When I consider this for comic stores I think in terms of a printer that can at least make a typical saddle stitched comic that looks pretty much like one produced now. Higher end but not prohibitive.
You're right that a dedicated machine would solve many of my problems. If it spews out the nine (eight plus the cover) double-sided pages and whacks two staples in the middle, it'll be more expensive per unit than the bulk printers can manage, of course (what with the custom paper and smaller quantities of ink), but it'd also mean that you're not carrying stock of anything that doesn't sell, which removes the risk of "ordering" a new title.
Comic shops now rely more on gamers than comic fans so I do not see any less helpful. I do think that you hit on a great idea for libraries. But they are government so they will never do anything right.
...Some of them might. Occasionally.
I actually figured it from the point of view that they were already paying the Internet and power bills, had the computers and printers sitting idle, and a staff of service people trained to find stuff. It's certainly less of a stretch than the XBox tournament my local library now runs. I mean, that's just admiitting defeat outright.
I think how school libraries are rated on how old their books are. You can have a new copy of Tom Sawyer and it counts while one 20 years old would not. Promotes waste buying new copies of classics.
Yeah, I think I've heard something to that effect. And it's a shame, considering how much they must dump out, just to make room for "new" books and magazines. Because certainly (even ignoring the classics that don't change, by definition), there couldn't possibly something of use to a kid that was published before he was born. I mean, there's tons of firshand accounts of the Civil War in modern books, right?
Wow, what a wild idea John! I LOVE IT! 
But the problem is sustainability. I mean, I like the idea from a library standpoint, because (as mentioned) the pieces are already (close to) in place. But from a retail standpoint, it's just something that'll spiral out of control and leave you with a store that...nobody really knows what they do, something with the Internet, maybe?
But yeah, the Internet Bookmobile idea is a great idea itself, and I'd love to see someone use that as a springboard for bigger and commercial projects.
It also occurs to me, thinking about those mall kiosks as a possible avenue, that a lot of those spots have the "custom storybook" products, where you feed in the rugrat's name, and little Stevie or Pomegranate now saves the day in a story illustrated to look nothing like him or her. So why not (beyond the obvious tackiness) custom editions of "Yoc's Adventures through the Looking-Glass"? It'd take extra work, but it'd certainly be doable.
But... can you imagine the shit storm of lawsuits and editorials when someone tried it?
It wouldn't be Napster big but it would be big. LOL
Just look at the resistance to Google's book scanning project. (It's Google isn't it?)
The key, I think, would that there'd have to be absolute disclaimers that nothing with a possibly-valid copyright can sneak through for purchase (unless it's licensed directly or through something like Creative Commons, I mean), and absolutely no customers can ever, EVER touch the equipment.
Like, when I mentioned music, I'm thinking specifically about artists like Jonathan Coulton, the bulk of whose work is available under a Creative Commons license (or if you're insufficiently geeky for JoCo, there's more mainstream-sounding Brad Sucks). I'm sure that John at Magnatune, for example, would also be thrilled to be a part of that kind of program, and might be convinced to reduce his cut to get his artists out there.
That's Google's problem, here, actually. They stupidly said that they should scan everything in libraries, then decide on the rights later. Then when confronted about the rights, they decided that they'd only show excerpts where they didn't have the rights. And that's wrong, in case anybody doesn't follow, because "a bunch of pages for people to read at their leisure" is absolutely not Fair Use, and Google doesn't have the right to copy (cough--copyright) those pages just because "information wants to be free" or somesuch nonsense.
Had they, instead, said that they'd only release pre-1923 books or those with explicit permission until they got their copyright footing, there wouldn't have been any problem. I mean, had it been me, I wouldn't have hidden behind "don't be evil" so much as use Cory Doctorow and other "open source" authors as human shields...by which I mean that you use their works as a showcase illustrating the respect with which you'll treat modern works that still have owners.
Heh. But that's another story entirely...
