The American Association of Publishers came out yesterday in opposition to the latest iteration of the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) The proposed Act would set a 6-month deadline for the public availability of research funded with federal dollars, and is under consideration for the third time since 2006 now in both the House and the Senate in committee. Is anyone surprised to see our good friends from Elsevier on the list of publishers opposing this?
As much as I am in favor of the free market in most regards, I am bitterly opposed to the idea the AAP seems to be espousing - that the folks who pay for the research conducted with tax dollars should then have to pay again to access the results of the research so that a group of publishing companies can make a profit on that that research by reselling it to us through one of the products produced by their company.
On the other hand, the agencies who make these grants do so knowing that they are funding the creative work of individuals. Most of us support the concept of intellectual property and the notion that those people who use the combination of their knowledge and skill and money - public or private - to produce further knowledge that may result in the development of additional knowledge, products, services, and other benefits to society. In other words, the people who should have some kind of financial stake in the development of the product of their research. In most cases, the people performing the research are being paid to do so, either through the salary for their position or from direct financial support from the grant - so what are THEIR rights?
It's a fair question. How to balance the need to reward creative work, regardless of the source of funding, against the right of the people who fund the research to benefit from that knowledge with as little financial "mark-up" as is fiscally responsible.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
That's What She Said...
OK, I've been beating this drum for a little while (in regards to the Elsevier boycott). Just to show you that it isn't just Don Sancho de la Lake Land who has a bone to pick with Elsevier, here is a nifty story on the boycott from Barbara Fister's Library Babel Fish column in Inside Higher Education...
And now we have a nifty logo for the boycott... victory is at hand!
And now we have a nifty logo for the boycott... victory is at hand!
Monday, February 27, 2012
Tilting at e-Windmills, part Deux...
(in which we find our intrepid heroes back on the front lines of the War of Information Access against the evil Informational-Industrial complex...)
If you talk to enough academic librarians, you will (probably sooner than later) hear people bemoaning the business model adopted by some of the larger academic publishing concerns. Of these, Elsevier is the current (and somewhat long-reigning) champion /poster child/ bete noir. There are many, many reasons for this, and I could probably devote an entire blog to just discussing their, um, "interesting" pricing practices. But I will spare you, Gentle Reader, the gory details and instead refer you to a succinct summary of the present summer of our discontent (with apologies to the Bard of Avon).
Video of the day: Henry V: Act 1, Scene 3 (you'll want headphones, or turn your speakers down a bit...)
If you talk to enough academic librarians, you will (probably sooner than later) hear people bemoaning the business model adopted by some of the larger academic publishing concerns. Of these, Elsevier is the current (and somewhat long-reigning) champion /poster child/ bete noir. There are many, many reasons for this, and I could probably devote an entire blog to just discussing their, um, "interesting" pricing practices. But I will spare you, Gentle Reader, the gory details and instead refer you to a succinct summary of the present summer of our discontent (with apologies to the Bard of Avon).
Video of the day: Henry V: Act 1, Scene 3 (you'll want headphones, or turn your speakers down a bit...)
Monday, February 13, 2012
Tilting At e-Windmills?
Our library participates in a system that offers digital content from a company called Overdrive to our patrons at a nominal charge (to us) that is part of our regular system charges each year. We have been advertising it more recently, and a number of folks who have gotten e-readers have been asking questions about how to get content through the system. The popularity seems to be taking off, though we will see how this holds up (well, I hope).
There have been issues over time with Overdrive and publishers, most notably the issue that came up last year when HarperCollins wanted to start metering service - limiting items to 26 circulations before requiring additional payment to use them. Now Penguin has decided to end its relationship with Overdrive and will no longer allow its content to be purchasable by Overdrive for the Library marketplace. In fact, now only 1 of the Big Six publishers (Hachette, Macmillan, Simon & Schuster, Penguin, Random House, and Harper-Collins) works with libraries to permit unrestricted access to its e-books and e-content - and that publisher (Random House) will be raising its prices to do so this Spring.
Hey - it's only 6 publishers, you say. But there's a reason they are called the Big 6. Here's a little more information about them and the various imprints that they control. Then take a look at your bookshelves and see how many of those imprints are represented there. You will get a much better idea of why this is A Big Deal. See also...
Libraries rely on a legal doctrine known as First Sale to circulate print books. Under this concept, the person (or institution) who buys a book has control over its use on a functional level. Within the copyright law, a library may lend that book to as many patrons as it desires without having to pay any additional costs for the items. While publishers might like to have a credit card machine built into the cover that you would have to swipe every time you wanted to read a book, the law doesn't allow this. This has also been applied to audio and visual materials as well, although many publishers made libraries pay much higher costs for new media than the average consumer when they had a tighter control over distribution than they do today. I don't have to buy a movie directly from the studio, but can walk into any Best Buy or go online to Amazon and order there at the same price that anyone else pays.
But the doctrine of First Sale does not extend into the digital world. And while publishers would face riots if they tried to make you pay $.99 every time you want to listen to that song you downloaded from iTunes or re-read the e-book you bought from Amazon, they are far braver when it comes to taking on libraries, it appears. They will tell you that is is economically unfeasible for the to "give their product away" to libraries, who will then check it out free to folks when someone else might have to buy it to listen/read/watch. Never mind that libraries often provide a first exposure to an author/artist in this way, which might in turn spark the reader/listener to actually go out and buy their own copy of the item - thus, providing publishers with a marketing outlet that they don't have to pay a dime for.
Who loses? First off, you do, when you can't get digital access to a new author or artist that you want to try out before you drop your hard-earned money. Secondly, libraries lose, but not being able to provide access to materials that their patrons want, and by being held hostage to an industry in search of a sales model. But the publishers also lose, even if they can't see it. Both in terms of money (in potential sales) and goodwill (with librarians and the public) - goodwill that often translates in $$$.
The solution? Here's where the title of this post comes in. If you are a consumer of digital content, and you don't want to see it slowly (or quickly) choked off at your library, then write to the publishers mentioned above and tell them what you think about their strategy. They obviously aren't going to listen to libraries or the ALA. But they do tend to listen to consumers, particularly those consumers who are informed and who spend money on their products.
There have been issues over time with Overdrive and publishers, most notably the issue that came up last year when HarperCollins wanted to start metering service - limiting items to 26 circulations before requiring additional payment to use them. Now Penguin has decided to end its relationship with Overdrive and will no longer allow its content to be purchasable by Overdrive for the Library marketplace. In fact, now only 1 of the Big Six publishers (Hachette, Macmillan, Simon & Schuster, Penguin, Random House, and Harper-Collins) works with libraries to permit unrestricted access to its e-books and e-content - and that publisher (Random House) will be raising its prices to do so this Spring.
Hey - it's only 6 publishers, you say. But there's a reason they are called the Big 6. Here's a little more information about them and the various imprints that they control. Then take a look at your bookshelves and see how many of those imprints are represented there. You will get a much better idea of why this is A Big Deal. See also...
Libraries rely on a legal doctrine known as First Sale to circulate print books. Under this concept, the person (or institution) who buys a book has control over its use on a functional level. Within the copyright law, a library may lend that book to as many patrons as it desires without having to pay any additional costs for the items. While publishers might like to have a credit card machine built into the cover that you would have to swipe every time you wanted to read a book, the law doesn't allow this. This has also been applied to audio and visual materials as well, although many publishers made libraries pay much higher costs for new media than the average consumer when they had a tighter control over distribution than they do today. I don't have to buy a movie directly from the studio, but can walk into any Best Buy or go online to Amazon and order there at the same price that anyone else pays.
But the doctrine of First Sale does not extend into the digital world. And while publishers would face riots if they tried to make you pay $.99 every time you want to listen to that song you downloaded from iTunes or re-read the e-book you bought from Amazon, they are far braver when it comes to taking on libraries, it appears. They will tell you that is is economically unfeasible for the to "give their product away" to libraries, who will then check it out free to folks when someone else might have to buy it to listen/read/watch. Never mind that libraries often provide a first exposure to an author/artist in this way, which might in turn spark the reader/listener to actually go out and buy their own copy of the item - thus, providing publishers with a marketing outlet that they don't have to pay a dime for.
Who loses? First off, you do, when you can't get digital access to a new author or artist that you want to try out before you drop your hard-earned money. Secondly, libraries lose, but not being able to provide access to materials that their patrons want, and by being held hostage to an industry in search of a sales model. But the publishers also lose, even if they can't see it. Both in terms of money (in potential sales) and goodwill (with librarians and the public) - goodwill that often translates in $$$.
The solution? Here's where the title of this post comes in. If you are a consumer of digital content, and you don't want to see it slowly (or quickly) choked off at your library, then write to the publishers mentioned above and tell them what you think about their strategy. They obviously aren't going to listen to libraries or the ALA. But they do tend to listen to consumers, particularly those consumers who are informed and who spend money on their products.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Want to Search for Books on Your Smartphone?
Now you can, in a much more phone-friendly fashion:
LINCPac redirects to Mobile Catalog
[LTLS] been able to insert some coding into the LINCPac search page that redirects smartphone users automatically to a Mobile version of the Catalog (Library Anywhere). If you have patrons that prefer to view your library's catalog through a mobile application, please recommend this new functionality to them.
When mobile users access your catalog's web site, they will automatically be asked 'if they wish to go to the mobile version of the catalog' and they may be asked to download the free LibraryAnywhere App as well. It's free and it's easy! Library Anywhere communicates with LINCPac and allows patrons to search, place holds, and view their account information.
Song of the Day: "Going Mobile" by The Who (from the album Who's Next)
LINCPac redirects to Mobile Catalog
[LTLS] been able to insert some coding into the LINCPac search page that redirects smartphone users automatically to a Mobile version of the Catalog (Library Anywhere). If you have patrons that prefer to view your library's catalog through a mobile application, please recommend this new functionality to them.
When mobile users access your catalog's web site, they will automatically be asked 'if they wish to go to the mobile version of the catalog' and they may be asked to download the free LibraryAnywhere App as well. It's free and it's easy! Library Anywhere communicates with LINCPac and allows patrons to search, place holds, and view their account information.
Song of the Day: "Going Mobile" by The Who (from the album Who's Next)
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Internet Archive to go dark Wednesday...
to protest pending legislation on currently in the House [HB 3261, the Stop Internet Piracy Act (SOPA)] and Senate [S.968, the Protect IP Act (PIPA)]. The Archive will go dark from 6AM - 6PM PST.
Libraries are not known - except to some publishers - as folks who tend to encourage the theft of intellectual property. Heck, we are the folks who have held out to protect copyrighted materials - AND the rights of those who wish to use them within the law. We recognize, perhaps more acutely than any other group besides artists/authors/people who create art, music, literature, etc. , how important it is to protect the intellectual property rights of those creative people so that they can flourish from their creativity and we can all enjoy the fruits of that creativity.
But these deeply flawed acts are NOT the way to protect those rights. Please, read up on these legislative monstrosities and let your elected officials know that these are not the way that we need to address these concerns.
And here:
And here:
Libraries are not known - except to some publishers - as folks who tend to encourage the theft of intellectual property. Heck, we are the folks who have held out to protect copyrighted materials - AND the rights of those who wish to use them within the law. We recognize, perhaps more acutely than any other group besides artists/authors/people who create art, music, literature, etc. , how important it is to protect the intellectual property rights of those creative people so that they can flourish from their creativity and we can all enjoy the fruits of that creativity.
But these deeply flawed acts are NOT the way to protect those rights. Please, read up on these legislative monstrosities and let your elected officials know that these are not the way that we need to address these concerns.
And here:
And here:
Taxpayer funded research
[alarm klaxon sounding]
To quote a late Republican President, "There they go again..."
This time, another Republican from California (Rep. Darrell Issa) and a Democrat from NY (Rep. Carolyn Maloney) are proposing legislation that, in effect, says that businesses should be able to profit from research that is funded by taxpayers like you and me. Their bill, the Research Works Act (HR 3699), would roll back mandates from agencies like the National Institutes of Health that now require research that it funds to be made freely available to the public withing 12 months of publication.
The Chronicle of Higher Education has a good article on the subject found here. While it is likely that this bill, like other attempts to line the pockets of major academic publishers, will probably get shot down, it is not a redundant exercise to remind people about the importance of public access to federally-funded research. Just when it seems that the idea of public access to research seems to be less of a radical idea than an idea whose time is come (and overdue at that), groups like the American Association of Publishers sign on in support of dreck legislation like this. This groups includes major scientific publishers like Elsevier and other scientific presses, as well as university presses.
However, some scholarly presses are breaking ranks with the AAP over this. MIT Press announced its opposition to the legislation last week, followed by the University of California Press, The Penn State University Press, and the Rockefeller University Press. The MIT Press statement included this: "The AAP's press release on the Research Works Act does not reflect the position of the MIT Press; nor, I imagine, the position of many other scholarly presses whose mission is centrally focused on broad dissemination," Ellen Faran, the press's director, said in a statement circulated on open-access electronic mailing lists and elsewhere. "We will not, however, withdraw from the AAP on this issue as we value the association's work over all and the opportunity to participate as a member of the larger and diverse publishing community."
I applaud their stand, and I hope most sincerely that more publishers will join the effort to promote public access to Federally funded research.
2/27/2012 UPDATE The Research Works Act has been withdrawn, after the co-sponsors mentioned above declared that they would not seek further action on the bill. After Elsevier withdrew its support for the bill earlier this morning. still complaining about "government mandates" [I guess that they don't consider backing a law that would prevent agencies from having open-access publication requirements for taxpayer-funded work as a "government mandate"?]
Coincidence? I think not...
To quote a late Republican President, "There they go again..."
This time, another Republican from California (Rep. Darrell Issa) and a Democrat from NY (Rep. Carolyn Maloney) are proposing legislation that, in effect, says that businesses should be able to profit from research that is funded by taxpayers like you and me. Their bill, the Research Works Act (HR 3699), would roll back mandates from agencies like the National Institutes of Health that now require research that it funds to be made freely available to the public withing 12 months of publication.
The Chronicle of Higher Education has a good article on the subject found here. While it is likely that this bill, like other attempts to line the pockets of major academic publishers, will probably get shot down, it is not a redundant exercise to remind people about the importance of public access to federally-funded research. Just when it seems that the idea of public access to research seems to be less of a radical idea than an idea whose time is come (and overdue at that), groups like the American Association of Publishers sign on in support of dreck legislation like this. This groups includes major scientific publishers like Elsevier and other scientific presses, as well as university presses.
However, some scholarly presses are breaking ranks with the AAP over this. MIT Press announced its opposition to the legislation last week, followed by the University of California Press, The Penn State University Press, and the Rockefeller University Press. The MIT Press statement included this: "The AAP's press release on the Research Works Act does not reflect the position of the MIT Press; nor, I imagine, the position of many other scholarly presses whose mission is centrally focused on broad dissemination," Ellen Faran, the press's director, said in a statement circulated on open-access electronic mailing lists and elsewhere. "We will not, however, withdraw from the AAP on this issue as we value the association's work over all and the opportunity to participate as a member of the larger and diverse publishing community."
I applaud their stand, and I hope most sincerely that more publishers will join the effort to promote public access to Federally funded research.
2/27/2012 UPDATE The Research Works Act has been withdrawn, after the co-sponsors mentioned above declared that they would not seek further action on the bill. After Elsevier withdrew its support for the bill earlier this morning. still complaining about "government mandates" [I guess that they don't consider backing a law that would prevent agencies from having open-access publication requirements for taxpayer-funded work as a "government mandate"?]
Coincidence? I think not...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)