nostr:npub19p5p8m0m9ygmswn38f57f7lnrz0fpkv8x9t47r4hkqhh5thud6uqdww0v0 so, sure, we need to replace the awkward library DRM with a publicly funded awkward library DRM, so that libraries can continue with their important work of dribbling out little crumbs of information for free to the poors, but not too many or too fast because that would hurt authors and publishers and we can’t have that
nostr:npub19p5p8m0m9ygmswn38f57f7lnrz0fpkv8x9t47r4hkqhh5thud6uqdww0v0 nobody *really* believes that people should have open access to books for free unless they’re very poor and don’t mind the inconvenience of waiting in a bread line they imagined out of whole cloth and paid to create.
Discussion
nostr:npub1dvdcupztwzszz8u0ld9ptuf78jaqd43mhsfwf2d8ezwhz6tz2z0shxh0ph If you bothered to learn about libraries, you'd know that income doesn't correlate to library usage the way you're suggesting. And a PEW study found higher income people were more likely to check out print books and use apps, while lower income people are more likely to get help from a librarian, and use the library to sit and read or access media. A PE firm taking money out of libraries hurts communities in wholly different ways that have little to do with publishers getting paid.