ACQNET v2n003 (January 13, 1992) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v2n003 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 3, January 13, 1992 ======================================= (1) FROM: Christian SUBJECT: New ACQNET back files (12 lines) (2) FROM: Joyce Ogburn SUBJECT: ACQNET at one year, acquisitions profession (35 lines) (3) FROM: William Jarvis SUBJECT: Sales tax on books and serials (8 lines) (4) FROM: Christian SUBJECT: Oxford University Press controversy (70 lines) (5) FROM: Julie Gammon SUBJECT: ALA meeting announcement (27 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: January 13, 1992 From: Christian Subject: New ACQNET back files I have prepared two new back files for those who want to catch up with those topics: -- Challenge to the Profession File name: CHALLNGE.POS -- Oxford University Press Recall File name: OUPREC.POS These files are complete including postings appearing in tonight's issues. To obtain, just ask me, quoting the names of the files you want. (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 10 Jan 1992 09:16:36 U From: "Joyce Ogburn" Subject: ACQNET at one year I was reflecting on the past year in acquisitions in general and what has happened. So much of the discussion on ACQNET advanced our professional calling and demonstrated the strength of the acquisitions librarian network. For one, there was informative and provocative discussion of the formation of ALMS in ALCTS, which allowed us to talk at great length about the relationship of acquisitions and collection development and the nature of ALA committees and structures. In addition to the rest of us, I'm sure this discussion was of great value to those setting up the new section. Secondly, ACQNET was where we started talking about acquisitions theory and tenets, which led to a lunch meeting at ALA attended by 18 people. When have we ever done anything like this before? We never imagined so many people would show up. I have been asked if this was going to happen at San Antonio as well, so there continues to be interest in getting together on this kind of topic. Third, I believe a lot of people "found" each other through ACQNET, since we had an e-mail directory for the first time. When someone made a comment or asked a question, others would follow up directly with the individual. Now of course Christian would like all discussions to take place through ACQNET, but many of these unshared communications have led to fruitful and lasting rela- tionships among acquisitions folk. Yale, for one, benefitted from its contact with others regarding cataloging on receipt and integrating this function into a new acquisitions department. We shared instant news about the demise of vendors, changes in Europe, problem receipts, and more. Thanks to ACQNET, we now can get news out to a large number of people simultaneously and without relying on contact at the individu- al level which is slow and often hit or miss. Now I can't imagine my professional life without ACQNET. Thank you Christian for pursuing this idea and bringing it to life and our lives. (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 92 14:03:10 EST From: William Jarvis Subject: WSU Libraries, Pullman, WA pays 7.5% tax ACQNET people may be interested in hearing that the State of Washington charges 6.5% tax on all monographs and serials except newspapers & "genuine member- ships"-- and that an additional 1.0% is tax routed to the City of Pullman. We've had this for eons. (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 09 Jan 92 21:48:41 EST From: Christian Boissonnas Subject: OUP controversy In his posting of December 18, 1991 (ACQNET 1:139(3)), Jim Mumm asked: "When does a library have a responsibility to return material?" To date, JoAnne Deeken (ACQNET 2:1(3)) is the only one who has taken a clear position, that the book should be returned. I agree with her. There are competing interests and rights in this controversy. The original author's right and/or the original publisher's rights have been infringed (I don't know who owns the copyright of the first work, but I don't think that this matters very much in this line of reasoning.) The point is that one, or the other, or both are legally entitled to sue for damages. Society has seen fit through the Copyright Law to give them this opportunity. Oxford University Press, as publisher of the plagiarising author, is trying to protect itself from a suit. In order to do this it has decided to seek the return of as many copies of the new book as it can. By attempting to withdraw the book from circulation it is enforcing the original author's or publisher's right under the law. The fact that it can never recover all copies, or even a majority of the copies, is beside the point. At the very least its strategy may minimize the threat of a suit and, coincidentally, pacify or satisfy the original author. Then we have the library's right which accrues from the fact that it has paid for that book. The library should not be made to suffer financially or otherwise because of Oxford University Press' error. OUP has offered to reimburse libraries for the cost of the book and the cost of its shipping back to them. They should also pay for the cost of cataloging and withdrawing the title, not to mention the cost of the time lost by all of us arguing about this case. There are also the costs involved in dealing with frustrated patrons who won't understand why their library doesn't have the book, and the cost of borrowing it however many times on interlibrary loan from a library that did keep it. It would obviously be very hard to arrive at a precise number to account for all these, but we could come up with a reasonable estimate. Finally, there are the rights of all potential users to information which, though tainted, can still be useful to them. I do not wish to be caught in the trap of saying that these rights are more or less important than those of the original author, OUP, or the library. In any case comparing and weighing those rights is not necessary to my argument. Looking at the situation from the perspective of the library I believe that we are under two important obligations. The first one is our obligation, shared by all citizens, to contribute to the well-being of all by helping make the rules which frame our lives work. To me that also means helping others right a wrong when it is possible for us to do so. Helping OUP correct the wrong done to the original author is within our power and is morally right. The fact that OUP is making it so very difficult to want to help them by their stonewalling and arrogance in general dealings with us is unfortunate but does not modify our obligation. Our second obligation derives from our place in the intellectual elite of this society. We are part of this segment of society called higher education. We pride ourselves in being leaders in many fields of human endeavors. I believe this puts us under a special obligation to lead in doing what's right, not just because it is the law, but because it is morally right. To lead, and instruct others, our conduct must be superior to what the law requires. Society has the right to expect the best conduct from us. Our obligation to it is greater than the rights of any individual. Yes, we will be inconve- nienced and, yes, it will cost us and, yes, some of our patrons will be inconvenienced if we end up by returning the book. But we will have done what's right. (5) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 08 Jan 92 08:47:22 EST From: Julie Gammon Subject: Discussion Group at ALA ALCTS Automated Acquisitions/In-process Control Systems Discussion Group Topic: Interfacing Library Acquisitions Systems with University Accounting Systems When: Monday, Jan. 27, 1992 Time: 9:30-11:00 am Where: San Antonio Convention Center, Fiesta B Discussion Leaders: Rosann Bazirjian Syracuse University Library System: NOTIS Will Jarvis Washington State University Libraries System: WLN and Geac Joe Barker University of California-Berkeley System: Innopac Discussion leaders will describe automated acquisitions systems that communicate with university accounting systems and explore future needs for such links. ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 3 ****** END OF FILE *******