As I understand and see things, in the US at least, the concept of capitalism is tempered with the idea of “democracy”. And when it comes to the way some companies conduct business and undercut libraries (with fresher tech offerings mostly, which I understand most often require capitalism to come to market).

I still hold that companies just *saying* they are good, even if the are brilliant, popular and wealthy is NOT good.

This part also caught my attention as wel:
“Requiring businesses to “permanently give back” is socialism. They’re giving back through the very act of earning money”
I understand what you say here and agree that it is true to a certain extent. But is a slippery slope both from the “trickle down” perspective, to the “this would be “socialism”" perspective.
Even as a capitalistic democracy we have a series of social institutions that continue because we decide to support them. I just don’t think people at large realize quite what is at stake for libraries in relation to these disruptive technologies when it comes to open information access, community connection, content, privacy and a slew of associated things. Libraries must be at the core of these interactions going forward and I don’t see that happening yet.
And I think it could happen. And with plenty of room for all parties involved to make income (or at least for the libraries perspective to bring in enough cash flow to keep them around while they help to build and enhance the system). This scenario would be a win-win and would provide sufficient checks and balances (again in my opinion).
Again Richard, I really appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts. It’s good get this sort of feedback to help think things through and learn and see more perspectives. So, thanks.

You’re fighting the wrong battle. Profit isn’t evil. Businesses only make a profit by providing a valuable service to the world, save for market inefficiencies. Usurping your users doesn’t work for long. Requiring businesses to “permanently give back” is socialism. They’re giving back through the very act of earning money, and it’s wonderful that money can be earned by direct means: ad-supported free services rather than subscription services.

Why is it that the best way to find items in my local library is to get the ISBN or title through Amazon or Google, and then enter it in the OPAC? Because the drive to improve isn’t there. When you have guaranteed tax dollars, no one innovates search, networking tools, cataloging processes, etc. A non-profit doesn’t create a Google. Everyone’s putting their best hours into a day job to support themselves. If only the non-profits could get an infusion of profit, you would see great things coming from them.

We could have free libraries with wonderful catalogs, user reviews, relevant search results, great hours and community services, and no taxes, just like Google gives me wonderful tools to search the web and manage my email without earning a cent. We just need to plaster ads and affiliate referrals on the walls, on the websites, among the stacks, as bookmarks in books, etc. Part of the library could be a bookstore.

Profit and community service do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Thanks.