4 ms·
I'd say the correct analogy is movie rentals. * In the past, I rented a VHS tape of which there were 3 copies. Now I rent a movie from iTunes, there are infini
by leokennis 5y ago
I'd say the correct analogy is movie rentals.
* In the past, I rented a VHS tape of which there were 3 copies. Now I rent a movie from iTunes, there are infinite copies and I rent the right to watch it (as often as I'd like) within a 48 hour period.
* In the past, I lended a physical book of which there were 3 copies. In my proposal I rent a book from Libby, there are infinite copies and I rent the right to read it (as often as I'd like) within a xyz day period (or I pay per day I lend it, some books take longer to finish than others).
- NanWilder 5y agoYou don’t pay enough in taxes to fund this model — not even a significant fraction of it. If you want to switch to a user-pays-to-rent model, there are iTunes/Netflix-alike options out there — go nuts. But our societies and our literature would be worse off if we all did.
- ViViDboarder 5y agoIt’s not a pay-to-rent mode they are proposing. They are proposing getting rid of scarcity and allowing folks to borrow for a period of time, as many times as they’d like. An option to keep it longer than the allotted time is akin to a late fee. In what way would more access to literature make society worse off?
- wisty 5y agoThere's near-infinite access to free literature, it's called the internet. Any author who wants to make their work freely available can just put it online.
- pempem 5y agoWe (I'm assuming you and I have jobs and aren't independently wealthy or multi millionaires) pay enough taxes, they just arent directed to libraries.