The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds • Hacker News Board

Re: The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds

#141

Post by Nevermark » Tue, Apr 23, 2024, 5:47 PM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #124

dagw wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends slightly where you are, but often the ebook licenses are time limited, often to 1 year. So not only can't you resell the licenses, you have to keep rebuying them.

Public libraries really should stay away from e-anything, in my opinion. No library would purchase anything of the sort under my watch. Obviously, since patrons check it out, there is demand for it. Well, so what? There is demand for cocaine and porn; should public libraries offer that? Demand for something doesn't ipso facto oblige a library to provide it.

> there is demand for it. Well, so what?

Of course demand for something doesn't make it something that should be free.

On the other hand, your arguments against e-libraries are just as vague and lacking in implication.

Libraries promote literacy and/or learning with every book read. Even as a source of entertainment, it promotes a richer culture. All of which does have a total health of society benefit.

Re: The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds

#142

Post by Nevermark » Tue, Apr 23, 2024, 5:50 PM UTC

This forces borrowers to communicate higher quality information indicating their actual highest priority books.

Which helps the library improve the economics and provide the best service for the resources they have to work with.

Having each reader's hold list interpreted as an ordered prioritized list would add even more information. People with similar lists but differing priorities would be served even better, more cheaply.

Re: The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds

#143

Post by wizzwizz4 » Tue, Apr 23, 2024, 6:12 PM UTC

xur17 wrote: post #139

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reselling digital goods in a way that doesn't allow you to resell to multiple people isn't a solved problem. Replace "digital goods" with "artworks", and yes it is a solved problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_authenticity

COAs are physical, and as referenced on that page, NFTs are the main solution to this.

NFTs are a (highly problematic) attempt to do this without a central authority: there's no reason not to have an authority, so we can use regular old public-key cryptography.

Re: The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds

#144

Post by Zambyte » Tue, Apr 23, 2024, 6:13 PM UTC

Nevermark wrote: post #140

Zambyte wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another way to make it work is the way Free Software tends to be monetized: by selling labor (real scarcity) instead of licenses (imaginary scarcity).

How would that work for large scale, slow and/or risky return projects? We have several systems for matching resources to production because there isn't any single way that works best. But it is interesting to try to stretch each model as far as it can, for best results we can get.

I'm not sure I see why slow projects are a problem when you're being paid for labor. You just set expectations, and keep the customer updated on the honest status of the project (give them code they can run, even if it doesn't yet do everything they want).

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "risky"? I can only think of projects that don't yet have a customer. In that case, you just don't build it until there is a customer need for it. Architects don't speculatively design buildings hoping to find a customer who wants it. I think we would be better off if the same was true of software.

Re: The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds

#145

Post by xur17 » Tue, Apr 23, 2024, 6:16 PM UTC

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #143

xur17 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

COAs are physical, and as referenced on that page, NFTs are the main solution to this.

NFTs are a (highly problematic) attempt to do this without a central authority: there's no reason not to have an authority, so we can use regular old public-key cryptography.

Why are NFTs highly problematic? I'd argue that a central authority is highly problematic as it will end up looking like the existing Google / Apple marketplaces with no ability to resell, etc. Removing the central authority would allow organic resale markets for form, etc rather than "approval" blocking any real technical progress.

Re: The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds

#146

Post by lancesells » Tue, Apr 23, 2024, 7:15 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #106

esrauch wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make it sound nefarious for them to loan power tools somehow, while it seems like it's just an identified community need niche that they can service that no other organization will, the same as offering free tax advice or ESL classes or anything else.

[flagged]

> The need for physical libraries has passed just as the need for “public” radio and TV has passed. The internet has made those concepts as archaic as carrying coins.

Your bizarre take is hopefully one of youthful ignorance, but you do know the internet costs money right? Do you also know libraries are a source of internet for people that can't afford it?

Re: The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds

#147

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Apr 23, 2024, 8:16 PM UTC

xur17 wrote: post #136

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright has a thing called the first sale doctrine. You buy a book and now that copy is yours. You can sell it to someone else or lend it out etc., which is what libraries do. They don't have to negotiate with publishers at all, they just go to a book store and buy books. Publishers claim that ebooks are totally different and have to be licensed instead of purchased because it's the internet. This is, of course, a…

> Copyright has a thing called the first sale doctrine. You buy a book and now that copy is yours. You can sell it to someone else or lend it out etc., which is what libraries do. They don't have to negotiate with publishers at all, they just go to a book store and buy books. Part of the challenge is that reselling digital goods in a way that doesn't allow you to resell to multiple people isn't a solved problem. Cryp…

> Part of the challenge is that reselling digital goods in a way that doesn't allow you to resell to multiple people isn't a solved problem.

This isn't even close to a new problem. Anyone with a printing press can print thousands of copies of someone else's book, make them look like the original and sell them. The thing that prevents this is that if you do it you can be sued. There is no technical measure preventing it, it's just against the law to do that.

If anything digital copies make this easier, because each copy could have a randomly generated UUID and then if you're selling 50 copies without 50 distinct legitimate UUIDs, you're caught.

Re: The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds

#148

Post by LeafItAlone » Tue, Apr 23, 2024, 9:58 PM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #124

dagw wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends slightly where you are, but often the ebook licenses are time limited, often to 1 year. So not only can't you resell the licenses, you have to keep rebuying them.

Public libraries really should stay away from e-anything, in my opinion. No library would purchase anything of the sort under my watch. Obviously, since patrons check it out, there is demand for it. Well, so what? There is demand for cocaine and porn; should public libraries offer that? Demand for something doesn't ipso facto oblige a library to provide it.

> Public libraries really should stay away from e-anything, in my opinion. No library would purchase anything of the sort under my watch.

Why not? What are your goals of a public library?

Re: The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds

#149

Post by kazinator » Wed, Apr 24, 2024, 6:00 AM UTC

mock-possum wrote: post #134

kazinator wrote: post #35

If libraries want to be part of the e-racket, maybe they need to drink the full commercial Kool-Aid, and introduce a two-tier model: a free, regular membership and a paid, premium membership. The premium memberships fees go toward buying content, and are rewarded with perks like longer loan periods, priority holds, and exclusive access to new material.

Don’t even joke about it. Libraries should be free to the public, period. Providing free access to library services to the public is one of the most important benefits government should offer their citizens.

Nothing like a library debate to bring out the virtue signaling rhetoric about low-income families.

But, hold your horses; the proposal is actually about having some people who pay, in exchange for a few meager perks. Not to make it an entirely paid system.

Here in Canada, we sort of have a working healthcare system. (Not like in civilized countries in the EU, or in Japan, though; another topic). Anyway, I can visit an emergency room and not pay a cent. Yet, people staying in the hospital can pay to upgrade to private rooms. It's just one of those rational compromises in a strained system.

Why have a cow at the idea of people donating money to a library in exchange for some privileges, while it continues to be mainly free.

Re: The Seattle Public Library is reducing maximum digital holds

#150

Post by Nevermark » Wed, Apr 24, 2024, 6:26 AM UTC

Zambyte wrote: post #144

Nevermark wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would that work for large scale, slow and/or risky return projects? We have several systems for matching resources to production because there isn't any single way that works best. But it is interesting to try to stretch each model as far as it can, for best results we can get.

I'm not sure I see why slow projects are a problem when you're being paid for labor. You just set expectations, and keep the customer updated on the honest status of the project (give them code they can run, even if it doesn't yet do everything they want). Can you elaborate on what you mean by "risky"? I can only think of projects that don't yet have a customer. In that case, you just don't build it until there is a…

Ah, by risky I meant software developed without paying customers up front.

I am curious if there is a open source type model for getting a higher return for doing riskier work, as economics would suggest is fair and also helpful.

That is obviously a typical closed source situation, but people find creative solutions.

Not talking about selling services, but somehow compensating for writing the code after the fact, risk adjusted, while keeping the code itself free. Might need a temporarily hybrid license to accomplish this. I.e. the code is obligated to become free, after some fixed license fees have covered the work cost and risk.