We’ve been looking for research on the effects of abolishing fines—and cannot find anything very current—and also have not been able to find the “many libraries” we’ve often heard tell of….because we’d call them up and ask them for their anecdotal evidence…I’m starting to think this is a myth…we’ve found Rangeview, of course, and lots of smaller libraries that don’t have fines on children’s materials….but no studies or statistics….

As for the long-term outlook for libraries focusing on popular materials—I’m in the grim and grimmer camp as far as the future of libraries goes—-but to me it is a great thing—-the private sector or nongovernmental sector and technology making huge chunks of information so widely and cheaply available that most people have easy ready access…cool! Libraries will still fill in the gaps, I think.

I love Netflix. It is a great value for the money. The ability to watch unlimited streaming video (when the cable internet isn’t bogged down) and have a DVD out for as long as I want for such a low price, is truly revolutionary. But this librarian is not trying to compete with Netflix, and to suggest otherwise is either disingenuous or seriously lacking in perception.

As an intensely curious person (one of too few in the library profession), I would definitely take advantage of this service if it were available at a “large” library nearby. Three bucks a month is a good deal to not have to keep up with three different renewals.

There are still people around who like movies AND the internet AND other things. Have a long commute to work and want to mix things up with a book on CD or some classical music? Want to learn a programming language or keep a great looking “Wind and the Willows” edition around for your daughter? Or keep a Wii game around until you become bored with it? I can think of many smart professionals who might like this subscription program for any number of reasons, not the least of which the money they would save.

AL, I agree with you that any technology or tool should be used wisely, and that innovation is not always better than what it replaces, but we must not be so rigid, unimaginative, and pessimistic that people are afraid to tryout plausibly good ideas lest they be publicly ridiculed for falling short.

Again, the biggest threat to libraries is Library Journal and the goofballs in charge……..boooooooo

Yes, there are some ideas which are “ahead of the curve” and as such are unsuccessful… the time for them has not yet come. This is not such an idea, as the AL clearly points out. There are programs which are just bad ideas to begin with. This program meets that description, as it’s a program which is already being done so much better by a company. As the AL says, it’s behind the curve. It would be “innovative” if no one else were already doing it, and doing it better. Perhaps some think that people should pay more for an inferior service, all in the name of supporting a library rather than supporting a big, bad corporation, or some nonsense like that?

We must come together as a community to support one another, not knock each other down. We already have slashed budgets and dwindling staff. Is it really productive to kill potentially good ideas?

Think about it.

That’s 80% of our patrons, whether retired, jobless, or homeless.