I don't know why exactly but I feel bad checking books out of the library. I almost feel like I am stealing in a way. I guess because most of the books I check-out are books I would have bought to read if I couldn't get them through the library.

no I dont feel bad at all. If you pay property tax then you are paying for the library. I go at least once a week.

the purpose of a library is so people can check out books to read them. so, not sure why you'd feel any remorse about it.

That's what libraries are for. And their book purchases help to fuel the publishing industry. Libraries (at least big ones) closely track their circulation. If you're checking out a lot of books of a particular type, genre, or author, the library will note that. They suit their buying to their demographic. It's all part of the system.

So no need to feel bad.

Hell no - not w/ the amount of taxes that I pay a year to the library district. I should use it more than I do.

Of course not. Especially with the waste-of-tax-money renovations that were just done in my town a few years ago.

I guess maybe I feel bad because it feels like I am stealing somewhat since I am not doing anything to support the author since I didn't actually buy the book especially as much as I enjoy books. I read a ton of books and with the price of books these days I would break the bank if I had to buy every single copy.

Several people at work were talking about piracy due to another article on the RIAA and then somewhat brought up the point about libraries. We of course argued about what the difference is between downloading a cd and listening to it once and checking out a library book. Either way you didn't physically pay for the book or cd. The group seemed to somewhat come to a consensus that the act was the same if you only listen or watch the downloaded material once. Now if you use it more than once per download they compared it to making a photocopy of the book to reread at your convenience which they agreed was wrong.

I just thought the comparison was interesting and was curious to see what everyone else thought without getting into a debate about piracy or anything else that would get the thread locked.

Sorry, but the group came up with a pretty poor analogy. Publishers market to libraries. Library sales are a big part of their business. They don't market to pirates. Therein lies the difference.

Something involving libraries I was thinking about earlier. When I was a kid in schoo, doing reaserch for as paper, I and others would make photocopies from encyclopedias and magazines and other reference books on the libraries photo copy machines.The copy machines were there for that reason. Would this be considered stealing since you don't have the permision of the publisher to make thiose copies?

Copyright law allows for the photocopying of limited sections of a work for the use of scholarship or research.

As for the library book vs. downloading music debate... You're talking about two fundamentally different actions. One is purchasing a copy of a product, then loaning that product to other people. The product is not duplicated and doesn't violate the product's copyright. In the latter case, you are illegally duplicating a product, for which no purchase was ever made, and thus violating the product's copyright.

i'd like to know 1 author who feel like they were being ripped off by people who go to the library.

seriously, your concern is bordering on irrational.

There is a law that copying for academic/non-profit purposes is allowed.

I believe teachers can copy just about anything for class.

Authors in some countries receive a "public lending right" payment depending on how many times their books are withdrawn from libraries.

There is a school of thought suggesting that the availability of their work in libraries eventually feeds through into sales figures for authors.

If a library buys a book and no-one checks it out for a certain period of time, the library will discard that book. What author or publisher will want that to happen?

I was under the impression that royalties are paid for each check out, just as block buster rentals benefit movie companies. The difference is that libraries are funded indirectly through property taxes and donations rather than by the PFY collecting fees by the door.

Wait, are you serious?

If no one checked out books from the library, the library - very important as centers of education and knowledge, would close. Libraries are there for you to check out the books.....?

I really think this is one of the most bizarre schools-of-thought I've heard in a long time.

Curious - where did this impression come from?

I don't feel guilty at all. I wonder if the library feels guilty collecting the significant fines I almost always rack up? Probably not.

I think this might be the first time I've ever seen a poll with essentially a "Yes/No" question and not a signal response to one of the sides.

I like how no one picked "yes", not even the OP who flat out said that they do indeed feel bad about it.

While I don't feel bad about checking out books from the library, I have to admit I feel funny about checking out DVD's. My library has a pretty decent DVD collection with lots of current releases. I probably haven't rented a movie in years thanks to this. I honestly don't know why people don't use this feature more often. You can even search their database online and reserve movies or request movies from other libraries in the system.

Most of the movies I check out I wouldn't have purchased, but I most certainly would have paid to rent them at some point.

I feel bad for people who pronounce it "liberry".

Whenever I hear it pronounced like that my face turns all red with anger... like a strawbrary.

I think the OP has his/her answer...they are the only one.