As you say, we must change. We won't be providers of print, but will be
providers of service and information retrieval. Our academic library is
very busy but the print checkout statistics are extremely low. I'm okay
with that because anyone who takes a look can tell we are providing
service and helping people learn to retrieve information.
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 10:05 AM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [NGC4LIB] Heads in the Sand
When the Google-Publisher agreement is approved--which could literally
occur any minute now, although it's clear that it will happen sooner or
later--then we will have millions upon millions of books fully available
at the click of a button, 24 hours a day, wherever you happen to be.
These materials definitely will be adequate for a high-school education
or an undergraduate degree. Perhaps they will also be adequate for a
master's degree in many fields. At the moment the agreement is approved,
which will happen at most in a few years, everyone will discover the
answer to the big question: will people still come to the library to
consult copies of books that are online? I think they will not. For
those who are interested, I discuss this more deeply in earlier posts,
found at: http://tinyurl.com/33o894y. I believe this issue is possibly
the greatest challenge facing librarianship in its long history.
During a conference, I was having dinner with some colleagues and
mentioned how libraries will change when the Google-Publishers agreement
is approved sooner or later but the others didn't want to hear any of
it. I tried to press my point for a bit, but finally, everyone clinked
their glasses with a toast to "Heads in the Sand!" I clinked and drank,
too.
On the email lists, I also get little public feedback when I bring this
up and the private replies I get are either highly doubtful that people
will actually want to read electronic books, while others are resigned
to just riding out the troubles and simply hope for some sort of "deus
ex machina". Although the consequences of the Google-Publisher agreement
could turn out to be quite unpleasant for libraries, the fact that the
true digital revolution must happen sooner or later is rather elementary
to predict. In addition, before us we have a very useful example in a
cautionary tale of how *not* to react, as seen in the music industry,
which has made itself almost universally hated, especially among their
biggest fans. It must be especially irksome for people in the music
industry who are now reduced to threatening everyone, as they watch
their former immense power gradually wither away.
To their credit, the book publishers do not appear to want to follow the
same painful example as the music publishers, but they too, are looking
at tremendous changes that are inevitable, the consequences of which are
quite literally impossible to foresee.
Of course, at the foundation of this tremendous struggle lies the issue
of copyright: it is hard to predict how copyright will have to evolve
and adapt itself to this new world, that is, if it is not to become
ignored entirely. I suspect that as changes in copyright are hammered
out, the changes in the various publishing and media industries will
also become clearer.
Libraries can only look on from the sidelines as these events work
themselves out; after all, while libraries probably own more copies of
texts than anyone else, they own extremely few copyrights to he works
they hold, if they own any at all. When arrayed against the forces of
the most powerful information agencies in the world, it would be simple
and entirely natural to simply throw up your hands and give up.
And yet, although libraries may have very little control over the final
outcome of this struggle taking place among greater powers, there is
certainly nothing holding them back from preparing themselves for
different possible outcomes. Therefore, a "head in the sand" attitude
would not seem to be the wisest course at this moment. Such a course
indicates that you resign yourself to whatever happens; that you have a
complete lack of power. Such listlessness may be logical and even the
proper course in those cases when someone has fought their best battle
and still lost, but there is almost no situation that is completely
without resources and totally hopeless. Especially when someone's
survival is at stake, or that of an entire endeavor, the greatest
efforts must be undertaken before giving up.
So, is it all really that bad? It depends on what someone thinks
librarians do. If you think it is all about printed books, then it may
be completely hopeless, or at least as hopeless as when the music
industry insists that people continue buying music CDs at outrageous
prices. But just as the music industry could still do very well so long
as they reconsider what it is they are really doing, that is, they
should not be focusing on the antiquated task of merely creating
different types of physical copies of intellectual creativity and
sending those copies around the world to be bought by the public in
retail outlets. Such a world is disappearing, whether they or we happen
to like it or not. I hope the book industry is thinking long and hard
about this, because I am sure there will be an important and honored
place for them in the future. If libraries and librarians do this same
deep thinking, they too may still have a very important role to play in
the future information wor!
ld after the powers-that-be make the millions of books in the Google
Books project completely available.
What can librarians contribute in this new world? It would seem simple
enough: we should make it easier for people to know about the whole
range of resources that are genuinely available to them. Here, I
emphasize the term "easier", not "easy", since I fear the task will
never be an easy one, and we should not set ourselves up for failure.
But I am sure everyone can agree that it can be made progressively
easier for people into the future. Plus, we should focus on the
resources we believe are worthwhile, that are genuinely available to
people that. This means valuing a resource by its inherent quality and
not to concentrate on the materials that a local institution happens to
pay for (i.e. we should do the same as we tell our patrons to do!). If
there are just as many or more sources of information available to
people for free on the web, and these same resource cannot be found
through the library's tools, we shouldn't be shocked that people will
have less and less trust and!
respect for the library's tools.
It is a tremendous undertaking so it will be very tempting to rely on
others for much of this; for example, when the Google-Publisher
agreement is approved, there will be an overwhelming number of books in
the Google Books website and our institutions will be paying a lot for
them. It will be logical to assume that people will tend to start their
research in Google Books where they will find so much they will never
find their way out to other resources. Yet, we as librarians know there
will be many other highly valuable resources available outside the
Google Books site, both on the web as well as physical books in our
local collections. Somehow, librarians need to let the public know about
these resources, because it is unrealistic to expect Google to point
people away from their own resources where they can make money. How can
we achieve this?
This is when the conversation becomes interesting for me because it
shows that at least people have gained enough confidence to open their
minds to new possibilities, and are talking about what might be done. It
is only through the flow of ideas that possibilities can be tried,
modified, accepted or discarded. We should try anything except to put
our "heads in the sand."
Of course, there are those who believe that the public absolutely loves
the printed book and will never give it up, so they believe we are not
facing much of a problem. In their opinions, for the foreseeable future,
the majority, or at least a sizable minority, of people will still go to
the library to borrow a printed copy of a book even though they are
already looking at a digital one; also, that our library administrators
will allow libraries to buy physical copies when they are already paying
for an electronic version. They will agree to pay for ILLs for materials
available digitally as well.
While all this may be true, I do not believe that complacency is the
correct response, and then to be as surprised as the music publishers
were when highly predictable events take place.
James Weinheimer j.weinheimer_at_aur.edu
Director of Library and Information Services
The American University of Rome
via Pietro Roselli, 4
00153 Rome, Italy
voice- 011 39 06 58330919 ext. 258
fax-011 39 06 58330992
Received on Tue Jun 15 2010 - 11:39:15 EDT