Comments on: The Access-Ownership Line

By: Brad

Brad — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 21:49:07 +0000

In Chicago we have the boot system. I think it’s three strikes (tickets) and you can’t drive your car anymore. I like the fine system in libraries because, for one reason, it motivates people to return materials that others are waiting for. I know that my borrowed items would probably disappear under the bed for months or years if I had the luxury of having no penalties.

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 06:25:13 +0000

Thanks Jennifer for your comments. I think the Rhapsody (books in a cloud) is a viable model for the future, insofar as the library being a potential access point for patrons to access this cloud. Of course, that’s another story, but I can see how communities can pool their money for services like that.

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 06:23:03 +0000

I’m familiar with the McNaughtons. My question is really why not have more items to lease? Perhaps at a certain point they become shelf space, less likely to get checked out, and then you are leasing a book that isn’t moving. The idea I have is to lease those less circulating books; a bit like the Netflix DVD model.

The ‘no fines’ stance is not a new librarian thing; there are libraries out there that have converted to a ‘no fine’ policy. It presents its own issues, just like a fine policy does. My personal feelings is that there shouldn’t be a dollar amount based on late fees to block access. It is a conscious decision when you make a policy that says “If fines equal $x, a person’s privileges are suspended”; there is nothing accidental about it.

By: Ann

Ann — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 04:30:39 +0000

Wrt fines, people can still read or access databases within the library. Restriction, yes, but not complete.
I wouldn’t mind a spotify system for ebooks. But it certainly will not be as cost effective as books. At least, i don’t think so… Sometimes a book will circ 50-100 times in its lifetime, sometimes they fall apart after 5 circs.

By: Jennifer Parsons

Jennifer Parsons — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 02:40:20 +0000

Jeff, I’m curious– I wonder why McNaughten only has that sort of option available? I suspect it’s because, unlike electronic text, paper books are fragile and degrade overtime. With each use, a book becomes less valuable on the market. It sounds like it would be easier for a publishing/printing house to cut their losses and simply sell the item.

The model could be very, very handy for bestsellers and popular titles, particularly the “Rhapsody”-like model that Andy has suggested. It could be valuable for the library as well in saving shelf space and cataloger time.

Certainly electronic materials are begging the “ownership/access” question. I don’t think either aspect is more important than the other, but as the ebook model proliferates, access will certainly be more prominent, and libraries will find themselves having to be more prudent with what they take the time and resources to own.

By: Jeff Scott

Jeff Scott — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:59:13 +0000

There are some models that follow the lease plan with print materials. McNaughton has offered that for years, and it may complement your idea with ebooks. Instead of paying for the book, you lease the book until a certain time (such as when interest wanes) and then the book goes away.

Libraries also struggled with databases before. When serials started to go digital and it became too costly to maintain both a print and digital collection, libraries went digital, but there was a great deal of fuss and discussion before getting there. Will we have that same point with ebooks?

Fines are always a tricky sort. There are many different models from no fines, to tiered fines. I am not sure it’s a conscience decision to deny access. New librarians might say, no fines, but after getting burned a few times they change their tune. (I also find that fines can be a contentious discussion with many librarians.)