I do agree with the quoted passage, and I have been thinking something
similarly in every conversation that goes something like "our website should be
more like [Amazon]" (fill in brackets with other examples). And I consider it
every time I reluctantly renew my streaming services subscription in which I've
made a "purchase" of some content that I don't actually get to keep. I also
consider it regularly in the conversation about publishing research data and
the value and cost of sustaining and preserving our local research data
repository vs licensing a commercial product. Because it is becoming more and
more difficult to accomplish what we set out for with the constraining
resources we are fighting for, and our collective ability to collaborate is
becoming strained in the process. Having such a large endowment as the Internet
Archive has creates more opportunity to build strong and sustainable solutions.
The subsequent lawsuit filed against the Internet Archive on their digitization
and preservation of sound and moving image recordings is even more frightening
to me because many of our libraries are doing the very same work. The mention
of this is nearly buried in the end of the article, but it is clear to me that
the plaintiffs are emboldened by this first judgment. I happen to believe that
the IA has a better chance of winning in the upper courts because I believe
this judgment has over reached, particularly in the statement that if a
licensed opportunity exists, libraries cannot digitize. That is market harm
against libraries who already made a purchase, and the IA may need more amicus
briefs attached in the appeal to make that case.
>From my experiences and observations, while I agree with the quoted passage, I
>wonder if libraries have the will to return to the original form? It is clear
>no one library can do it alone, and no small consortium of a dozen libraries
>can do it together either. There have been and continue to be a multitude of
>attempts, yet we collectively continue to be drawn to the marketplace instead.
>That allure is strong, so strong that even a not-for-profit worldwide
>membership organization finds that model to be more attractive than what the
>Internet Archive has set out to do. The IA is not without its faults and
>failures, too, but I find their persistence to remain true to their vision
>admirable. Perhaps the reality is that we (libraries) need to acknowledge our
>limitations in scope and return to form specifically in the contexts we can,
>and let go of the aspirational goals of being just like the marketplace or
>competing with pieces of the marketplace?
Tim
Tim McGeary
Associate University Librarian for Digital Strategies and Technology
Duke University Libraries
tim.mcge...@duke.edu
________________________________
From: Code for Libraries <CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG> on behalf of Eric Lease
Morgan <00000107b9c961ae-dmarc-requ...@lists.clir.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 11:11 AM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG <CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG>
Subject: [CODE4LIB] what does it mean to own a book?
What does it mean to own a book?
That was the headline of an article from this past Sunday's edition of the New
York Times. For the most part, the article was about Brewster Kahle's legal
troubles with publishers, and the differences of owning physical books versus
licensing digital items.† The following snippet struck a chord with me:
Librarians came before publishers," Mr. Kahle, a 62-year old
librarian, said in a recent interview in the former Christian
Science church in western San Francisco that houses the
archive. "We came before copyright, but publishers now think
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of libraries as customer service departments for their database
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
products.
^^^^^^^^
I have heard such a sentiment from a few fellow librarians, and from my point
of view libraries are increasingly and merely fiscal middlemen between
publishers and patrons. This is at the cost of not really creating collections
nor preserving the historical record. Furthermore, I don't believe the current
situation is sustainable, and when it finally breaks down, we will have nothing
to show for our cash expenditures. Think of all the money we spend towards
licensing fees. Sure, licensing offers convenience, but if that same money had
been invested in actually acquiring the content, then we would have not only
had something to show for it, but we would have also increased our skills so
other content could be collected.
Now, pretend our mailing list is Library Seminar 504, and ask yourself, "To
what degree do I agree with the quoted passage? Why or why not?"
† As you may or may not know, Brewster Kahle runs the Internet Archive.
--
Eric Lease Morgan <emor...@nd.edu>
