Interesting revelations about how the bandwidth costs are handled. This is an area I hoped to bypass with the primary search going out and downloading from other Peers exclusively and only running a secondary pull for the files from the library as a guaranteed source when there were not any peers available. I think it would be very important to have it an either or instance, so the library was not supplementing the P2P pull and associated bandwidth consumption.

Your point about libraries wanting to focus on relevant, region specific data is an excellent one. The way I see this being implemented the software would allow multiple tiered membership. For example the city of Sedona’s public library (pop 15k) has it’s own network. Depending on the wishes of the administrators that network can be joined with the Yavapaii County library system, the Arizona library system and then conceivably even international elements depending on the goal and desire of the offering. In a way, I see it as a very easy to integrate P2P version of the inter-library loan.

Also, following the above model, I see a sort function eg: Sedona library network, .mp3, author – as the users submitting the content would be submitting through the library they signed up with (important for copyright reasons and identity verification through library cards) so that Sedona user submits his/her music/book etc. to the Sedona library.

This way the local library still can grant access to massive amounts of general information by associating with the state network, but only have to focus on maintaining and offering local resources…thus enriching the network as a whole.

Also, if the whole software side was developed open source, transition costs would be notably less as there would not be software purchase or usage costs.

Love the blog based elements and review stuff your library is working on. Sounds like a fantastic way to increase community involvement.

“So how do libraries stay competitive and useful in the modern environment?”

We are working on that very question! We even have a moniker for it – Library 2.0. In general, libraries have fallen behind in the whole web 2.0 thing – but some of us are working to catch libraries up to the present!

“An impressive assortment and one that has the potential to cost the Library thousands of dollars in bandwidth costs.” The bandwidth payment model is more like a business – static monthly payment, usually at least partially funded by the state.

One more side thing before getting to your main point – “PPLS’s offering is impressive, with 60+ database subscriptions and with 30,000+ digital offerings but it’s still minuscule compared to the potential.” Definitely miniscule… but also probably has a different focus than what you’re talking about. My guess is PPLS’s goal isn’t to collect or make everything available – it’s to make only the best, most useful, and potentially most requested stuff available. That’s the old non-digital model, anyway – and right now, most libraries are translating that old model into the digital age. Then they have web access, which covers most other things.

Now to the meat: “Why not turn our library system into a networked P2P network operating custom software which not only allows the distribution of the content they already have, but also the submission and potential addition of hundreds of thousands of new files by authors, documentary producers, and musicians?”

Very cool idea. Remove the “digital” part for a sec, and some libraries already do that – my library, for example, actively collects books written by Topeka-area authors. Plus photographs, etc.

That local area thing is the catch – most public libraries aren’t interested in collecting EVERYTHING. They might be interested, however, in collecting everything from their local communities. What if, for example, Seattle Public Library collected mp3 files from local bands… we could have had early demos of Nirvana downloadable for free – years before they were huge. That’d be cool!

P2P networks might not work for libraries in the near-future – state-funded networks frequently have policies against that type of thing, and libraries don’t have the money to buy the bandwidth themselves.

But – the ideas behind P2P are library-friendly. Libraries have been working on the customer-to-customer communication thing, just in littler baby steps. For example, my library allows library customers to write book reviews and we post em online, and we’re also blog-based, so customers can converse with each other via commenting.

My thoughts, anyway…

The ultimate goal is to continue to expand the benefits of libraries and expand it easily into the homes of every day citizens. Especially those – be it low income, or the elderly who use the internet as one of their primary sources for reaching out.

This is interesting. I would say, Alex, that if you can come up with a compelling one-page document — not too full of text — that explains the benefits in very simple terms, then you might be on to something. You might need two versions: one which explain why it is in the best interest of a typical resident, and one, similarly, for a typical policymaker.

In terms of size, there are predictions that by 2020 it will be essentially one city from Tucson to Prescott. The city of Phoenix itself has been labeled one of the best managed cities for a number of years running. The valley itself has undergone major renovations and growing up over the last 5 years and is coming into it’s own as a potential tech hub. The relatively unique thing about the Phoenix area is that we have lots of space and virtually no natural disasters. The tech appeal for server farms etc. is substantial.

The legislators in AZ would definitely pose an obstacle. It’s something that would require a sit down 20 minute conversation, as they will mostly have fundamental framework questions you or i would take for granted. The benefit there though would be the digitally savvy Millennial generation who make up the legislators support staffs. Also, I believe many are familiar with or have used Kazaa or Napster.

The quality overload could be an issue, but guidelines could be established along with a peer review system. Wikipedia has a number of excellent lessons which could be applied.

The added benefit is, that this would add another credible feather in P2P’s hat. It’s already being used quietly by Blizzard and other companies for content distribution. It would also go a long way towards undermining the abusive and illegal throttling major ISPs are using while helping ensure the continued relevance of one of the cornerstones of the intellectual infrastructure.

The tension between the broadcast model and the p2p model of cultural production is one of the great conflicts of our time. (See Yochai Benkler of Yale Law School for more theoretical background on that point.) Based on my limited experience with local government officials in Northern Arizona, I would venture to guess that most of the policymakers in Phoenix are older than 40 years old and have a poor grasp of any kind of cultural production that doesn’t involve Hollywood and the Big Media incumbents. I support anyone who would encourage the public policy establishment to understand the benefits of p2p, but I would expect much of it to be an uphill battle.

These are just my initial thoughts. I also wonder if the highly uneven quality of user-generated content would be a problem, and whether or not local government funding is really the best way to make sure p2p multiculture gets the support it needs.