Library Juice 5:8 Supplement, February 28, 2002
OCLC's Strategic Globaloney (COLLIB-L Discussion)
..........................................................................
globaloney from OCLC
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 16:01:31 -0600
From: Barbara Fister <fister[at]GAC.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.edu(Sorry if this gets to you twice--I'm not used to the new list address and
misdirected the first try, I think.)All right, OCLC has really pushed my buttons now. Our catalogs are now
portals for Abebooks and Alibris. (I heard rumors this was in the wind last
spring, only it was Amazon they wanted to tout, a partnership truly made in
hell.)To quote OCLC's e-mail announcement, "This alliance is part of OCLC's
global strategic initiative to 'weave libraries into the Web,' giving
libraries greater visibility and expanding the availability of WorldCat
for information seekers. The partnerships also allow libraries that use
the FirstSearch [sic] to offer a wider range of services and materials to
their users by providing online access to partner services."This "global strategic initiative" is what a friend of mine in economics
calls "globaloney." We are already global, with libraries in 82 nations
sharing their catalogs. What does selling books for the couple of U.S.
companies do that enhances our global position?? This is the same
conflation of global with big business that made people turn out in the
streets in Seattle. This sort of initiative is not what the profession of
librarianship is about.[Ed. note: Barbara Fister has asked me to clarify that ABEbooks is a
Canadian, not a U.S., company.]First of all, my patrons know how to shop. I don't have to teach them or
guide them or nudge them toward certain booksellers. This is not my idea of
information literacy. Second, if I'm going to "partner" I would prefer to
do it locally with a local bookseller, not a retailer that competes with my
local bookseller. Third, why should I permit my catalog to become a
booksellers portal? I'm not against selling books, but it's not what I do.
For some state institutions, in fact, this may even be illegal. And how,
pray tell, will this "give libraries greater visibility"? Do you supopse
Abebooks and Alibris will provide links to your library from their Website?
Don't buy this book--you can check it out? I don't think so.Further, there are many reasons people in the book business (other than
Abebooks and Alibris) will find this problematic. These two booksellers
sell second hand books. Publishers and writers receive no income from
second sales. When Amazon started listing used books--sometimes advanced
reader copies for books that weren't even on sale yet--writers and
publishers were furious, and with good reason. Second, as I've already
pointed out, local booksellers have enough trouble staying afloat without
us conspiring to sink them. Third, most writers and publishers (Pat
Schroeder notwithstanding) love libraries. Do you think they'll be pleased
to find us messing with their income which, with very few exceptions, is
mostly hardscrabble and hand-to-mouth? This is a betrayal of libraries,
readers, and writers. What good does it accomplish?I have nothing against these two booksellers. I just think it's wrong,
wrong, wrong for OCLC to turn our libraries into their salesforce. I know I
can turn it off, but that's not the point. Is this really where we want to
go?Barbara Fister
fister[at]gac.edu
..........................................................................
Re: globaloney from OCLC
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 16:41:42 -0600
From: "Charles T. Kendall" <ckendall[at]STERLING.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduI agree wholeheartedly with what Barbara Fister has said. The OCLC
"alliances" with Abebooks and Alibris, and any further attempts to turn
WorldCat into a front for commercial interests don't make sense. Will the
next step be to link from specific subject headings to specialty vendors?
"Camping--see LL Bean"?OCLC member libraries can send messages to OCLC asking that these alliances
be reconsidered. We can also choose not to activate the links. Both are
effective responses. The latter is a good choice. If the first vendors to
sign up don't gain increased trade from their "partnerships" we can hope
it will make other companies less interested in becoming players.Barbara asks, "Is this really where we want to go?" It's not where I want
to go. My library will not activate the links. I wrote to OCLC a few
months ago when the Alibris "alliance" was announced. I think I will write
again.<ckendall[at]sterling.edu> Charles T. Kendall
Director of Library Services Mabee Library
Sterling College 125 W. Cooper PO Box 98 Sterling KS 67579
PHN:(620) 278-4233 FAX:(620) 278-4414..........................................................................
Re: globaloney from OCLC
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:18:32 -0500
From: "Michael J. McLane" <mclane[at]CLRC.ORG>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduI think Barbara's issues are right on! We probably all recently
received a copy of OCLC's Annual Report for 2000-2001. This
report includes a complete list of the members of the OCLC
Members Council, "The Voice of the OCLC Membership." While I
think it is reasonable to contact OCLC directly regarding our
displeasure with this direction OCLC is taking, I also think it would
be sensible to also contact Members Council members directly.
After all, they are supposed to be representing us, not OCLC! By
the way, the annual report says, " We have started an open
access program whereby WorldCat serves as a hub that links
library collections and other resources on the web, such as rare
book and publisher sites." It sounds lie the arrangement with
Abebooks and Alibris is just the first step onto a pretty slippery
slope! Mike McLane
..........................................................................
Re: globaloney from OCLC
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:32:07 -0500
From: Larry Greenwood <greenwoo[at]MISU.NODAK.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduI am not sure what the concern is with OCLC working with
vendors to make resources more available to the public. I
don't see it as competition.Can someone clarify for me why there is concern?
Thanks.
Larry Greenwood
Library Director
Gordon B. Olson Library
Minot State University
500 University Ave NW
Minot, North Dakota 58707
greenwoo[at]misu.nodak.edu
office (701)858-3855
home (701)838-0579
fax (701)858-3581
..........................................................................
Re: globaloney from OCLC
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:46:14 -0600
From: Steve Stoan <sstoan[at]LIB.DRURY.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduMy understanding of OCLC's reasoning with Alibris and other bookdealers is
that WorldCat can guide the user to a place to purchase the book if the
WorldCat search does not turn up libraries in one's immediate area that own
the book. Likewise, a search can take a person from Alibris to WorldCat to
identify a local library that does own a book that Alibris does not have.
We have activate the link in WorldCat.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Stephen K. Stoan
Director of Library and Information Services
F.W. Olin Library
Drury University
900 North Benton Ave.
Springfield, MO 65802
Phone: 417-873-7282
Fax: 417-873-7432
E-Mail: sstoan[at]drury.edu
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
..........................................................................
Re: globaloney from OCLC
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 10:54:28 -0500
From: Elaine Day <elaine.day[at]AVERETT.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduProviding users with online access to additional sources for
borrowing or purchasing documents is a fine in my view and a
benefit of web architecture. If business partners are
willing to take financial risks to lead the way in providing
such options to libraries and library patrons, they should
be rewarded, *provided those partnerships are transparent
and ultimately not exclusive.* I suggest that the OCLC
User's Council "follow the money" and ensure (1) that
financial relationships with such partners are disclosed to
member libraries and our patrons, and (2) that OCLC develops
models that permit links to any vendor, including
independent bookstores, at the option of a member library.We have the same concerns about the "Limit to netLibrary
eBooks" checkbox in our catalog, and will continue to
advocate that it be changed to "Limit to online sources."
I'm pleased though that netLibrary is still around, and hope
that other eBook vendors will develop business models that
recognize the importance of libraries.Can we can maintain core values while having empathy for
business partners with a genuine interest in libraries? If
so, let's support OCLC partners who are willing to work with
us, but make clear that we will not accept terms that
exclude sources of value to our patrons.Elaine Day
..........................................................................
Re: globaloney from OCLC
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 10:58:09 -0500
From: "Damon D. Hickey" <dhickey[at]wooster.edu>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduOCLC is taking money from two book dealers in return for linking them
to WorldCat, so that users will be more likely to do business with
them rather than with their competitors. As a librarian, when I'm
asked by someone to recommend a good online book dealer, I give the
names of several with which I'm familiar and which have performed
well in my experience. I also say that there are many others and
offer to show the person how to find them. I don't receive any money
from any of these firms and I don't select the firms to mention based
on what I expect to get in return. Even if one of our alumni owned
one of these firms and gave lots of money to the college, I still
wouldn't mention his firm unless it was reliable and
reasonably-priced, and I would never limit my response to that firm
or identify it as special because it was alumni-owned. It's a matter
of professional ethics that OCLC is apparently ignoring because it
can make more revenue by ignoring it. Damon Hickey, The College of
Wooster
..........................................................................
Re: globaloney from OCLC
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 10:21:42 -0600
From: Paul Coleman <pcoleman[at]MAIL.WTAMU.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduI tend to agree with the opinions, lately expressed, that the
complaints about OCLC's "partnerships" are overblown. Alibris and,
especially, Abebooks do not appear to be corporate juggernauts intent
on ruthlessly displacing small booksellers. I believe they are,
instead, facilitators of online sales for such small stores.
Abebooks, because it allows the browsing of an individual store's
inventory, is even useful in planning in-store shopping trips for
antiquarian books. I'd be pleased for more of our patrons to know
about the site. I also doubt that the predominantly out-of-print
stock in which the stores that use Alibris and Abebooks deal is
viewed as a threat by publishers and authors.As for the exposure for libraries that OCLC posits as a benefit from
these partnerships, a good example is provided on the site of the
Antiquarian Booksellers' Association of America
(http://www.abaa.org). At that site, remarkably, every search
provides a link to Worldcat's holdings information, with geographical
proximity aids, along with a bookseller's listing for the book! The
extension of this level of Worldcat availability on the more
comprehensive (and, I suppose, heavily-used) Alibris and Abebooks
sites would constitute a substantial level of worthwhile publicity
for our libraries.
--
Paul Coleman, MLS
University Librarian
West Texas A&M University
Canyon, TX 79016
USAPhone: 806.651.2225
Fax: 806.651.2213
..........................................................................
Re: globaloney from OCLC
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 11:26:29 -0500
From: Karl Bridges <kbridges[at]ZOO.UVM.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduI think one issue not addressed is this: Many institutions have strict
policies about the issue of advertising in their university web
environment. This movement by OCLC, while it may have some positive
points, is in direct conflict with these policies. The best solution would
be for individual schools to be able to turn these links off in they want
-- and, admittedly, I haven't checked to see if this is the case and if it
is I stand corrected.
..........................................................................
Re: globaloney from OCLC
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 12:01:14 -0500
From: "Barbara J. Morse" <bjmorse[at]BEACONCOLLEGE.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduWhile I think that having a policy not to advertise on one's College or
Library web page is a good one, a link to another site that has advertising
must happen often. I doubt that anyone could avoid this and still have a
page full of useful research links.I have to wonder if having these partnerships are saving us from price
increases? That was my first thought when I saw the announcement by OCLC.
Re: globaloney from OCLC
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 12:17:01 -0500
From: Karl Bridges <kbridges[at]ZOO.UVM.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduGranted. However, there's a substantive difference between having a link
to web page with ads and having a database where you, as a librarian, have
made a conscious decision to enable links to specific vendors or
advertising. Arguably, these do save us from price increases. However,
will that be the case in the long run? If you examine the history of the
dot.com industry those companies which chose the "The service is free, we
pay for it with ads" business model have, on the whole, not done well.
Those that have been successful have ended up charging the user for the
product or service.I don't mind the partnerships. I just wish that there could be some
consultation with libraries so we could agree on some common ground rules
and standards.
..........................................................................
Re: globaloney from OCLC
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 12:43:19 -0500
From: "Drew, Bill" <drewwe[at]MORRISVILLE.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduI think the real question should be "Did the Users Council discuss this?"
I have also wondered how the or if user council members ever communicate
with their constituent groups and how they do so. Maybe the blame lies
with them and not with OCLC.Bill Drew
..........................................................................
Re: globaloney from OCLC
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:01:00 -0500
From: paul wiener <pwiener[at]MS.CC.SUNYSB.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduThis sounds like an ethical no-brainer, but I can't quite tell without
seeing the actual website(s) in action. What are some good URLs that demo
this situation?
..........................................................................
Re: globaloney from OCLC
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:12:35 -0500
From: Susan Brown <SusanM.Brown[at]MAIL.STATE.KY.US>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduKarl and all,
As Stephen states, you do indeed need to go into your admin module to turn
this new functionality on. It will not be there automatically.See the original announcement from OCLC -
=======================================
-----Original Message-----
From: OCLC Reference [mailto:OCLCReference[at]OCLC.ORG]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2002 1:34 PM
To: FIRSTSEARCH-L[at]OCLC.ORG
Subject: Link To American Book Exchange ABEBOOKS.COM Available On OCLC
Fir stSearch Service------------------------------------------------------------
LINK TO AMERICAN BOOK EXCHANGE ABEBOOKS.COM AVAILABLE ON OCLC
FIRSTSEARCH SERVICEOCLC has successfully implemented links to the American Book
Exchange (www.abebooks.com <http://www.abebooks.com>;) from the
OCLC FirstSearch service.Once this feature is enabled through the FirstSearch
administrative module, WorldCat users will be able to link from
the detailed record of a book searched in WorldCat to the
abebooks.com web site to purchase that item. Libraries have
control over this linking and can turn it on or off in the "System
Settings-Your Library" section of the administrative module.
Libraries need to be aware of this change in order to implement
partner links. The Administrative Module Reference Guide
(<http://www.oclc.org/firstsearch/documentation/adminref/>;) has
been updated to reflect these changesThis alliance is part of OCLC's global strategic initiative to
"weave libraries into the Web," giving libraries greater
visibility and expanding the availability of WorldCat for
information seekers. The partnerships also allow libraries that
use the FirstSearch to offer a wider range of services and
materials to their users by providing online access to partner
services.The first step in this program was the link from FirstSearch to
the Alibris bookseller's web site in September 2001. Since that
time, OCLC has signed partnerships with the following
organizations: the Antiquarian Booksellers Association of America,
Bowker's booksinprint.com and Gale Group's InfoTrac. Links to
these partners from the OCLC FirstSearch service will be
implemented in the next few months.======================================
-Susan
-----------------------------------------------------
Susan Brown
Assoc. Director, Kentucky Virtual Librarywww.kyvl.org SusanM.Brown[at]mail.state.ky.us phone: 502-573-1555 fax: 502-573-1031 ------------------------------------------------------ ..........................................................................
globaloney from another perspective
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 11:13:00 -0600
From: Barbara Fister <fister[at]GAC.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduI am not surprised there are mixed feelings about OCLC's move to partner
with online booksellers. I am still appalled and bothered by this
development and by the innocence with which we accept these gestures
without thinking through the implications.Libraries aren't the only ones seeking visibility through partnerships.
Ebsco, for example, has partnered with Pearson, a global and huge textbook
publisher, to market directly to facutly and students who purchase their
texts an exclusive database of thousands of full-text articles and
references. No mention whatsoever in their sales material to faculty that
the same database and much more is available already in their libraries.
They also market a version of blackboard bundled with Pearson textbooks
that promises faculty you don't have to go through your IT department.
Pretty soon they'll be able to provide the entire university. Just add
water and stir. What they're doing to corner markets and cut other players
out of the picture is exactly what we're doing, more innocently, to
writers, publishers, and those booksellers with whom we are not partners.Did any of you happen to read a New York Times article monday in which a
telecom company exec said baldly "I want to be able to form opinion. By
controlling the pipe, you can eventually get control of the content." This
is a company that sells phone cards. But yes, indeed, if they buy the
pipeline (and the telecom pipe is invisible to most of us) they'll have a
lot of control. As does Rupert Murdoch et al. Thank God for journalistic
ethics that survive in such a climate. It's a constant struggle for
journalists to keep advertising and news separate. We're not even trying.When I first heard this plan at a library director's meeting last year,
somone in the audience was delighted by the Gary Houk's presentation of the
global vision and said admiringly: "OCLC is becoming the microsoft of
libraries!"I rest my case.
Barbara Fister
..........................................................................
Re: globaloney from another perspective
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:57:46 -0500
From: Karl Bridges <kbridges[at]ZOO.UVM.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduI think the fundamental point is this: OCLC began (and still promotes
itself) as a friend of libraries. However, when you examine the reality of
how they operate what you have is a large corporation which, in the end,
has
the same objectives and uses the same techniques as Elsevier and all the
other vendors. So lets spell it out: OCLC EXISTS TO MAKE MONEY. IF ITS
INTERESTS COINCIDE WITH THAT OF LIBRARIES FINE BUT THEY REALLY DON'T CARE.
..........................................................................
Re: globaloney from another perspective
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:05:34 -0500
From: "Bell, Steven" <BellS[at]PHILAU.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduIt strikes me that some within our community are being unreasonably harsh
with OCLC. I'm not defending their decision to put a decidedly commercial
spin on their product offerings, but of all the questionable and
objectionable business models we are seeing among the publishers,
aggregators and other vendors we do business with - not to mention overt
competitors who subvert what we do - I think OCLC's decision to joint
venture with booksellers is hardly going to be detrimental to your mission
or mine.I'm much more concerned (as we all should be) with those business models
that determine whether or not I can provide my users with access to the
information they need. For example, NewsBank recently created a deal with
Knight-Ridder for exclusive rights to KR's 23 metropolitan papers. As part
of that agreement, no other academic information service may offer the full
text of those KR papers. In our library we provided access to the
Philadelphia papers through Dialog for many years. One day, all of sudden,
we could no longer access them. Those KR papers aren't available through LN
Academic Universe either - even though they are available on LN's
non-academic commercial systems - only the academic community has been shut
off on LN. Now, if you want access to those papers in a web-based format,
you must go with NewsBank whether or not you think it's the best system -
not to mention needing another subscription on an already tight budget and
another interface for our users to deal with. These sorts of business
dealings are much more problematic from my perspective, and I wonder when
our community will join together to speak against them with one voice
(i.e.,
should we refuse to do business with those having objectionable practices
even at the cost of denying access to our users?).At least OCLC has been, for the most part, library community-friendly and
has given many members of the profession an opportunity to help guide its
decision making on the local, national, and global levels. It's already
been
noted that you don't even have to use this feature if you choose not to
(consider all those vendors who don't even give you a choice). Perhaps this
time OCLC took a step in the wrong direction. If so, let's give it a chance
and see it time proves that to be the case.And by the way, has anyone asked any of their patrons what they think of
this? Maybe they like the idea.Steven J. Bell, Director of the Library
Paul J. Gutman Library
Philadelphia University
School House Lane & Henry Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19144
(v)215-951-2847 (f)215-951-2574
bells[at]philau.edu
Library Home Page: www.philau.edu/library
Personal Home Page: staff.philau.edu//bells
..........................................................................
Globaloney from yet another perspective
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 09:59:19 -0500
From: paul wiener <pwiener[at]MS.CC.SUNYSB.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduWhile I agree with almost everything Barbara says, it's hard not to see
both sides of the issue. Let us remember a few unpleasant truths:Libraries and librarians are extremely dependent on business, big business,
corporate business, capitalism, and have been for at least 70 years.Libraries are not in the business of making money for people. Hence, the
low salaries of most librarians.People are rewarded according to how much money - or life, or pleasure, or
safety, or power - they give to others. Librarians and libraries, except in
the indirect ways we all know and preach about, do not do this.What irks librarians is not giving in to business but being associated with
a business mentality. How can "one of our own" do such a thing, etc. Of
course, there are hundreds of businesses that rip us off daily and yearly;
many of them provide the bone and marrow of our information sources. OCLC
is no different except in that it is being a bit more open about its
activity, and that it originated from the library world.
Those who promote publishing "free" library- or university-sponsored online
journals to replace the price-gougers that control, the market are
nevertheless advocating competition for a business that, if successful, is
bound eventually to try and expand its reach and market.I know some business librarians may take issue with these remarks, and I
apologize in advance if I exaggerate my case. That libraries have the
option to turn on/off the OCLC commercial links is the best thing about it.
More we cannot ask.
..........................................................................
Re: globaloney from OCLC
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 15:35:48 -0500
From: Vickie Kline <vkline[at]EAGLE.YCP.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduI agree that there are valid points on both sides of this
issue.I'd like to share a personal anecdote.
When I was in college, I fell in love with a library book
called "Prima Donnas and other Wild Beasts." After I moved away, I
spent many years wishing I had a personal copy of this book. I was
thrilled when I finally was able to find one through the ABE network
years later.I suspect that I'm not the only person who has become
acquainted with a book in a library and later sought it out for a more
extended relationship. I think we should encourage those users who
value books enough to build personal collections!While antiquarian booksellers aren't necessarily
altruistic, in some small way, they do serve a complementary function
as rescue organizations for older elements of our cultural heritage.--
Vickie L. Kline vkline[at]ycp.edu
Head of Technical Services Phone: 717-815-1459
Associate Professor FAX: 717-849-1608York College of PA - Schmidt Library
York, PA 17405-7199"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would
not be called research, would it?"-Albert Einstein
..........................................................................
Re: globaloney from OCLC
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 15:47:32 -0600
From: Paul Coleman <pcoleman[at]MAIL.WTAMU.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduWhile I've already spoken my piece on this issue, I'd just like to
chime in again, in agreement with Vickie's observation. Acquainting
library patrons with the out-of-print/antiquarian book trade, and --
dare I say it? -- even fostering it with a little mutually
beneficial advertising seems an utterly benign way for us to sell
ourselves out. Somehow, exponent of situational ethics that I
apparently am, I can't view this particular aspect of OCLC's
globalization with the same disdain I have for tennis shoe company
swooshes on college football uniforms.Paul
..........................................................................
Re: globaloney from OCLC
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 16:11:14 -0600
From: Steve Stoan <sstoan[at]LIB.DRURY.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduI spoke briefly to this, but would add a few words. I think the limited
agreement that OCLC has made with book dealers, which also provides links
from their Web sites through WorldCat to local libraries that own books
not held by the book dealers, is beneficial all around. Book seekers are
channeled toward library catalogs through the back door to be introduced
to a resource they may not even have considered--our libraries.These are services that OCLC has run by its various library advisory
committees in the brainstorming and implementation phase. I have been
serving on one of those committees for nearly six years and still find
OCLC keenly aware that it is a member organization that must remain firmly
committed to ongoing consultation with the library community in developing
its programs and services. I guess that on this issue the library
community itself is divided.I find OCLC motivated by a desire to situate libraries firmly in the
middle of the digital revolution so that we do not get marginalized by the
likes of Google and Ask Jeeves. I have been impressed with the depth of
thinking and analysis that is going on there. I still have a great deal
more confidence in OCLC than in for-profit information providers.Steve Stoan
..........................................................................
which battles to fight
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 16:46:07 -0600
From: Barbara Fister <fister[at]GAC.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduI agree with Steven Bell that there are many troubling issues in the
information industries today and, in the cosmic scale of disasters, what
OCLC is doing is not as significant as other problems. (It may not even
survive if it doesn't provide enough profit to whoever is trying to make
money on this silly scheme.)However, we need to be activists in resisting any development that tilts
the balance between giving intellectual property owners and resellers
incentives to create and sell such property and the social need to make
information available too far in one direction. And when a library
cooperative joins the rush to value business relationships above the
social function of libraries, we ought to fight it. OCLC is supposed to be
more than "library-friendly." It's us. Ours. Dot org, not com.Should we do things because our patrons find it convenient? No, not if
it's unethical. I have patrons who find it inconvenient I won't tell them
who has a book checked out. I have some who find it annoying that certain
books are on the shelf. Tough. We're members of a profession that has
values. Arent' we? Or is our new value simply "the customer is always
right even when big business is messing with their heads and making them
want what isn't in their own best interest"?On the issue of the complementary roles of booksellers and libraries:
yes!! Of course!!! I'm more than happy to guide my patrons, as Damon
already said, to booksellers. I love booksellers. I love them so much I
won't support a collective I belong to guiding patrons only to a selected
few who pay a fee.BTW, if you haven't read Digital Dilemma: Intellectual Property in the
Information Age (National Academy Press, 2000) I recommend it.Barbara Fister
..........................................................................
Not to beat a dead horse, but...
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 11:37:29 -0600
From: barbara fister <fister[at]GAC.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduPaul points out that what irks some of us is thinking with a business
mentality, but we do, after all, have to deal with business.My stance is not anti-business. This partnership is. We're proving Pat
Schroeder right that libraries are bad for publishing--this is blatantly
anti-publisher and anti-author. When we send patrons directly from our
catalogs to a second-hand book dealer for a book, say, published by the
University of Minnesota Press--one still on their backlist--the university
press loses a potential sale. When our patrons are routed to a second-hand
dealer for a book that's on, say, PublicAffair's backlist, both
PublicAffairs and the author of the book--who depends on royalties--lose
out. Backlist is the backbone of publishing. Trade publishers are
struggling to stay alive on their typically 4% profit margin.(Their
corporate masters are growing increasingly impatient; look at what's
happening to Simon and Schuster right now.) University presses stand to
lose even more: they're under enormous pressure to trim lists and lose
less money. We're hurting the book industry in ways most of us totally
ignore.Publishers don't understand us. We're returning the favor when we operate
like a business without bothering to understand the industry as a whole.
This is deeply irresponsible as well as unethical.Barbara Fister
(who will now try to shut up about all this...)
..........................................................................
Re: globaloney from OCLC
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 16:53:25 -0500
From: Jack Colbert <colbertj[at]MAIL.SPALDING.PUBLIC.LIB.GA.US>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduHey all,
I'm coming in a bit late on this one, but check this out:
(thanks and a tip o' the pointy hat to http://librarygeek.blogspot.com/ for
this info)"...Amazon salesrankings are interesting, but what about the noncommercial
world of library shelves? Wouldn't it be cool to discover which libraries
are holding onto how many copies of your favorite books? The Online Computer
Library Center provides just such a search -- for a fee. However, Abebooks
(an online antiquarian and rare book-search service) has a free back-door
into the service. Here's how it works: Go to this site and enter a search
for a title that isn't in any of Abebooks' members' catalogs. You'll be
presented with a link that activates a back-door search of the OCLC's
library database, which returns a list of all the American libraries that
have a copy on their shelves. Complicated, but cool.
Thanks BB: http://boingboing.net/2002_02_01_archive.html#9281739Go directly to the ABE search page at:
http://dogbert.abebooks.com/abe/BookSearchI wonder if ABE gets free worldcat searches as a part of this deal?
Jack Colbert
..........................................................................
should we care about publishing?
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 09:39:32 -0600
From: Barbara Fister <fister[at]GAC.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduWhy should we care about the health of the book industry? To paraphrase
Willy Sutton--'cause that's where the books come from.Our faculty not understanding the ultimate effects of their give-away of
intellectual capital to the likes of Elsevier resulted in the serials
crisis. Efforts like SPARC are providing some market correction and
publishers are beginning to take notice. Excellent. But for-profit STM
publishers were making something like 35% profit; book publishers are
barely making a profit and the more their corporate masters press for
profits, the more likely good books will slip through the cracks. (Andre
Shiffrin's book on the subject is worth a look.)It's dumb for publishers to see us as the enemy. It's careless for us to
return the favor without at least thinking through the implications.If we want WorldCat to be visible, why not provide free access to it for
the world from library websites instead of making people get there through
other sites? Duh--like Willy said, that's where the money is.Barbara Fister
(unreconstructed marxist trying to think like a capitalist)
..........................................................................
Re: should we care about publishing?
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 11:00:24 -0500
From: Karl Bridges <kbridges[at]ZOO.UVM.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduThe real answer, I think, is the same one that Tom Clancy gave when he was
asked on C-Span why should we care about Russia. He replied that it was
in our interest to have it be a healthy prosperous country rather than a
threat. The same with publishers. At the same time, as I've said, we
shouldn't fall into the trap that somehow the economic woes of the
publishing industry are somehow our fault OR that publishers and
librarians have identical interests. We have some common interests, but
we also have great differences in our ideology and why we operate.
What needs to happen (and hasn't) is some agreement on what those
differences and similarities are and how to deal with them. I'm tired,
personally, of the ritualistic saber rattling over prices (from
librarians) and copyright (from publishers) which seems to lead us nowhere.
..........................................................................
Re: Globaloney from yet another perspective
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 11:26:39 -0500
From: Karl Bridges <kbridges[at]ZOO.UVM.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduLibraries do provide a social good. The problem is that society, as a
whole, doesn't provide a compensation, however you want to define that e.g.
salaries, low publication prices, gov't subsidies, that, in the view of most
librarians, approximates the value of the service that libraries render.
As a result librarians, as a group, express these "anti-business" viewpoints
as a form of compensation. If you're not going to be invited to the party
you will gripe and say nasty things about those who are. That isn't to say
there aren't serious issues that need to dealt with. However, we need to
separate out these real issues from our own frustration at the lack of
recognition/reward that our profession gets or that we have failed to
receive as individuals. We aren't going to do better simply because we feel
that we should do better.
If librarians, as a group, generally made $70,000 a year AND their libraries
were adequately funded I don't think you'd hear half as much complaining and
griping as you do. And that's why we need to do a better job of getting the
message about libraries and librarians out to the society at large. ALA and
ACRL, for all their faults, do make an attempt to do this and we should work
on making these efforts better focused and more successful.
..........................................................................
Re: Globaloney from yet another perspective
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 12:39:15 -0500
From: paul wiener <pwiener[at]MS.CC.SUNYSB.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.edu
Reply to: COLLIB-L <COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.edu>And if horses could fly......Sorry, but I don't believe librarians CAN do
a better job of spreading the word than they're doing. And it isn't/hasn't
been enough to get us a 70K starting salary (maybe in 30 years it'll be
that, but adjusting for inflation etc....).I don't know about you but I find it personally embarrassing to tell people
that I deserve to get more than I get, and that it's their fault for not
understanding how important I am, and my job is. I also find it disgusting
to know what some librarians accept as salaries, and what some mid-level
administrators make. But it's a free-for-all.
..........................................................................
Re: Not to beat a dead horse, but...
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 12:42:15 -0500
From: Vickie Kline <vkline[at]EAGLE.YCP.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduThis horse definitely isn't dead!
To play devil's advocate, I'd like to point out that the first sale
doctrine in 17 USC 106(3) would seem to protect and legitimize the
type of activity that second-hand booksellers are engaging in.
One could argue that many publishers (particulalry electronic) are
engaged in an effort to strip us of a long-standing legal right!Now to argue on the side of publishers...
If we truly believe that providing patron access to second-hand dealers
is immoral, we must also consider applying this belief to other
situations.Are we as librarians prepared to refuse any gift titles that are still
in publication? After all, by not purchasing a copy are we not
endangering the publisher's revenue?Going further, perhaps we should have a policy of not ordering
out-of-print titles or accepting them as gifts. If we obtain
out-of-print titles by any means, aren't we endangering the publisher's
ability to offer a reprint and profit from it?While these ideas may seem ridiculous, they do follow from the same
logic. It's easy to deny services that save our patrons money; are we
willing to do the same for practices that save libraries money?Just a thought to ponder. I suspect that this is a gray issue that
doesn't have an entirely right or wrong answer.Vickie L. Kline vkline[at]ycp.edu
Head of Technical Services Phone: 717-815-1459
Associate Professor FAX: 717-849-1608York College of PA - Schmidt Library
York, PA 17405-7199"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would
not be called research, would it?"-Albert Einstein
..........................................................................
Re: Not to beat a dead horse, but...
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 14:53:22 -0500
From: "Damon D. Hickey" <dhickey[at]wooster.edu>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduVickie, I don't think the issue is the "morality" of providing access
to second-hand dealers. The question is whether it's ethical ("moral"
may be a somewhat different matter), when you're in a public-service
information profession, to provide a direct link to second-hand
booksellers that have paid you to do it, rather than to a variety of
booksellers (of both new and used books) that have solid records of
good service, etc. It's always risky for a librarian to recommend
certain companies (accountants, attorneys, physicians, etc.) and not
others, but to base your professional referrals on who has paid you
and who hasn't seems unethical to me. Do you and your library, for
example, establish "partnerships" with certain tax accountants, who
make a contribution to your library in exchange for your letting them
leave flyers advertising their business on the table where you keep
tax forms and instructions? How about selling to a local doctor some
advertising space next to the library's copy of the Physician's Desk
Reference? Damon Hickey, Wooster
..........................................................................
Re: Not to beat a dead horse, but...
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 15:14:22 -0600
From: Paul Coleman <pcoleman[at]MAIL.WTAMU.EDU>
To: COLLIB-L[at]ns1.wooster.eduDamon's point is characteristically sound, and makes me feel
uncomfortable in my defense of OCLC. Said defense, however, is
offered in the context of a world in which colleges "recommend"
certain soft drinks, in return for pay, through prominent messages in
their sports arenas. It is also offered with regard to the specific
parties with whom, we are told, OCLC is contracting, viz., Alibris
and ABEbooks. I have purchased items through ABEbooks, and offered
unpaid recommendations of it a number of times. Alibris appears to
be a more centralized operation, but it, too, by all indications, is
largely a (paid, of course) clearinghouse for booksellers, many of
whom operate small, cozy, and reputable shops.As for the general question of whether it is unethical for colleges,
libraries, library consortia, public radio stations and the like to
engage in touted "partnerships," obtain publicized "underwriting,"
and, in general, make recommendations in return for pay, I suppose I
would resignedly have to say no, it is not, as long as the
recommendations are not disguised as disinterested advice. I haven't
seen the Worldcat links in question, but I would hope and expect that
they resemble the advertising that they are.Paul Coleman
West Texas A&M
________________________________________________________________________
L I B R A R Y J U I C E
| http://libr.org/Juice/
|
| Library Juice is supported by a voluntary subscription
| fee of $10 per year, variable based on ability and
| desire to pay. You may send a check payable in US funds
| to Rory Litwin, at 1821 'O' St. Apt. 9, Sacramento, CA 95814,
| or, alternatively, you may use PayPal, by going to:
| https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=rlitwin%40earthlink.net
|
| Original material and added value in Library Juice
| is dedicated to the public domain; beyond that the
| publisher makes no guarantees. Library Juice is a
| free weekly publication edited and published by
| Rory Litwin. Original senders are credited wherever
| possible; opinions are theirs. If you are the author
| of some email in Library Juice which you want removed
| from the web, please write to me and I will remove it.
|
| Your comments and suggestions are welcome.
|
| Rory[at]libr.org