3 ms·

No, that's not the same model -- doesn't involve the apportionment by use.

• triceratops 6y ago
  True. But the library's share of local taxes is already so low it hardly matters. How much are you going to divide a couple dollars/month by?
  • SilasX 6y ago
    It matters when the point of the idea is to ensure that the alignment of incentives between producers and consumers, which requires that producers be paid by how popular their content is. If you forgot the history, you were trying to cite libraries as an example of something following the model I described, which it does not[1], and now you're bringing up how low the tax revenue is, which is of dubious relevance. [1] nor does a single library's physical DVD rental satisfy the entire internet market
    • triceratops 6y ago
      > now you're bringing up how low the tax revenue is, which is of dubious relevance. Sorry, I misunderstood "apportionment by use" as meaning "division of payment by users, according to usage". That's what I get for not reading the original comment thoroughly, which suggested a flat per-user fee, distributed to content owners :-P. However, I think libraries still fit the bill. > that producers be paid by how popular their content is Libraries tend to buy more copies of popular content to reduce waiting time for patrons. So this does happen. > nor does a single library's physical DVD rental satisfy the entire internet market Libraries don't have to do only physical DVDs. They already loan e-books, there's no reason (other than the availability of licensing) they couldn't do the same for movies and TV shows. And a library can certainly satisfy the demand in its city.