Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 11:53:55 -0400
From: Ned Kraft, Ned (U.S. Dept. of State Library ) <KraftNO_at_state.gov>
Subject: _Financial Times_ embargo policy
Recently, the _Financial Times_ decided to institute a 24-hour embargo
with all
third-party database vendors such as LexisNexis, Factiva, and Proquest.
I have
registered a protest against that move. For those of you interested in
this issue,
perhaps our collective outcry might make some difference in this policy.
My points to the publisher were:
* Our customers need to be able to search for today's news on
specific
subjects.
Now, when they go into Proquest (or any other database), they'll
get hits from
the
_New York Times_, the _Washington Post_, the _Wall Street Journal_
and other major
papers,
but not FT.
* Our customers can sign up with database providers to get alerts
for today's news on
specific
subjects. Now they'll get alerts for all the major papers, but
not FT.
* Your objective is to force customers to come directly to FT for
institutional subscriptions.
So
you're telling customers that instead of doing one search for
today's news, FT wants you to do two searches.
Libraries have shrinking budgets, and customers have shrinking time. We
need cost-effective ways to
gain
access to timely information. We need ways to deliver information
easily and immediately. The FT embargo undermines both needs.
If you agree, please consider sending your own protest to FT.
Ned Kraft
Bunche Library
US Department of State
kraftno_at_state.gov
--------------------------------------------------------------
For information about ACQNET's editorial policies,
how to subscribe/unsubscribe, and access to Archives, see:
http://www.acqweb.org
--------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sun May 13 2007 - 14:24:02 EDT