Do some publishers have any idea?

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Yet, by the definition of charity, libraries are a charity..

Depends on the legal definition you are using. There is three distinct things that go into libraries. Charity, public, and foundation. The only thing they have in common is that they are all non profit. There is a legal difference between a charity library and a public library. Charity library, for example, is allowed to be selective on who they serve (e.g. children with learning disabilities) while public ones are not allowed to discriminate.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You may not personally consider such things charities, but they are legitimately considered charities by the definition of the word.

And you are right as far as taxing donations are concerned. A charitable donation on your income tax return lumps all non profit together, whether they are charity or not.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Just because the government dispenses charity, doesn't mean it isn't charity. In the US, things like schools and libraries are provided without charge typically by the community as a whole. Charity is defined as voluntarily giving to those in need. Libraries fit that definition. While many soup kitchens are run out of churches and the like, most get at least some aid from the various governments.

Libraries are absolutely not charities. i'm not sure where you came across your definitiion of charity in your earlier post or in fact whether you made it up.

Charity Definition

For example:

1. An organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need
2. The voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.
3. Help or money given to those in need.

The common factor in all of these is "need". As I'm sure you are aware, libraries cater for a diversity of people. Some are no doubt in need. And others are not. Libraries are not charities supporting the needy. They are organisation providing services to their communities, and are very much part of those communities. Like public schools, need has nothing to do with it. Schools, libraries and many other things are part of the infrastructure provided to members of a civilised society. They benefit the society as a whole and its members, including both needy and comfortable. And, as Meeera said, they are far more than just a collection of books. I would add that this has never been truer, as many libraries have diversified extensively in modern times as a response to technology.

[DiapDealer]

Bending the definition of a charity to include libraries is an assault on the truth.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

Libraries are absolutely not charities. i'm not sure where you came across your definitiion of charity in your earlier post or in fact whether you made it up.

Charity Definition

For example:



The common factor in all of these is "need". As I'm sure you are aware, libraries cater for a diversity of people. Some are no doubt in need. And others are not. Libraries are not charities supporting the needy. They are organisation providing services to their communities, and are very much part of those communities. Like public schools, need has nothing to do with it. Schools, libraries and many other things are part of the infrastructure provided to members of a civilised society. They benefit the society as a whole and its members, including both needy and comfortable. And, as Meeera said, they are far more than just a collection of books. I would add that this has never been truer, as many libraries have diversified extensively in modern times as a response to technology.

OED since unlike some, I don't have to make things up or twist words around to try prove my point.

Other definitions of charity in the OED that are to the point -

4. Benevolence to one's neighbours, especially to the poor; the practical beneficences in which this manifests itself.

5. That which is given in charity; alms.

6. A bequest, foundation, institution, etc., for the benefit of others, esp. of the poor or helpless.

Libraries qualify on a number of levels. I can understand some people's reflexive reaction to the idea that they take charity. But that's what things like libraries and parks typically are.

Historically, in 1919, roughly half of the libraries (around 1500) in the US were built using funds donated by Andrew Carnegie. My local library, the Atlanta Public Library was built using a Carnegie grant in 1902 (one of the first public libraries according to the library web site). Many parks were either donated or are maintained via donations.

Really, the point is hardly controversial. In the US, charity is the driving force behind many public institutions - libraries, schools, hospitals, parks. There are also a lot of organizations for feeding those in need, not just poor, but elderly who have trouble cooking for themselves as well.
Here is the URL for Meals on Wheels, just beware of the pop up that ask you to donate.
https://www.mealsonwheelsamerica.org/

I'm not sure why some seem to think that charity only applies to the poor or those "in need". Charity commonly applies to works done for the public good as well. The two most common charities in the US are universities, some of which have received billions in donations, and the various churches. Charities such as the Sierra Club in the US have nothing to do with the poor or those in need, but rather have much to do with the public good.

Just remember that the word "especially" does not mean exclusively.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Bending the definition of a charity to include libraries is an assault on the truth.

No, denying that many libraries are indeed charities is an assault on the truth. It requires modifying the definition of charity to only apply to the poor, which simply shows that some are unaware of the meaning of charity and the history of charity and charitable organizations.

[DiapDealer]

Any moron knows that while all charities are non-profits, not all non-profits are charities. Any attempt to lump public libraries in with other real charitable organizations like the Red Cross, or the Salvation Army, or a soup kitchen is an attempt to bend the truth to fit their personal agenda du jour.

[Deskisamess]

Receiving "donations" doesn't make a business a charity. Calling libraries, parks, and universities, charities, is the wrong use of the word.

Our parks and libraries do receive donations. But most of their money comes from the taxing of the residents. Certainly colleges get donations from their alumni, but a school that charges thousands of dollars for tuition is not a charity.

I sure can't choose to have my property tax dollars NOT go the local parks or library system. To be a true charity in the commonly accepted use of the word means donations are not obligatory and taken from the tax base without their agreement. Sure, I vote on the various levies, but even when I vote no, if the levy passes, I must pay the resulting tax.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

My bad, 1945 was the big flop by Gingrich published by Baen Books and co-written by William R. Forstchen.

Like most people (apparently), I haven't read 1945... The sequel to 1945 was never written. Apparently, Baen was expecting it to be a huge hit so he spent big bucks on it and lost a bundle on it.

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were saying that this would be an example of a book whose lack of sales have caused future books not to be written.

But of course surely that isn't so. Because buying the book in the new release window doesn't matter at all and in no way incentivizes the creation of future books.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Because buying the book in the new release window doesn't matter at all and in no way incentivizes the creation of future books.

Said no one ever.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by meeera

A public library is not just a collection of books. It's far more than that.

Exactly. It is also not a charity, it is a service, just like road maintenance, the police and fire departments, and other services provided by the municipality and paid for by taxes.

pwalker8, I don't know about where you live, but if I make a donation to my local police or fire department it is absolutely tax deductible...or is that not what you meant when you said:

Yet, by the definition of charity, libraries are a charity. Parks actually are as well, at least when you donate to them it's considered a charity by the government. Not so much with regards to the police department and fire department. Schools can be. You may not personally consider such things charities, but they are legitimately considered charities by the definition of the word.

Shari

[leebase]

Opting back in....Too many trees to allow folks to see the forest.

Ok...let's use libraries, charity or not, to make the "forest point" of "supporting the art you love". You love libraries? You use them a LOT? Do you volunteer at the library? Do you help fund raise for the library? (and no, donating books you don't want any more doesn't count).

Do you send you kids to scouting...but never take a turn as a scout leader or helper?

Do you put your kids in park league sports but never coach, assistant coach, or take your turn bringing snacks?

Do you put your kids in the children's ministry at church but never take a turn as teach or assistant or serving any innumerable other ways a church needs (insert temple or any other type of organization in place of church if you'd like).

Always "when you can/could" and never about when you couldn't.

I ran this topic by my daughter (24yr old) and she related it to music. She listens to music via a streaming service like Spotify/Apple Music. But she buys the CD's from the bands she supports. She goes to their concerts, buys the t-shirts. She loves their music and as it's not main stream, she's keen to be one of the supporters to keep the band going.

"Did you just compare reading to listening to music"? Yeah....that's the tree instead of the forest. The forest is "support the art you love".

[DuckieTigger]

@leebase: Since you opted back in. Do you have any evidence that there is an overwhelming number of heavy library users that do not also additionally support the art where they can in excess of library usage? Any evidence at all? You heard somebody say that they no longer buy Big5 books, but get them exclusively from the library? And now you very wrongly assume that they no longer buy books that they love at all? Refusing to pay the prices that the Big5 demand does not imply they are cheapskates. It is very possible that they are simply supporting the art of other authors not availlable in the library and maybe a very select few.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by leebase

Opting back in....Too many trees to allow folks to see the forest.

Ok...let's use libraries, charity or not, to make the "forest point" of "supporting the art you love". You love libraries? You use them a LOT? Do you volunteer at the library? Do you help fund raise for the library? (and no, donating books you don't want any more doesn't count).

Do you send you kids to scouting...but never take a turn as a scout leader or helper?

Do you put your kids in park league sports but never coach, assistant coach, or take your turn bringing snacks?

Do you put your kids in the children's ministry at church but never take a turn as teach or assistant or serving any innumerable other ways a church needs (insert temple or any other type of organization in place of church if you'd like).

Always "when you can/could" and never about when you couldn't.

I ran this topic by my daughter (24yr old) and she related it to music. She listens to music via a streaming service like Spotify/Apple Music. But she buys the CD's from the bands she supports. She goes to their concerts, buys the t-shirts. She loves their music and as it's not main stream, she's keen to be one of the supporters to keep the band going.

"Did you just compare reading to listening to music"? Yeah....that's the tree instead of the forest. The forest is "support the art you love".

I didn't bother replying to your last post out of hope that you would in fact stay out. As you said yourself, repeating your mantra yet again is pointless. It would be so even if it did have some merit. If you need to delude yourself that paying absolutely top price for a tradpub book is good for anyone but the retailer, please continue to do so. If you regard your purchase as being good value that is all that matters. Just have the good grace to keep quiet about it. Buying books is not a competition for karma nor that matter should it be an occasion for virtue signalling.

If you must stay in the discussion, please stop chanting long enough to engage. Your mantra is obviously true in the case of Indies. Yet you choose to ignore various features of the tradpub market which have been pointed out which make it untrue in the case of most if not all tradpub books. If these features of the market are not accurately described then please point out the inaccuracies. I'd be grateful to have my ignorance cured, if ignorance it is. Just please stop the chanting. It's giving me a headache.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

If I didn't know better, I'd think you were saying that this would be an example of a book whose lack of sales have caused future books not to be written.

But of course surely that isn't so. Because buying the book in the new release window doesn't matter at all and in no way incentivizes the creation of future books.

Certainly it meant that Baen Books didn't publish any more of Gingrich books. Of course, when the Gettysburg book sold well, it generated a lot of alternate history books by the two authors. Yea, I hadn't thought of that point, but it's true. It is a good example.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

Receiving "donations" doesn't make a business a charity. Calling libraries, parks, and universities, charities, is the wrong use of the word.

Our parks and libraries do receive donations. But most of their money comes from the taxing of the residents. Certainly colleges get donations from their alumni, but a school that charges thousands of dollars for tuition is not a charity.

I sure can't choose to have my property tax dollars NOT go the local parks or library system. To be a true charity in the commonly accepted use of the word means donations are not obligatory and taken from the tax base without their agreement. Sure, I vote on the various levies, but even when I vote no, if the levy passes, I must pay the resulting tax.

I suspect that you will find that very few charities meet your definition, including quite a few organizations that you personally consider a charity. Many charities get money from the government including such organizations as the Red Cross and Salvation Army. A lot of people don't realize how much the government has gotten into the charity business.

I prefer to stick with the OED definition of charity.