Re: ALA Panel on Perpetual Access - seeking input

[<bill@multi-science.co.uk>]

Librarians seem to have fallen for the idea that an assembly of 
thoughts in electronic form is different in kind from the same 
thoughts assembled on pieces of paper; hence the need for a 
licence. If no licence is needed for thoughts in journal form, 
why is a licence needed for the same thoughts in electronic form?

Agreed, the electronic form is more versatile, and rightsholders 
rights can be more readily abused. (But once again it is just 
more of the same, not different in kind, and rightsholder 
protection is already in place.). But, accepting the greater 
possibility of abuse, perhaps there is a case for a licence, 
setting out mutual rights and responsibilities. But surely any 
such licence is a licence for a SALE not for RENT? Since when did 
libraries rent content, and what purpose do they have if they are 
not stores of intellectual wealth; moreover, if publishers are 
renting content to libraries, why are they not cutting their 
prices by about 90%?  So, the library has been sold content; it 
therefore owns it; the licence, if deemed necessary at all, can 
set some restrictions, perhaps in regard to extended usage, 
inter-library loan etc.

On what basis does the publisher say 'you can no longer have 
access, to that which you have already paid for and own?' Is it 
because you have not renewed for this year? But the print world 
analogy would be that if a library did not renew for 2009, the 
publisher's 'Reclaim Squad' would storm into the library and take 
all the old volumes of that journal off the shelves, out of the 
library - quite ridiculous, but entirely analogous. The 
electronic world has its advantages, but we must recognise its 
greater fragility too.

The short answer is that publishers who don't offer perpetual 
access are being ridiculous if not downright dishonest. 
Librarians would do well simply to refuse to deal with them. The 
cry of 'must-have' material will go up. Nothing is must have, Be 
brave. It seems to me that a good chunk of the responsibility for 
the scholarly communications crisis over the last 30 years lies 
with librarians, who have been too willing to fall for the 
blandishments of 'big publishing'. Most academic publishers, 
however grand they may be, have not much market apart from 
academic libraries. You need to remember who is in the driving 
seat: yourselves. Act accordingly.

Bill Hughes Director, Multi-Science Publishing

---- Original Message -----
From: "Okerson, Ann" <ann.okerson@yale.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 9:24 PM
Subject: ALA Panel on Perpetual Access - seeking input

> Dear Readers:  Let's say that you were invited to be a panelist
> on the ALA panel on Perpetual Access, Sunday, Jan. 25, 4-5:30 pm
> at Hyatt Regency Denver, Capitol Ballroom 2!  Let's further say
> that as a librarian and a well informed member of the scholarly
> information chain, you hope to offer 10 or so minutes of measured
> and important comments and insights about this topic.
>
> What are the key points that you think such a panelist ought to
> make?
>
> All ideas/input most welcomed and taken to heart.  Best, Ann
> Okerson/Yale University