Slashdot Mirror
Public Libraries Trading Quaintness For Cash
theodp writes "To help nourish lean budgets, public libraries are increasingly eyeing the e-commerce used-book market as an alternative to the long-standing community tradition of the local book sale. Abebooks reports a tenfold surge in public library clients over the last three years. The payoff can be handsome. One library group boasts of getting $250 for a few boxes of 'miserable, horrible stuff' and another $110 from a World War II vet for a book about his Army regiment. A public library in Texas auctioned 300 items on eBay to help plug a budget hole. And a Seattle suburb moved its annual library sale of some 80,000 books to Amazon, citing expediency and extra cash as motivators."
This sounds like a good idea to me. Why not put the books out there where supply and demand takes hold? If they can get more money by selling to broader audience, more power to them.
And here I've been helping fund them by bringing back their books after they're overdue and paying the fines. Turns out I could just buy the books from them on eBay. Who knew?
Why not consider BookCrossing too? Free the public library books!
It's just a BloJJ
Maybe if we gave the libraries more actual funding they wouldn't need to turn to good old-fashioned capitalism to raise the funds they need to stay current.
I don't see any reason for libraries to go through the enormous trouble of organizing a local sale just to keep a handful of patrons happy. If they can get rid of them online, more power to them.
My friend works in a used book store. He is also an obsessed bibliophile. Anyway, he ran into some hard times and had to sell a lot of his books. They were mostly trash that he would never read anyway. He put them up on bookfinder.com and got on average about $75/box of books (about 50-70 book/box) with some books going for well over $100. I remember thinking as he was doing that "Man the library could make a killing on this type of stuff" Too bad I never followed up on that I could have been a "consultant" ;)
I really enjoy books, and my budget restricts what I can buy new so I frequent library sales, now I can do that from the comfort of my chair...
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
This sounds like a brilliant idea to me. I have a friend who theorizes that the function of technology is always to "remove the middle" somehow, and it's easy to see how the Internet "removes the middle" of the commerce chain, by more directly linking buyers and sellers.
Sure, there may be a loss of quaintness, but if the gain is that more people are getting books they want at prices they like, and libraries are getting more money to get new materials, who's really loosing out?
I've got a wheelbarrow-full of musty old books I bought at a library sale, if anybody's bidding...
And it's a good thing for us book lovers too.
More used books available online, but especially more OUT OF PRINT used books...
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
To sell used books on Amazon, a private individual generally has to type in the details of their normally small inventory, then create some make-shift packaging to ship it to the new owner. This is a big disadvantage compared to the local garage sale.
In comparison, libraries are on the other side of the equation. They have a hassle of moving large numbers of books around to try to sell them physically locally, but already have all the book details in electronic form.
This means that a library can not only just use Amazon's AWS services to load all their available titles directly into Amazon's online used book database using XML over http or SOAP, but can use the outputs of sales information to take the titles out of their systems and automatically print-up shipping information for the new owner.
In this case it's easy to see why libraries would be flocking to data fed book sales in droves, especially when you add in the factor of obscure books finding the "right" buyer from a much larger customer base, versus the usually limited local audience. Those advantages more than outweigh the extra costs of shipping.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
But books ... there's a certain romance to browsing piles and piles of old books, never knowing what gem you'll find in the next shoebox.
I miss the huge "Friends of the Library" booksales in Ithaca (at one time, the largest used book sale in North America): for ten bucks, you could stagger out with shopping bags full of stuff.
Now, living in New Mexico in the middle of nowhere, I do appreciate Amazon. And I do understand that public libraries need to make a buck, because rich people need their tax breaks more than they need a thriving community around them. But I'll be sad to see the used book sales go.
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
e-commerce and books.
How geekier can you get?
I bet that they even sell old UNIX books...
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
Sounds good to me. In all the examples given the books ended up with people who will really enjoy them, as oppossed to the normal clearence sale method where people often just grab something random that looks like it might be interesting, and half the time it just ends up in the dumpster or used book store anyway. On top of that the library makes some money which helps it make more books freely available to the public.
There is the rare case where someone local will really want a book, so perhaps they could be given first preference, but all in all it sounds like a win-win to me.
Maybe this wouldn't be an issue if education, libraries, and other intellectual infrastructure was being funded at levels accepted as a minimum elsewhere in the industrialized world.
One thing to keep in mind about those quaint old books in libraries is that many of them are older reference books full of incorrect or nearly-useless information. Much of this stuff is just wasting shelf space and rotting away, and the books would be better off in a private collection or a museum. The way I see it, better the library sell off old encyclopedias full of outdated geopolictical and scientic information and buy current, useful books, than for a kid researching data-storage technology to go to the library and not be able to find a book on the subject among endless shelves of twentieth-century remnants.
There is very good justification to provide public libraries with public funds paid for from general government revenue-- that is, for the population as a whole to support public libraries.
There exist two reasons for this: academic and economic. I consider increasing the level of education of the population (that part of the population that uses public libraries at least) to be a justification for government spending.
However, some people do not agree with a purely educational justification. The second justification is economic. Public libraries are a comparatively cheap way to increase the skills people, which makes them more valuable to a knowledge economy.
"It seems the act of cataloguing and offering them for sale, then packaging and shipping them would be onerous"
Cataloging? Onerous? For a library? Have you been in a libray? Cataloging and tracking the books is done. That is their day job. Sure the shipping and that might take some time, but probably not as much time as organizing and promoting a book sale, and then staffing it, and then carting all the unsold books where ever it is they go.
Volunteers?
On the other hand, the overhead in shipping a book to a customer is something libraries are already set up for--it's not much different than sending books out for inter-library loan, and it's hardly different at all from books that they mail to shut-in patrons.
Also, if a library is doing this instead of an annual sale, the work can be spread out over an entire year. If they only do one or two a day, it's not a big deal, but it amounts to the same thing and the big annual sale.
Ebay ended real garage sale bargains.... and now if libraries start posting online it will be the end of the $0.50 hardback bargain book.
My mom bought our first encyclopedia from a local library for $15. Not that encylopedia's will be sold online or are even useful nowadays, but you get the point.
On the other hand, its great for the Library system I guess, as public funds are obviously lacking (that same local library was shut down less than 10 months ago).
But on the other other hand, why weren't these invaluable books (such as the WWII diary) kept in the library itself and made available to the public??? I never donate books to the library, because public libraries (at least the ones i've been to) have a policy of not incorporating donated books into their collections.
My family donated a set of classic childrens novels to the local library (which we knew they did not currently have available for public borrowing) thinking we would be helping the community's youth, but instead we found our donated books on the book sale shelves being sold for $0.25 and $0.50 a piece. We ended up buying all of the books that were left, back, and never donated books again.
Our local GoodWill has two 'outlet' stores.
Basically these are large warehouses where the stuff that didn't sell at the regular GoodWill store ends up in large bins and is sold by the pound. We call it simply 'The Bins' and it has spawned an interesting sub-culture of it's own.
It's a great place to go look for books (books are seperated and put in their own bins so you don't have to claw though clothes to find them) and lots of eBay/half.com sellers go there to buy books for 25 cents each (50cents for hardbacks). When new book bins come out it's a frenzy of books flying as the book sellers elbow each other for position. How do I know? I visited the book bins last August and September to make money to live on.
Now, GoodWill has gotten wise and they pre-screen the books that go into the bins for sale on various online outlets, so it's not quite as lucrative visiting the bins anymore.
I've been to plenty of local library sales and not only do most people simply ignore them, but less 10% of the books are sold.
My experience has been otherwise. My family has been involved in organization, setup, and cleanup of the local library's book sale for as long as I can remember. I'd have to say, as a sort of wild guess, that if "only" 70% of the books offered sell, we consider that a poor sale.
I don't see any reason for libraries to go through the enormous trouble of organizing a local sale just to keep a handful of patrons happy.
I can't speak for all libraries, but at mine, the book sale is entirely run by a volunteer group called the "Friends of the Library." The sale costs the library essentially nothing as far as money, time, or labor are concerned.
In the public library I work at, the offloading of books goes to the "Friends of the Library" group which seems to handle a bit of the funding (the parts that don't come from government, that is) They'd have a local monthly book sale for anything they can't/don't keep, then redistribute the funds for the betterment of the library. Modernizing machinery, billboards, supplies for the children's section, etc.
:)
From what I know of the members of the "Friends" where I'm at, they're not very computer savvy, and I'm not sure how they'd handle maintaining stuff with e-bay and amazon. Also, while it seems like a good marketplace, there's the additional burden of storage space. How long do you keep an item for sale before you realize it won't get bought and should be "recycled" instead? On a local sale, it's easier to decide. With a global audience, people tend to wait out a bit longer than they should.
In the long run, though, any good way to raise funds for local libraries is a welcome thought. Oh...and visit your local library.
I just picked up "Dreamweaver 4 Bible"
and "Fireworks 4 Bible" with unopened CD's still in the back, ONE DOLLAR EACH.
The library sold them off because no one was checking them out. The retail on those books is $50 each.
The books are in virgin condition.
Though I am A Linux man, I regretably confess that I am using a winbloz 2k box on the side to develope two commercial websites for customers.
(Don't ask, long story..)
I find excellent bargains in the library all the time like this..
"people who actually use libraries would have to bear the cost -- I certainly don't think I should have to pay for something I never use."
Yeah, and then poor people couldn't afford information. Wonderful.
My Sig: SEGV
Yes, but the resource is there if you ever need it. I haven't called the police in 13 years, and even then it was to report an automobile accident I saw, but I don't mind paying taxes in order for them to be there when I need them.
There are a lot of public resources I don't choose to use that I don't mind paying for. Not everything is about me.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
I certainly don't think I should have to pay for something I never use.
That's one of those sorts of statements that sound reasonable at first reading, but fall apart after further contemplation:
Even if you never drive a car, the publicly-funded roads benefit you by helping to reduce shipping costs for the products you buy.
Even if you never have kids, the publicly-funded school systems benefit you by helping to improve the education of those with whom you share a society (and to whom you might otherwise be contributing more tax dollars for welfare/entitlement programs).
I'd say libraries similarly benefit you even if you never visit one.
everything in moderation
Why shouldn't the libraries get the top dollar for their books? They're perennially short on the crispies and use it for the benefit of the community.
The Law of Falling Bodies
How should a six-year-old girl who uses the library pay for it then?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Everyone seems to be missing the point. The libraries are selling the books rather than putting them on the shelves!
They do this because of commercial pressure. If everyone donated their old CDs and videos to the library, it would be unnecessary to rent or buy any of the older ones; you could borrow them. Somehow the people who want to corrupt the system, apparently publishers, have gotten control over the libraries. Have your ever noticed that the CDs and videos in the library are never the latest albums and movies? Certainly by now some family has decided not to let their children watch "Finding Nemo" any more times.
Everyone posting is so willingly believing that all the donated books are ones no one would want to check out of a library. But that's not so. For example, there are many books I would donate if I knew I could check them out later.
However, the librarians of the Multnomah County Central Library (in Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.) have told me that putting a book in their system costs $30, and somehow it is cheaper to buy a new one! Over the years I have often mentioned the illogic in this. But all of them continue parroting the same line.
Consider the doctrine of first sale, in which you are allowed to do anything you want with your legally purchased copyrighted material, if you do not make a copy. Publishers have corrupted the doctrine of first sale so that copying into RAM to listen it or view it has been considered an illegal copy.
This is a common problem for many libraries. Even if they're not forbidden, there's a great stigma for it. Libraries wind up with outdated collections because patrons (or more likely, parents of school students) can't stand the idea of getting rid of books. I've heard stories of librarians who have a stack of books in the back, and each day each staff member takes home a book to be thrown away at the librarian's home, so that patrons don't see the books being removed.
Here are some links about collection weeding. The SUNLINK Weed Of The Month is an especially interesting resource. The best part of the site is the Some Things We've Dug Up While Weeding page, with gems like:
Of course, some of those may be the ones that bring the big bucks on eBay.Having libraries make these books available is a clear violation of the intellectual property of the authors and publishing companies. When people just log on the internet and have the book they want shipped to them without paying for a copy from the publisher, they're basically stealing that book from the author who wrote it. If the BAA allows this to continue, soon there will be no books at all because authors won't be able to feed themselves.
paintball
>Yeah, and then poor people couldn't afford information. Wonderful.
Is this not the proper role of charity? Or do you so lack in a belief of the goodness of mankind as to think that things such as libraries would exist only through compulsary funding?
The real disturbing trend is that libraries are subscribing to periodical databases instead of building thier own hard copy or microfilm ones. This means the library is at the mercy of the periodical database owner rather than owner of the physical documents.
Rarely accessed obscure journals, newspapers, documents will eventually be dropped from databases and thus not be available to anyone at any cost.
A secondary issue is the case of someone claiming copyright ownership of public domain material because they scanned it in and serve it on web pages.
Actually, in a lot of ways, your tax money is being best utilized if you never have to call the police.
By ratting out her friends to the RIAA, of course.
Gotta love those public school teachers who stay poor because of bad decisions or lifestyle choices that led them away from the big bucks. Golly, it's nice to know that they must have picked that profession because they chose to be poor, and, it's not like the community should give the "bums" anything back since they did that.. maybe if they were contributing something useful I'd have more compassion.
I mean... it's not like there's *gasp* NO - NEVER say it on Slashdot!.... more than two sides to the issue!?
WARNING: Extreme sarcasm detected in the area.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Remarkably BAD, especially in a school library. They're of curiosity value only, not something you want your K-8 to take as a serious reference work, especially the one about making paste out of asbestos.
Bottom line is that the library only has so much space to house the books, and anything that doesn't add value to the collection needs to go.
OK, now I'm pretty sure you're trolling, but I'll bite anyway.
Assuming I never drive a car, but buy lots of products, it's not likely I'm paying much for roads, since a large portion of the cost of roads comes from gasoline tax. So, this is sort of an inverse example. Of course it benefits me to gain benefit from something I never pay for.
I have no idea what portion of road funding comes from gas taxes, and neither do you. The point stands, however; whether or not you directly use something should not necessarily be the deciding factor in whether or not you pay a share for it.
First, even though I do pay for public schools, there are still lots of uneducated (or just stupid?) people around. So it seems my money is just being wasted. Second, the whole "you might otherwise be contributing more tax dollars for..." arguments is kind of silly. I question having to subsidize the activities of others, and you respond with "well, you would still have to do it anyway". The point is, if someone wants to be educated, they should have to pay for it. If they choose not to be educated (i.e. qualify for welfare, etc.) they should have to pay for that too (where in this case, "paying for it" means simply living with the consequences).
Yeah, great logic! Since there is still crime, why don't we get rid of the police, too? Seems the money is just being wasted and all, just like schools and dumb people, right? Wrong. Your ideology is confusing your economics. And you called my argument silly? Ha ha.
If it's cheaper to fund schools than pay welfare for 50% of the population, then it's a better deal for everyone if we collectively fund schools instead of increased welfare.
I couldn't pay my own way through college -- I had to get grants and loans (mostly grants) from Uncle Sam (read: from tax money). So, your taxes paid my way through school. Bad deal? No, because now I pay lots of taxes (much, much more than I would had I remained uneducated with low pay). And now we both benefit.
I'm afraid you're one of those "uneducated (or just stupid?)" people if you really think this way (and again, I doubt it -- you are trolling for sure with this contrived nonsense).
everything in moderation
Interesting point. You're funding I-10 all the way from Jacksonville to Los Angeles, but have you driven it in it's entirety?
There are a good many things that are of benefit to this country that are funded with public dollars. How many times in your lifetime have you had to call the police of firemen? Generally speaking, you're not using them, but you're paying for them anyway. Lighting on public streets you never drive on, trash collections in neighborhoods you don't visit, etc...
Libraries are, IMHO, one of the stongest cases for use of public dollars. Folks who can't afford to go to Barnes and Noble can still read, use encyclopedias, and in most cases access the internet for information.
There will always be complaints about public dollars being spent on things individuals don't use (public schools for childless people). Those dollars aren't necessarily spent on you, but are spent on the infrastructure and education of your area as a whole, and that can only be a good thing.
Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
Putting a book in a library collection is not as easy as taking it from the Donations bucket and putting randomly on the shelves. For the book to be useful, it has to be cataloged, which means not only entering the title and author from the title page, but figuring out where to shelve it in the library's specific collection (some libraries may be content to throw, for example, all programming books in one section, while others may wish to seperate the Perl books from the Python books, and the MFC books from the Linux kernel internals books), and figuring out what subject headings to use. (I've seen the binder containing the canonical rules for English-language cataloging -- it's decidedly non-trivial.) Amazon and Google have done great things to increase the availability of knowledge, but it still takes a well-trained human to figure out the optimal metadata for a book.
(It still boggles my mind that Amazon refuses to do the Right Thing while searching for authors -- if I click on the "William Gibson" link while looking at, say, Neuromancer (not an affiliate link, don't worry), I end up at a search page that shows me not only books by William Gibson the sci-fi author, but Lord of the Flies (which was written by by William Golding and illustrated by Ben Gibson), and books about William Shakespear written by someone with Gibson somewhere in the name, and all sorts of outrageous results that no respectable librarian would be caught dead with. But I digress.)
In addition to the cataloging, a book must also be properly protected in order to not disintegrate prematurely. Most (if not all) of the library books I've checked out have at least library-grade clear tape protecting the cover and the spine; publishers offer higher-strength library bindings for many books as well. This protection costs money, both in terms of the staff time (and training) and the materials used.
All of this costs money -- perhaps not nearly as much as the US$30 figure quoted above, but definately significantly above US$0.
There are shortcuts to the lengthy acquisitions process. Some book distributors who sell books specifically to libraries offer MARC records (the canonical format for exchanging library catalog information) on a CD they ship with the box of books. These distributors also have access to higher-strength bindings and automated processes for securing and labeling a book to library specifications. All of these methods work only with new books, though, which is why it may in fact be cheaper to buy a book new than to move a used donation through the acquisitions process.
If you're like most Americans, you probably weren't born to wealthy parents. Comfortable, perhaps, but not wealthy. Now, if you were born 100 years ago, the chances of you being able to read by adulthood would be slim. More likely, your parents not being wealthy would have meant that you would be pulled from school (if you ever went at all) and put to work in a factory for a pittance. Why? to support your family, who couldn't afford to give you an education.
Fortunately, laws against child labor and for required education means that you have a very good chance of being able to read by the time you're out of highschool, no matter how poor your family may be. But if you were from a very poor family, what do you suppose the chances are that you would be able to read a book that your school didn't have?
You can deride the poor as "lazy" all you want, but the fact remains that there's no room for laziness in some of the worst-paying jobs out there, and many of the people who work in those tough, low wage jobs work more hours a week than you ever will, and still barely afford to put food on the table, let alone have some spare money to spend on broadening their horizons by buying a book. It's easy from your perspective to blame all the poor's problems on themselves, when you don't have those problems to worry about.
I'm a book collector (and reader) and on the MANY occasions that I went to library sales, there would always be a small cadre of used booksellers grabbing up everything potentially interesting and adding it to their stock, both online and off. Unless you were aggressive and quick, the chances of being able to find something interesting was minimal and I eventually stopped bothering. It's the same reason I stopped borrowing books from libraries. The most interesting ones get stolen or are marked "reference" and are not loaned out.
I even knew of one unscrupulous bookseller who would volunteer to help sort the books the night before so his partner could swoop in and grab anything of value ahead of the pack.
Some libraries charged $3 - $5 dollars per book on the first day to give people who actually wanted to purchase books TO READ (remember reading books?) a chance. That would scare off some of the more virulent booksellers, or at least make them more picky. I found some amazingly rare things at those sales.
Mod me +1 Nostalgic if you like, but I can't stand buying books online. You pay a hefty handling and shipping markup... and you lose out on the experience of being surrounded by old books that you can actually touch.
"Under the spreading chestnut tree, I sold you and you sold me."
Of course! Why hold a government library to the unrealistic standards of being financially responsible when we can just force the taxpayers to cough up some more money to cover their inefficiencies?
What makes you say libraries are financially irresponsible? My own public library is very responsible. I don't see layers and layers of administration; they just have a head librarian, a reference librarian, a children's librarian and assistant, and a few hardworking assistants. Basically other than some of the head librarian's time, it's 100% service all the way on staffing. The rest of the money goes to acquisitions, public Internet access, conservation, utilities etc. I've never seen any money spent on the bizarre ego gratification projects that private sector CEOs and managers constantly saddle their companies with. The library knows its mission, how to accomplish it, and how to do it efficiently.
In short, I wished my private company worked this well.
1) reduce operating expenses, lessening it's burden on the taxpayer, or
2) EXPAND operations at the same cost to the taxpayer.
I don't know about your town, but in my town the library is not some kind of independent taxation entity which determines its own budget. It's budget is set by our elected officials, who don't gold plate the institution by any means, but respond to the town's demands for certain minimal standards of service. One of the chief demands is for extended operating hours. Our library is open six days a week and most weekday evenings until 9PM.
Despite living in a fiscally conservative, Republican town, our library is strongly supported, even while recently we have had to cut police and fire protection, close schools, increase class sizes, and require fees for extracurricular activities and sports. It is viewed by an overwhelming majority as a critical public service, even though we have very easy access to a "big box" book store that has an espresso bar. Not only does the library house an excellent collection, provide interlibrary loan privileges, it also has copies and archives of public documents and plans that working people can examine during extended hours. It's a critical part of civic life for which there is no private sector alternative.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"people who actually use libraries would have to bear the cost -- I certainly don't think I should have to pay for something I never use."
Hmm. Do you think you should only have to pay for the roads you actually drive on? Do you think that people without children shouldn't pay the portion of their property taxes that support schools? Do you think you should only have to pay for the fire department if you call them? Do you think that if you drive everywhere you shouldn't have to pay for sidewalks? Do you think that if no one has robbed or assaulted you, you shouldn't have to pay for the jail?
There's this little thing called "civilized society"; it takes expenditures of public funds to maintain it. If you don't like it, then maybe you should go live in one of those caves on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. Then you won't ever again have to pay for anything you won't use.
>which charity?... wiccans? or muslims? ... big companioes ?
All of the above. In a free country, you and other like-minded people of whatever political persuasion would be free to form a library (or join with an existing one) and stock it with whatever books you choose. And patrons would be free to choose which library they to visit.
>do you think that you would get a content-neutral view?
Do you believe that existing libraries provide a content-neutral view NOW? If so, you're sadly mistaken. It's well documented that libraries (both university and general public) have a left-of-center political slant to their book choices. Search for Hilary Clinton's Living History and Ann Coulter's Treason, for instance. Chances are you'll only find the former.
Or try to find something really politically incorrect, such as something about whether or not the 16th Amendment (income tax) was properly ratified, or The Turner Diaries (an anti-government screed with racism and naziism thrown in). I suspect that merely searching for either will get you posted to a government list which, thanks to the recent Ashcroft laws, the Feds are allowed to collect without your consent.