4 ms·

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.
  - BeetleB 4y ago
    I understand where you're coming from. I also understand that my library has a lot more data to make the decision than my feeling of guilt. There's no need to speculate. Email your library and ask them: "Would you prefer I stream title X from Kanopy, or check out the DVD?" And also ask "Would you prefer I stream title Y from Kanopy, for which you don't carry the DVD?" Feel free to provide the context, expressing concerns that it'll potentially cost them over $150, and you're worried that they are being abused by Kanopy. If the library's not willing to tell me to prefer the DVD, then I'm not concerned.
  - beanders 4y ago
    $150 does seem very steep… given these numbers, I would feel a lot better simply buying films to donate to my library.
    - BeetleB 4y ago
      Be aware that very little you donate to the library ends up on the shelves. Most of the time they sell whatever you donate (e.g. "Friends of Library sales")
mynameisvlad 4y ago
It's $2 per view for libraries, or $150/movie/year for universities. The rates are separate. I feel better about $2, but it would still make me really think about whether I'd want to watch a movie that badly.
rahimnathwani 4y ago
For context: SFPL's annual operating budget (not including capex, and not including notional rent on buildings) is $160MM. That's about $17/month per SF resident. Many SF residents don't use library services at all, so the $/month per MAU is likely mich higher ($50? $100?)

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.
- BeetleB 4y ago
  I understand where you're coming from. I also understand that my library has a lot more data to make the decision than my feeling of guilt. There's no need to speculate. Email your library and ask them: "Would you prefer I stream title X from Kanopy, or check out the DVD?" And also ask "Would you prefer I stream title Y from Kanopy, for which you don't carry the DVD?" Feel free to provide the context, expressing concerns that it'll potentially cost them over $150, and you're worried that they are being abused by Kanopy. If the library's not willing to tell me to prefer the DVD, then I'm not concerned.
- beanders 4y ago
  $150 does seem very steep… given these numbers, I would feel a lot better simply buying films to donate to my library.
  - BeetleB 4y ago
    Be aware that very little you donate to the library ends up on the shelves. Most of the time they sell whatever you donate (e.g. "Friends of Library sales")

mynameisvlad 4y ago

It's $2 per view for libraries, or $150/movie/year for universities. The rates are separate. I feel better about $2, but it would still make me really think about whether I'd want to watch a movie that badly.

rahimnathwani 4y ago

For context: SFPL's annual operating budget (not including capex, and not including notional rent on buildings) is $160MM. That's about $17/month per SF resident. Many SF residents don't use library services at all, so the $/month per MAU is likely mich higher ($50? $100?)