way to deliver some set of goods and services to a community of people as a whole.

The difference between our two points of view, I think, is central to the red / blue divide.

Cheers -

The answer is "No".

Borders would not provide free access to books for any and all.  They would not keep books on hand that don't sell well to a general market.  They would not maintain a reference library on useful, but relatively obscure topics.  They would not keep back issues of magazines, newspapers, and scholarly periodicals on hand.

"I doubt there is enough marginal revenue to be had to ever make it feasible for the bookstores to function as the library, unless government subsidized the effort"

Correct.  And, if government funds the effort, Borders has to make a reasonable profit above and beyond the cost of providing the service.  And, that reasonable profit has to compare favorably with what they make on a per-square-foot-of-retail-space and per-employee-hour basis from the sale of retail books.

Borders is happy to have people sit around reading books because they'll buy some.  They aren't going to want to devote their time and space to providing a service that directly competes with their business by giving people access to the same books for free.

Why would they?

Cheers -

Thank you everyone for the very cordial and informative discussion on this topic.  Count me convinced that there are valid services that libraries provide that cannot be moved into the private sector at this time.  Maybe after another decade or two of technological advances, it will be time to revisit this discussion.

For now, I'll just go rent a couple books from my local public library.

Interesting, I found this article about the Salinas, CA library system being closed.  It is a defense of all public libraries and hits the same points Aziz, Amos, and cjkarr have brought up here.  It kinda makes you wonder if he was reading this thread in search of a story to write about.

Thank you for pointing out the statistics on library costs.  I could not find an estimate of usage in proportion to the population of the library service area; therefore, I cannot tell what costs would be per user rather than per capita.  The $30 per capita cost is a bargain for the user since he gets a free ride on the non-user.  I would like to know what it would cost in user fees if the library were entirely funded by its users.  If I am a non-user, do I derive $30 of value from the use of the library by others? I think that I might be the best judge of this since this is entirely subjective and that it ought to be up to me whether I contribute to the library.

for willing to broach teh topic and bear the brunt in the service of fostering debate :)

And maybe one of these crazy ideas will hold more water.

If you don't have school age kids, should you get some of your property taxes back?

If you don't drive, should you get whatever your piece of the highway budget is back?

If you aren't robbed, mugged, or otherwise a victim of crime, should you get whatever your piece of the police budget back?

You see where I'm going with this, I imagine.

Either there are, or are not, services that are reasonable for government to provide to the community as a whole, whether everyone uses them or not.

I say there are.  That's why I'm a "blue state" voter.

If you want to make this purely a local issue, that's fine with me, because I'll probably come out ahead.  I live in a state, and a community, that values things like libraries, schools, and other public institutions.  I'll probably even come out ahead financially, because as has been pointed out, lots of "blue" states get less back from the federal budget than they pay in.

Lots of other folks, however, are going to come up short.

Cheers -

But a) most of us would love for things to be under local control the way libraries are.  If only education, medicare, and welfare programs were done similarly, and b) it is more accurate to say that "rich" states bet back less than they pay in.  And I'd willingly cut their taxes along with social programs to let the states and localities control those decisions.

In fact, if you can talk the Dems into honestly backing that idea (instead of just using it to win), you'd probably win over a few new voters.  I'd definitely keep an open ear.

I find it interesting that the rich states generally vote more liberally than the poor states despite the fact that they would be better off keeping their money at the state level. If these states were selfish, they would agree to stop all federal funding of local and state services in all states, freeing up more for local taxes and allowing them to spend selfishly on themselves rather than on the poor states that don't want big government.

Yup, but as we have all learned in the last decade or so, there are a lot of people who vote on social issues and principles rather than checkbooks.  I lean toward voting on principle as do most political activists.  At least that has been my experience.

There should be continuing debate on when it is reasonable for government to provide services to some people at the expense of everyone. This is not necessarily an all or nothing proposition, and each situation should be judged on its own terms.  Police and fire suppression might be judged under somewhat different standards than, for example, a plan to build and maintain a public park for skateboarding or to set aside public property for a garden club.  I think the issue of whether and how much the non-user benefits from the activity is relevant to the determination.  Otherwise, we are talking about out and out plunder.

"I think the issue of whether and how much the non-user benefits from the activity is relevant to the determination"

Fair enough, and a good point.

Cheers -

Definitely a good framework.  I suppose you would most likely agree that education, literacy, and having a good place for child to go after work all add something to the general community.

I might even be inclined to contribute voluntarily to education in my community even though I do not have children.  I agree that I benefit indirectly from the education of the children of others.  There is a point, however, where expenditures on this might begin to become excessive from my point of view and where parents might be expected to begin to pick up the tab.

It should be kept in mind in making these kinds of determinations about when and how much to spend on "public" goods that we are frequently engaging in income redistribution.  Although I benefit from the schools, parents of school age children benefit far more by any measure.  Proposed increases in spending on schools should be examined carefully to insure that the justice of providing differential benefits is weighed.

 

Dennis,

The kids in your community are going to be the people who form public policy, teach any children you might someday have, write your prescriptions when you are sick, and wipe your butt when you are incontinent with dementia. Trust me, you benefit from their education. We all do. And the kids who are not well educated are more likely to grow up to be the people who commit crimes against you and others in your community. These are also the people more likely to siphon "your" tax dollars by needing services such as TANF and medicaid.

I've never benefitted from special ed services in schools, but I certainly support them. Ditto for Head Start, CHIP etc. My kids benefit by all kids getting the best start they can, as do I. I see public education as the same as public health. We all benefit from universal vaccination, treatment of TB etc. just as we all benefit from good universal education.

Thanks, Lucy, for pointing out some of the specific benefits of education to the community.  

My perhaps badly communicated point was directed to how to fund education in a fair manner, not to whether people ought to be educated.  Many parents in my community could afford to educate their children at their own expense and would doubtless do so if the government did not provide for it.  In their case, my contribution to their children's educations may not benefit me at all.  Moreover, I would like to believe that many individuals including myself would voluntarily contribute to the education of the poor.  Accordingly, it is not a question of public education versus no education; rather, I am attempting to reframe the issue in terms of fairness and to urge moderation in the extent to which one category of citizens (parents) seeks a coerced subsidy from another category (non-parents).

 

I was probably more strident than I needed to be...

I've never thought of education as being coerced out of the people who don't benefit. I've honestly always thought of education as being for the common good, not for the good of the parents. My husband and I might well end up putting our children in private school, depending on where we live etc, but funding the public schools at the level they seek will never be a question for me.

I applaud that you would be willing to help fund education for the poor, the cynic in me does not believe that everyone would be willing to do that. And people make economic choices, for bad or good, which might mean that some parents choose not to fund their child's education, or they will prioritize their cigarettes, lottery tickets or whatever over that. I don't think this is ok, but don't want to punish the children because their parents don't prioritize them.

I see education, public health, roads, police, the military, etc as being part of the social contract we engage in to best care for ourselves and others.

I will continue to think about your statements and viewpoint. It will be good for the sometimes knee jerk, liberal, public health nurse in me. I have to hang out at Redstate to know what my Republican husband is doing with his life, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be a continuous growing experience for me :)

On topic, my rural town shut down its library before we moved here, there is one private library, but no interlibrary loan etc. It is awful. We spend thousands of dollars a year on books, but would certainly be better served by using the library and putting that money towards our retirement. And most of the residents in our town do not have the money to spend on books. While many may disagree, I believe that closing a library is sending a message that the town does not believe that knowledge is important.

Here's an old saying that may be appropos: 'When someone tells you "It's not the money, it's the principle", it's the money.'

Why yes, I am feeling cynical today.