There is no need for late fees when libraries can use much simpler and more effective incentives like not allowing you to check out more books until you return the ones you have.
Think about it rationally:
If you are poor with an overdue book, you really have no incentive to return it. You can't pay the fee so even if you return it you won't get use of the library.
With the new system you get immediate use of the library once you turn in your overdue book. The benefit for returning books is much higher.
> There is no need for late fees when libraries can use much simpler and more effective incentives like not allowing you to check out more books until you return the ones you have.
Late fees do have one benefit – what if someone has a strong interest in one particular book (or a handful of books, which fits within their borrowing limit). Maybe it is a textbook or reference book for a course they are doing. Maybe they are just an obsessive person. They want to borrow a book for far longer than the standard borrowing term, or even indefinitely. They don't care if doing so blocks them from borrowing any further books, because they are more interested in the book(s) they have currently borrowed than in any of those.
Before, if they didn't return it, they would start getting late fees. Some people may be so intent on possessing that book, they may consider the late fees worth it – viewing it as a rental fee rather than a fine. But others, the late fee may be enough to convince them to return it, whereas merely suspending their borrowing privileges would not.
And this can make a difference to other library users. Ever wanted to read a book, or even borrow it, but you can't because it is out on loan? Abolishing late fees runs the risk of making that negative experience much more common than it was before.
I think this just matches human behavior a lot more too in terms of how late books happen - usually just because someone forgot or it was inconvenient to return it on time. Eliminating late fines and instead blocking checking out more books means that the person is incentivized to bring the book with them next time they go to the library, so that they are rewarded with being allowed check something else out. Late fines tend to do the opposite... once they realize the book is past due, they are incentivized to avoid going back to the library, because once they do they'll be punished. The incentive of being able to check out another book is likely not enough to overcome having to pay even a relatively small fine. It seems fairly intuitive to me that this creates a perverse incentive that will often discourage people from returning books at all, rather than encouraging returning them on time.
As mentioned elsewhere, this seems like the same discovery Netflix made back when they were mailing DVDs: it is more effective to incentivize returning by making it a tit-for-tat trade than by fining non-returners. Sure, this approach might end up with people never returning items if they never want to get more (move away, etc), but that's a relatively uncommon situation for a library, and doesn't seem to have become a major problem for Netflix.
More subjectively, I also think that charging a replacement fee to patrons that truly cannot return the book feels more fair than charging a per-day late fine until you hit replacement. It's more of a direct indemnity sort of situation.
Back in the day when I was a poor college student I rented a movie from a local video store. It was an old movie and because of my laziness I failed to return it on time. But eventually did and they wanted a $40 late fee, which was a lot of money for me at the time. A new copy would have cost less.
So I stopped being a customer and went to a competitor.
My first reaction was to disagree with this new library policy. But if poor people want to read books and forget to return them, it doesn’t help to punish them. Sometimes we just have to accept that a certain percentage of society can’t or won’t do socially responsible things all the time.
The purpose of late fees is mostly to make people return books on time, IMHO.
I don't really agree with the angle taken by the Burbank and NY public libraries that somewhat depicts fees and fines as unfair and only penalising the poorest, which sounds like a ideological stance. Those fees penalise those do not follow the rules, and that has nothing to do with being rich or poor. People who use public libraries responsibly never have to pay any of those fees.
I also think it's fair to charge a replacement fee for lost material (which are also abolished according to the article).
Now, if they have actual data showing that these fees don't work and an alternative approach improves the return of books, especially return on time, then by all means go for it.
Think about it rationally: If you have a book you haven’t finished but want to, there’s no incentive to return it now. Check out as many books as you’d like, return them at your leisure, and screw anyone who has any concurrent interests in any of those books.
I agree, but really only for somewhere with a big library with multiple copies of most books. My library typically has 0-1 copies of a book I want to read, and if it's even moderately popular, I have to place a hold on it. This would be terrible without late fees.
I am not poor and I can easily afford a lot of late fees in my local library. Still, I notice that having late fees makes me want to return books in time, even if I didn't finish it. If these weren't in place, I probably would keep the book longer, even (or especially) if it's in-demand one with a long wait list and I didn't finish it in time.
I also see from an article that they eliminated fees for not returned ("lost") books which looks like just an open invitation to steal books from the library. Maybe I'm too cynical but I don't think it'd work very well.
> If you are poor with an overdue book, you really have no incentive to return it. You can't pay the fee so even if you return it you won't get use of the library.
My recollection from the last time I returned a library book late (decades ago) is that the fee was a certain amount per day late. In that case even if you cannot pay the fee there is still incentive to return the book as soon as possible because that stops the fee owed from growing, meaning it will be easier to eventually pay it off and get your library privileges restored.
Missing is a reason to return the book promptly, or to avoid getting it lost, or to avoid stealing books. Why not just cap fees are the value of the book replacement?
>>There is no need for late fees when libraries can use much simpler and more effective incentives like not allowing you to check out more books until you return the ones you have.
You just come back and get a new library card under another name...just keep taking out more books and selling them on ebay; that will become a cottage industry. suckers, i mean taxpayers, will just have to make up the difference.
I think the best system would be something like a $200 fully refundable deposit, plus late fees (deducted from your deposit account). Account must not drop below $180 due to accrued late fees, or use of library is suspended.
If you don't return books for an excessively long period, like six months, their value is automatically deducted from your deposit on top of accrued late fees; then you may keep the books.
There was a girl in my high school who really messed up her freshmen year - partied too much and flunked every class, pretty much no way back for her. So she transferred schools to another county and re-enrolled as a freshmen. But before she left she purposefully incurred a five cent library fine. The school refused to send her transcripts anywhere until she paid it. Clever girl.
This sounds suspiciously like the "overpay your traffic ticket by a dollar and then don't cash the refund check so the transaction never closes and you don't get points on your license" urban legend.
1. AFAIK colleges can't send transcripts to people without your permission, so it's unclear what she's trying to prevent.
2. If she's trying to get a job and the place she's applying to cares about GPA, then chances are they're not going to accept the "I can't get a transcript because I didn't pay a 5 cent fine" excuse. If anything people would consider it a red flag. What type of a responsible adult can't pay a 5 cent fine?
3. similar applies to applying for graduate school, except that they're probably even more strict about transcripts.
I’m fascinated (read: horrified) how many people in the comments here are litigating all the ways that this change is horrible / promotes abuse of the library system / is the end of civilization.
We have actual, practical examples of many library systems who have made this change. In every case I’m aware of, the result was an increase in desirable behaviors (like more people borrowing books and a higher percentage of books being returned), with no increase in undesirable behaviors (like theft of books).
To all the folks here decrying how this is horrible, can you cite any example of a library where this was done and it went badly?
I would like to see stats of how this affected book queue wait times and loan patterns, particularly for books which an entire metro library system only has one or two copies of.
They say it increases return rates overall. If that's true, it's good, but let's try to understand why, and what secondary consequences there might be.
Nothing was stopping those people from returning the books and walking out without paying their outstanding fines. They could use the exterior book drop (don't libraries still have those?)
The idea seems to be that the experience of going to a library with fines outstanding is a kind of intrinsic aversive punishment; you feel guilty slinking into (or around) the library with overdue books, so you try to avoid that by not returning the books. You might even try to hide the books in your house so you don't see them and aren't reminded of your guilt. But it's not the doing away with the fines that matters, it's changing the social dynamic so that nobody ever feels guilty; it's no longer a faux pas not to return books when you should, because there's no longer any punishment. The interaction becomes entirely positive: without fines to think about anymore, you queue all the books you want to read, when one or two become available the cost of checking them out is returning the books you've read and have delayed returning.
A typical reason someone might get stuck in library fine purgatory: they queue up a bunch of books, none are available before their old books are due back, and they simply didn't have motivation to go to the library solely to return their existing books. Once they have a fine they don't want to pay and they can't check out the new books, there's no motivation for them to ever return. Historically, there would be: people tended to have a sense of duty and shame so that they'd do the right thing and return the book even if it made them feel bad and they couldn't afford the fees and couldn't use the library anymore, but now I guess nobody has that kind of super-ego anymore.
Removing fines encourages those people to re-engage with the library system, but I expect it messes with book queues and makes them worse.
Libraries were already struggling to budget book acquisitions. Increasing demand by changing policies so more people use the libraries will only make it more difficult to fund book acquisitions to meet demand.
The fee is assigned to your account, but you don't actually pay anything (no money is actually exchanged). If you return the item after 30 days the fee is cleared. Even if you pay the fee and return the item within 90 days the fee is refunded.
You need to accumulate $100 in fees before they suspend borrowing. It all seems very fair to me.
My city’s library has done this for about 5 years. I definitely patronize the library more. Why have overworked librarians have to handle cash and face arguments?
The data is clear that it has significantly boosted utilization without impacting hold times. Fine income accounted for less than 1% of a library’s budget. It just makes sense.
I understand the problem, not sure I agree with the solution yet, but maybe I'm missing something. Not really sure how else they can make sure people don't just borrow 10 books and never come back. Seems like instead they could've created a program which verifies inability to pay fine and waves them for people who legitimately can't pay it, but maybe they're looking at some data we don't have access to.
> Not really sure how else they can make sure people don't just borrow 10 books and never come back
People can already do this if they want. Nothing stops you from checking out the max number of books and never coming back.
Most libraries have discovered that late fees discourage people from returning books when they forget, lose them, etc. The longer the book is out the higher the fee. The higher the fee the more likely that person will decide library membership is a lost cause and decide to never return (or use someone else's membership).
Eliminating late fees increases the overall rate of books returned vs stolen.
There's a common trope of people being scared of going back to the library because they've racked up hundreds of dollars in fines. This is a rare occurrence, most libraries I've seen have a fine cap of about $5, but I have a feeling that's not something most people are aware of.
By removing fines, you get good press and an easier message to convey. Really, the library just wants the books back, the fines aren't meant to generate revenue.
If someone's going to just take 10 books from the library, they'll take them regardless. Just like grocery stores, a librarian isn't going to pursue you if you set the alarm off; the alarm's there to remind honest people that they forgot to check a book out.
This would probably end up costing them even more than just losing the books and buying new ones and in the process creating a new bureaucracy of injustices.
It's a net positive as far as actually getting books back. Late fees weren't stopping the kind of people who are gonna steal books, they aren't gonna check them out in the first place if theft is their intention they'll just walk out and ignore the alarms, I doubt the librarians are gonna chase after them. This is for people who would otherwise have returned the books in the first place but are discouraged by the late fees.
> Not really sure how else they can make sure people don't just borrow 10 books and never come back.
Replacement fees, which still exist.
> Seems like instead they could've created a program which verifies inability to pay fine and waves them for people who legitimately can't pay it
That would cost more than eliminating late fees entirely, which other public library systems have proven works to improve returns. More expensive, less proven, what's not to like?
> Not really sure how else they can make sure people don't just borrow 10 books and never come back.
You can't check out new books until you return the ones you have. So people have a strong incentive to return books if they want to continue using the library.
My local library ended all late fees a little over two years ago and they haven't reverted back yet, so it seems it's working out okay for them.
Their policy works like this (just looked):
14 days overdue: library card blocked
28 days overdue: library card blocked, billed replacement cost of overdue items
42 days overdue: your account sent to collection agency + $10 collections fee, the latter of which must be paid to unblock your card.
You can also extend how long you're checking out the items online by a decent amount, like 2 or 3 extensions I think. You can hang end up hanging on to what you've checked out for several months before it has to go back, as long as you're staying on top of it.
This may be good according to general stats, equity, etc. However, I'm not concerned about overall book return rates for popular books, which will dominate those stats.
What I want to know is how this affects books that I actually use libraries for (and for which libraries are most valuable): expensive or out-of-print books—for which the best alternative is an expensive copy on the new or used market, or some poor scanned copy from internetarchive or the "evil" pirate library whose name shall not be spoken.
It seems like this will encourage people to jam up the queue for those books, since someone who rarely goes to the library will have no incentive to ever return it until the next time they want some obscure book.
In the general case, it makes the already somewhat unreliable "return date" listed for checked-out items even more unreliable, so all you can do is put yourself in the queue and have no idea when it might actually become available, since there's no longer any incentive for someone to return it on the due date instead of 1 month or 6 months later.
Libraries don't let you check out books which can't be replaced economically. You might have heard the word "circulating" in the context of libraries: stuff from Tom Clancy and Harper Lee and Kevin Feige circulate. Out-of-print or rare or college textbooks usually have to be read at the library, where staff discourage you pocketing or photocopying things or whatever.
One reason for late fees I’m not seeing in the comments is high demand inventory management. In small libraries, a popular title might have a long waitlist due to a smaller supply as a budgetary constraint. The late fees correspond with a limited borrowing timeframe so that the popular item gets utilized by more patrons. This seems fair to me, though I appreciate there is another consequence of late fees that others here consider advocating against.
I used to volunteer at my local library. Every couple years they'd have an amnesty week where you could return overdue books and the fees were waived. In that week, almost HALF of the long-overdue books were returned.
This only works well if the library always has an excess number of copies of books which probably isn't too hard to accomplish. I remember far too many school projects where many books would already be checked out. Imposing a fee for keeping he book too long allowed more people to have the book in a given amount of time.
I guess some school projects (middle & high school level) may still require citing a book or two but it probably isn't a very big issue. Adults that really want $X book will just buy it used on Amazon.
I think a better solution would be to keep the late fees then after they totaled the cost of a new book send a bill to the borrower for the cost of the book plus and added 50% handling fee. If that is not paid within x number of days sell the invoice to a credit collection firm. The people that don't return books are in essence thieves and are impacting legitimate library users abilty to read books. May seem kind of harsh but I grow tired of seeing petty theft and shoplifting going unpunished.
When I was a user of public libraries it used to be awkward to get to them, after work, before closing time.
So I paid a lot of late fees. It used to bug me that late fees were waived for people on benefits then. There are just so many situations where something like this is the case.
I often wonder how much the value of all these hidden benefits amount to. They're never considered when there's a discussion of benefit rates.
They can suspend your ability to borrow books for one day per each week of being late. Providing slight incentive to return, without preventing low-income people from educating themselves.
Recently late? No more books for you until you return them.
Been late for month? No books for you this week.
Been late for year? No books for you this month and a half.
(This should NOT be multiplied by number of books late)
The mountain view library is apparently in such dire straights that they once sent a late fee of mine from a google internship to a collection agency. (over a $10 book) At least new york cares about people who don't have means, and seems to fund their libraries.
Same thing has been done Charlotte, Mecklenburg Public library. So far behavior change for me is instead of checking in very often if I am running late to checking weekly. Decide up if I am really gonna read those books then renew else return on weekend.
[+] [-] lalaland1125|4 years ago|reply
There is no need for late fees when libraries can use much simpler and more effective incentives like not allowing you to check out more books until you return the ones you have.
Think about it rationally:
If you are poor with an overdue book, you really have no incentive to return it. You can't pay the fee so even if you return it you won't get use of the library.
With the new system you get immediate use of the library once you turn in your overdue book. The benefit for returning books is much higher.
[+] [-] skissane|4 years ago|reply
Late fees do have one benefit – what if someone has a strong interest in one particular book (or a handful of books, which fits within their borrowing limit). Maybe it is a textbook or reference book for a course they are doing. Maybe they are just an obsessive person. They want to borrow a book for far longer than the standard borrowing term, or even indefinitely. They don't care if doing so blocks them from borrowing any further books, because they are more interested in the book(s) they have currently borrowed than in any of those.
Before, if they didn't return it, they would start getting late fees. Some people may be so intent on possessing that book, they may consider the late fees worth it – viewing it as a rental fee rather than a fine. But others, the late fee may be enough to convince them to return it, whereas merely suspending their borrowing privileges would not.
And this can make a difference to other library users. Ever wanted to read a book, or even borrow it, but you can't because it is out on loan? Abolishing late fees runs the risk of making that negative experience much more common than it was before.
[+] [-] jcrawfordor|4 years ago|reply
As mentioned elsewhere, this seems like the same discovery Netflix made back when they were mailing DVDs: it is more effective to incentivize returning by making it a tit-for-tat trade than by fining non-returners. Sure, this approach might end up with people never returning items if they never want to get more (move away, etc), but that's a relatively uncommon situation for a library, and doesn't seem to have become a major problem for Netflix.
More subjectively, I also think that charging a replacement fee to patrons that truly cannot return the book feels more fair than charging a per-day late fine until you hit replacement. It's more of a direct indemnity sort of situation.
[+] [-] nemo44x|4 years ago|reply
So I stopped being a customer and went to a competitor.
My first reaction was to disagree with this new library policy. But if poor people want to read books and forget to return them, it doesn’t help to punish them. Sometimes we just have to accept that a certain percentage of society can’t or won’t do socially responsible things all the time.
[+] [-] mytailorisrich|4 years ago|reply
I don't really agree with the angle taken by the Burbank and NY public libraries that somewhat depicts fees and fines as unfair and only penalising the poorest, which sounds like a ideological stance. Those fees penalise those do not follow the rules, and that has nothing to do with being rich or poor. People who use public libraries responsibly never have to pay any of those fees.
I also think it's fair to charge a replacement fee for lost material (which are also abolished according to the article).
Now, if they have actual data showing that these fees don't work and an alternative approach improves the return of books, especially return on time, then by all means go for it.
[+] [-] nickysielicki|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vlunkr|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smsm42|4 years ago|reply
I also see from an article that they eliminated fees for not returned ("lost") books which looks like just an open invitation to steal books from the library. Maybe I'm too cynical but I don't think it'd work very well.
[+] [-] black_puppydog|4 years ago|reply
Well, it's not all that obvious in a world where "just add a monetary incentive" is the go-to policy change for just about anything...
Great that some people think beyond that though.
[+] [-] tzs|4 years ago|reply
My recollection from the last time I returned a library book late (decades ago) is that the fee was a certain amount per day late. In that case even if you cannot pay the fee there is still incentive to return the book as soon as possible because that stops the fee owed from growing, meaning it will be easier to eventually pay it off and get your library privileges restored.
[+] [-] tjs8rj|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KorematsuFredt|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ejb999|4 years ago|reply
You just come back and get a new library card under another name...just keep taking out more books and selling them on ebay; that will become a cottage industry. suckers, i mean taxpayers, will just have to make up the difference.
[+] [-] bowmessage|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kazinator|4 years ago|reply
Late fees: pay small fee, borrow books.
No late fees: pay for replacement, borrow books.
I think the best system would be something like a $200 fully refundable deposit, plus late fees (deducted from your deposit account). Account must not drop below $180 due to accrued late fees, or use of library is suspended.
If you don't return books for an excessively long period, like six months, their value is automatically deducted from your deposit on top of accrued late fees; then you may keep the books.
[+] [-] zxcvbn4038|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] defen|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gruez|4 years ago|reply
1. AFAIK colleges can't send transcripts to people without your permission, so it's unclear what she's trying to prevent.
2. If she's trying to get a job and the place she's applying to cares about GPA, then chances are they're not going to accept the "I can't get a transcript because I didn't pay a 5 cent fine" excuse. If anything people would consider it a red flag. What type of a responsible adult can't pay a 5 cent fine?
3. similar applies to applying for graduate school, except that they're probably even more strict about transcripts.
[+] [-] akerl_|4 years ago|reply
We have actual, practical examples of many library systems who have made this change. In every case I’m aware of, the result was an increase in desirable behaviors (like more people borrowing books and a higher percentage of books being returned), with no increase in undesirable behaviors (like theft of books).
To all the folks here decrying how this is horrible, can you cite any example of a library where this was done and it went badly?
[+] [-] harshreality|4 years ago|reply
They say it increases return rates overall. If that's true, it's good, but let's try to understand why, and what secondary consequences there might be.
Nothing was stopping those people from returning the books and walking out without paying their outstanding fines. They could use the exterior book drop (don't libraries still have those?)
The idea seems to be that the experience of going to a library with fines outstanding is a kind of intrinsic aversive punishment; you feel guilty slinking into (or around) the library with overdue books, so you try to avoid that by not returning the books. You might even try to hide the books in your house so you don't see them and aren't reminded of your guilt. But it's not the doing away with the fines that matters, it's changing the social dynamic so that nobody ever feels guilty; it's no longer a faux pas not to return books when you should, because there's no longer any punishment. The interaction becomes entirely positive: without fines to think about anymore, you queue all the books you want to read, when one or two become available the cost of checking them out is returning the books you've read and have delayed returning.
A typical reason someone might get stuck in library fine purgatory: they queue up a bunch of books, none are available before their old books are due back, and they simply didn't have motivation to go to the library solely to return their existing books. Once they have a fine they don't want to pay and they can't check out the new books, there's no motivation for them to ever return. Historically, there would be: people tended to have a sense of duty and shame so that they'd do the right thing and return the book even if it made them feel bad and they couldn't afford the fees and couldn't use the library anymore, but now I guess nobody has that kind of super-ego anymore.
Removing fines encourages those people to re-engage with the library system, but I expect it messes with book queues and makes them worse.
Libraries were already struggling to budget book acquisitions. Increasing demand by changing policies so more people use the libraries will only make it more difficult to fund book acquisitions to meet demand.
[+] [-] billfor|4 years ago|reply
https://www.nypl.org/help/borrowing-materials/library-fines-...
[+] [-] jacobsenscott|4 years ago|reply
You need to accumulate $100 in fees before they suspend borrowing. It all seems very fair to me.
[+] [-] breckenedge|4 years ago|reply
Items are declared lost after they have been overdue for 30 days and a replacement fee will be charged to the patron account.
[+] [-] reilly3000|4 years ago|reply
The data is clear that it has significantly boosted utilization without impacting hold times. Fine income accounted for less than 1% of a library’s budget. It just makes sense.
[+] [-] faridelnasire|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xenadu02|4 years ago|reply
People can already do this if they want. Nothing stops you from checking out the max number of books and never coming back.
Most libraries have discovered that late fees discourage people from returning books when they forget, lose them, etc. The longer the book is out the higher the fee. The higher the fee the more likely that person will decide library membership is a lost cause and decide to never return (or use someone else's membership).
Eliminating late fees increases the overall rate of books returned vs stolen.
[+] [-] jackson1442|4 years ago|reply
By removing fines, you get good press and an easier message to convey. Really, the library just wants the books back, the fines aren't meant to generate revenue.
If someone's going to just take 10 books from the library, they'll take them regardless. Just like grocery stores, a librarian isn't going to pursue you if you set the alarm off; the alarm's there to remind honest people that they forgot to check a book out.
[+] [-] lapetitejort|4 years ago|reply
* Late fees disproportionally affected the poor
* Dropping fees brought with it an uptick in library attendance
* Libraries spent more money collecting the fees than they received from the fees
[0]: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/30/781374759/we-wanted-our-patro...
[+] [-] guerrilla|4 years ago|reply
This would probably end up costing them even more than just losing the books and buying new ones and in the process creating a new bureaucracy of injustices.
[+] [-] calt|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zircom|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|4 years ago|reply
Replacement fees, which still exist.
> Seems like instead they could've created a program which verifies inability to pay fine and waves them for people who legitimately can't pay it
That would cost more than eliminating late fees entirely, which other public library systems have proven works to improve returns. More expensive, less proven, what's not to like?
[+] [-] lalaland1125|4 years ago|reply
You can't check out new books until you return the ones you have. So people have a strong incentive to return books if they want to continue using the library.
[+] [-] cableshaft|4 years ago|reply
Their policy works like this (just looked):
14 days overdue: library card blocked
28 days overdue: library card blocked, billed replacement cost of overdue items
42 days overdue: your account sent to collection agency + $10 collections fee, the latter of which must be paid to unblock your card.
You can also extend how long you're checking out the items online by a decent amount, like 2 or 3 extensions I think. You can hang end up hanging on to what you've checked out for several months before it has to go back, as long as you're staying on top of it.
[+] [-] harshreality|4 years ago|reply
What I want to know is how this affects books that I actually use libraries for (and for which libraries are most valuable): expensive or out-of-print books—for which the best alternative is an expensive copy on the new or used market, or some poor scanned copy from internetarchive or the "evil" pirate library whose name shall not be spoken.
It seems like this will encourage people to jam up the queue for those books, since someone who rarely goes to the library will have no incentive to ever return it until the next time they want some obscure book.
In the general case, it makes the already somewhat unreliable "return date" listed for checked-out items even more unreliable, so all you can do is put yourself in the queue and have no idea when it might actually become available, since there's no longer any incentive for someone to return it on the due date instead of 1 month or 6 months later.
[+] [-] jjjjoe|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlturner|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vnchr|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joe5150|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] riffic|4 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Public_Library
[+] [-] amichail|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bastawhiz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KingMachiavelli|4 years ago|reply
I guess some school projects (middle & high school level) may still require citing a book or two but it probably isn't a very big issue. Adults that really want $X book will just buy it used on Amazon.
[+] [-] roamerz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stormdennis|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] harvie|4 years ago|reply
Recently late? No more books for you until you return them.
Been late for month? No books for you this week.
Been late for year? No books for you this month and a half.
(This should NOT be multiplied by number of books late)
[+] [-] jayzalowitz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geodel|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m0ngr31|4 years ago|reply