5 ms·

It looks like it costs libraries $2 per view and universities $150/year after a film has been viewed once: https://filmquarterly.org/2019/05/03/kanopy-not-just-

It looks like it costs libraries $2 per view and universities $150/year after a film has been viewed once: https://filmquarterly.org/2019/05/03/kanopy-not-just-like-netflix-and-not-free/ https://filmquarterly.org/2019/05/03/kanopy-not-just-like-ne... I generally prefer to walk over to my local library branch and browse their film collection in-person.

aaron695 4y ago
mmanfrin 4y ago
Wow, that feels absolutely predatory.
- stinkytaco 4y ago
  A few years ago, I attempted to work out what a circulation cost us calculating things like our collection budget, staff budget, etc. vs number of circs. It came out to about $2.50 or so. Keep in mind there are some serious limitations; for example, the buildings are a fixed cost and there would need to be a precipitous drop in circulation to lay off staff, but it gave a rough idea of what it costs to buy something, check it out, re-shelve it, etc.
  - TylerE 4y ago
    That’s higher than I expected. Sounds like it’s not that far from a point where it’d be cheaper to just print a book on demand, mail it, and tell ‘em to just keep it or pass it on.
    - cosmie 4y ago
      All else being equal, it could very well be logistically cheaper. But to publishers, increasing the volume of printed copies of a given title is absolutely not equal to a library purchasing a single copy and physically handling it in circulation until it naturally degrades to the point of being trashed. Physically printing brand new copies for patrons to keep every time a book was 'checked-out' would pose such a materially large impact on sales volume that publishers flat out wouldn't allow it. Even a perpetual license to loan a single copy of an ebook can cost a library upwards of $100[1], due to potential revenue impact to publishers/authors from having it in circulation in perpetuity without physical deterioration naturally limiting it's lifetime/volume of loans. And the number of simultaneous loans for a given title is generally restricted to the number of individual licenses you've paid for. If that's the case even for ebooks, you can imagine what they'd require to print a title on demand and give it away to a patron forever. [1] https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/a-new-twist-in-ebook-library-licensing-fees/ https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/a-new-twist-i...
    - stinkytaco 4y ago
      It would be. Making unlimited ebooks available would be even cheaper than that. But neither of those really fits the business model of the publisher. A public library is already a compromise in the eyes on many publishers.
morpheuskafka 4y ago
Yeah, a lot of universities required librarian approval to add a new film to limit the costs. Similar to an ILL request where the library pays a small fee but typically doesn't pass that forward to the requester, as long as one lab/person doesn't use an extreme amount of requests.
- bombcar 4y ago
  It's understandable why you "hide" these costs from the user, but it would be nice to know they exist. This offer here would be something I'd look into, except learning it hurts the library more than expected is a downer.
  - cosmie 4y ago
    > except learning it hurts the library more than expected is a downer. Which is likely an incentive for libraries to not expose those costs on a per-request basis. As thebitstick mentioned here[1], libraries want to encourage usage. Overall usage volume has already been budgeted for, so the variances between one request and another for a typical patron won't materially impact the overall capacity of a library from serving their patrons. Inversely, if exposing the individual request costs disincentive enough conscientious patrons from making those requests, it makes it more difficult for the library to justify the service at all and could result in the loss of budget to continue covering it. Which ends up being a net loss of access for those patrons which do not have the means to access it elsewhere and were reliant on the library for it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31902549 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31902549
gedy 4y ago
So why exactly do libraries use Kanopy? If they aren't partners, Kanopy can't just send the library a bill, or am I missing something in that article.
- stinkytaco 4y ago
  The library signs up with Kanopy. Sets restrictions on who can use the service and how often, then makes it available to their patrons.
  - gedy 4y ago
    Sure, my question is why would they sign up for Kanopy if the pricing is predatory, excessive, etc that others are implying.
    - Mindwipe 4y ago
      Because the pricing isn't predatory, and doing it any other way would cost a thousand times more.
    - stinkytaco 4y ago
      For the same reason they pay $80 for a single use copy of an ebook: because users expect it and don't really care about the excuse. Users see that other libraries offer a service, they see the services they want to use and no number of spreadsheets will make them happy with answer "no".
jacquesc 4y ago
Tough to justify watching a movie when I know it might be costing my library $152 for choosing to watch an obscure title.
- gnuj3 4y ago
  I’m not an expert on US law but arent the libraries funded from tax?
  - mcculley 4y ago
    This differs vastly by locality. In some places, taxes fund libraries entirely or in part. In others, NGOs fund them. There is often a local non-profit that raises money to keep a library running.
  - bmm6o 4y ago
    Why does it matter where the library's budget comes from?
    - gnuj3 4y ago
      It matters a lot. Because if it comes from taxes that I pay, why would I not want to/feed bad using its resources?
- BeetleB 4y ago
  I like to think that my library's management knows how to do cost benefit analyses. I can assure you that my library didn't subscribe to this because of unreasonable demands from patrons, but because they felt it was a worthy option for their patrons. Put another way, if my library dropped Kanopy, almost no one would notice. So it's hard to claim Kanopy is being "predatory" as another commenter mentioned.
  - BitwiseFool 4y ago
    For me personally, $150 seems obscenely high. Especially considering it would be far more economical to just buy the DVD. The cost is high enough that I would genuinely feel quite guilty for making my community pay that much. Ironically, I would feel no such guilt for torrenting the movie at that point. I get that the infrastructure for streaming isn't cheap, and neither are the licensing fees, but this feels like price gouging. I know price gouging is a specific legal term but I'm speaking in the vernacular sense.
justinator 4y ago
I generally prefer to walk over to my local library branch and browse their film collection in-person. There's an app and it's nice to d/l a film to watch when I'm on the spin bike. Books cost libraries money, too. Budgets come out of the taxes I pay.

aaron695 4y ago

mmanfrin 4y ago

Wow, that feels absolutely predatory.

stinkytaco 4y ago
A few years ago, I attempted to work out what a circulation cost us calculating things like our collection budget, staff budget, etc. vs number of circs. It came out to about $2.50 or so. Keep in mind there are some serious limitations; for example, the buildings are a fixed cost and there would need to be a precipitous drop in circulation to lay off staff, but it gave a rough idea of what it costs to buy something, check it out, re-shelve it, etc.
- TylerE 4y ago
  That’s higher than I expected. Sounds like it’s not that far from a point where it’d be cheaper to just print a book on demand, mail it, and tell ‘em to just keep it or pass it on.
  - cosmie 4y ago
    All else being equal, it could very well be logistically cheaper. But to publishers, increasing the volume of printed copies of a given title is absolutely not equal to a library purchasing a single copy and physically handling it in circulation until it naturally degrades to the point of being trashed. Physically printing brand new copies for patrons to keep every time a book was 'checked-out' would pose such a materially large impact on sales volume that publishers flat out wouldn't allow it. Even a perpetual license to loan a single copy of an ebook can cost a library upwards of $100[1], due to potential revenue impact to publishers/authors from having it in circulation in perpetuity without physical deterioration naturally limiting it's lifetime/volume of loans. And the number of simultaneous loans for a given title is generally restricted to the number of individual licenses you've paid for. If that's the case even for ebooks, you can imagine what they'd require to print a title on demand and give it away to a patron forever. [1] https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/a-new-twist-in-ebook-library-licensing-fees/ https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/a-new-twist-i...
  - stinkytaco 4y ago
    It would be. Making unlimited ebooks available would be even cheaper than that. But neither of those really fits the business model of the publisher. A public library is already a compromise in the eyes on many publishers.

morpheuskafka 4y ago

Yeah, a lot of universities required librarian approval to add a new film to limit the costs. Similar to an ILL request where the library pays a small fee but typically doesn't pass that forward to the requester, as long as one lab/person doesn't use an extreme amount of requests.

bombcar 4y ago
It's understandable why you "hide" these costs from the user, but it would be nice to know they exist. This offer here would be something I'd look into, except learning it hurts the library more than expected is a downer.
- cosmie 4y ago
  > except learning it hurts the library more than expected is a downer. Which is likely an incentive for libraries to not expose those costs on a per-request basis. As thebitstick mentioned here[1], libraries want to encourage usage. Overall usage volume has already been budgeted for, so the variances between one request and another for a typical patron won't materially impact the overall capacity of a library from serving their patrons. Inversely, if exposing the individual request costs disincentive enough conscientious patrons from making those requests, it makes it more difficult for the library to justify the service at all and could result in the loss of budget to continue covering it. Which ends up being a net loss of access for those patrons which do not have the means to access it elsewhere and were reliant on the library for it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31902549 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31902549

gedy 4y ago

So why exactly do libraries use Kanopy? If they aren't partners, Kanopy can't just send the library a bill, or am I missing something in that article.

stinkytaco 4y ago
The library signs up with Kanopy. Sets restrictions on who can use the service and how often, then makes it available to their patrons.
- gedy 4y ago
  Sure, my question is why would they sign up for Kanopy if the pricing is predatory, excessive, etc that others are implying.
  - Mindwipe 4y ago
    Because the pricing isn't predatory, and doing it any other way would cost a thousand times more.
  - stinkytaco 4y ago
    For the same reason they pay $80 for a single use copy of an ebook: because users expect it and don't really care about the excuse. Users see that other libraries offer a service, they see the services they want to use and no number of spreadsheets will make them happy with answer "no".

jacquesc 4y ago

Tough to justify watching a movie when I know it might be costing my library $152 for choosing to watch an obscure title.

gnuj3 4y ago
I’m not an expert on US law but arent the libraries funded from tax?
- mcculley 4y ago
  This differs vastly by locality. In some places, taxes fund libraries entirely or in part. In others, NGOs fund them. There is often a local non-profit that raises money to keep a library running.
- bmm6o 4y ago
  Why does it matter where the library's budget comes from?
  - gnuj3 4y ago
    It matters a lot. Because if it comes from taxes that I pay, why would I not want to/feed bad using its resources?
BeetleB 4y ago
I like to think that my library's management knows how to do cost benefit analyses. I can assure you that my library didn't subscribe to this because of unreasonable demands from patrons, but because they felt it was a worthy option for their patrons. Put another way, if my library dropped Kanopy, almost no one would notice. So it's hard to claim Kanopy is being "predatory" as another commenter mentioned.
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  For me personally, $150 seems obscenely high. Especially considering it would be far more economical to just buy the DVD. The cost is high enough that I would genuinely feel quite guilty for making my community pay that much. Ironically, I would feel no such guilt for torrenting the movie at that point. I get that the infrastructure for streaming isn't cheap, and neither are the licensing fees, but this feels like price gouging. I know price gouging is a specific legal term but I'm speaking in the vernacular sense.

justinator 4y ago

I generally prefer to walk over to my local library branch and browse their film collection in-person. There's an app and it's nice to d/l a film to watch when I'm on the spin bike. Books cost libraries money, too. Budgets come out of the taxes I pay.