On the new e-book policy:
26 seems such an arbitrary number.
It is just as arbitrary as paying $999 for a TV, $25,458 for a car, or $84,562 in salary. It's just a number low enough for them to make enough profit on this new medium, and high enough to get libraries to agree. Like any other supply/demand issue, the two parties will meet in the middle somewhere, or find alternatives.
I would add that I am surprised at all the hostility to public libraries but agree that the issue is the place for public funding of free library lending. We either agree that it is worthwhile or not. If it is, we should try to find a way to make it work in an increasingly electronic world. As for ERD's $500/yr that does sound outrageous.
What hostility are you referring to? I questioned whether libraries should carry pop-stuff, but I don't think there was any hostility in there - can you point out the hostility in case I just missed it?
What do you pay for library services? So far we have a $50 estimate (per household?) from clifp, and $230 from BWE. For us, library districts are not always the same as town/county districts - I don't know the exact boundaries of ours - it is possible that my $500 is subsidizing lower value households, but it could be the other way 'round also. If my # is outrageous, maybe I need to try to do something about it. Yes, we have a nice new library, no lattes.
When companies are greedy it prompts similar reactions in their customers. Serves them right if people start widely using account sharing techniques to download each other's libraries.
Now, calling companies 'greedy' and advocating the breaking of contracts sounds rather hostile to me. If you don't like the terms, don't enter into the contract. Simple.
While I'm sure there's no easily defined line about what they should stock, a general guide might be: "Is our community better off because people read this book/magazine/etc."
Yes, it's subjective and won't be agreed upon (like most things in a democracy). I'd take your guide one level higher though - "Is our community better off because people pooled their common resources (tax $) so that anyone in the community has access to this book/magazine/etc., and could the private sector fill this need better?"
And why not apply that to any commodity? Gas stations, butchers, movie theaters? Isn't the community better off if people have gas for their cars, good quality meat on their table, and are entertained and happy... comrade?
I'm just trying to understand where the line is drawn, and I personally lean to the idea that it was crossed when libraries went from mainly reference/educational material to pop-stuff. It would be a tough argument in public though, like so many govt provided services, people see this as 'free' and want more, not less. And like the test I apply to most subsidies - if the person wouldn't buy this product/service with their own money, why should they buy it with OPM?
-ERD50