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.

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…

“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.

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.