Karen, thanks for your comments. As author of the just-posted essay on the
Atlantic Web site calling for a well-stocked national digital library
system, let me make a few points:
1. Re "Rothman has been pushing this for at least 10 years." In fact, I've
been publicly advocating the system since 1992 in Computerworld, the W.
Post, an MIT Press/ASIS information science collection, etc.. Robert Darnton
is a little late to the scene. Yes, genuine career librarians can help
shape their destinies. When I was in touch recently with an aide on the Hill
about the idea, he consulted with...a librarian! Who liked the idea.
Meanwhile Carrie Russell in ALA's DC office is personally open minded. But
ALA, given its many other priorities, isn't going to do anything unless the
support is there. I'm not a librarian myself, just a writer appreciative of
the help I've gotten over the years from librarians; but in your shoes, I
would be thinking: Isn't this better than seeing public libraries
Google-zonned away? ALA needs to to start up a lobbying campaign if it cares
long term about the future of librarianship, which I hope it does. Do we
really want a privatized "public" library system? Also keep in mind the
inherent advantages of a library system--for example, in long-term archiving
and stable links. Good for everyone, commercial side included! And
link-crazed writers like me. I'd be careful even about a foundation funded
approach--let some of the money come from the private side and let there be
links to private collections, but in terms of the main show we need an open
public approach, rather than one with private meetings convened by
self-designated elites.
2. A national digital library could start at small and build up. I also
favor a focus on public domain works and educational and
job-training-related content at the very beginning.
3. The system could help reduce costs by not making the most popular books
available for a year or more. Or maybe there would be a wait period for
patrons for the hottest titles, as is often the case with libraries served
by OverDrive. Or a mix of approaches. A long way from ideal but a way to get
started.
4. With a national system, it would easier to pay for books and other
content than it is with today's hodgepodge. At the same time I believe that
local and state and academic libraries should be free to augment the
national collection with their own choices for their patrons. We're truly
talking about a system (with members participating in administration and
collection development, by the way) as opposed to one big monolithic entity
run in a top-down way.
5. Such a system would be a heck of a lot more efficient than either paper
or alternatives such as OverDrive. Nothing against the private side, though.
I see opps for them as contractors. By way of disclosure, as noted on the
Atlantic site, I own a speck of Google stock, although you'd never know it
from my 'tude toward the horrid Book Settlement proposed. I was fighting for
the natdigilib idea eons before Google existed. Speaking of which, before
Google came along, some of the usual suspects were telling me the idea was
technically impossible.
6. Sooner or later libraries are going to have to adjust to the fact that
they can't own everything (even though some material might be bought with
flat fees)--just as certain publishers need to understand that they cannot
go on forever with journal gouges. Karen, I wholeheartedly appreciate your
concerns! Compromises from both libraries and content-providers will need to
be worked out. But convince publishers and writers that they'll make more
money with a new approach, and I think you'll see more flexibility. Would
that everyone put as much energy into lobbying for funding at all levels as
into their copyright squabbles!
7. Perhaps most importantly of all, you may want to take a look at the
companion piece linked from the latest one on the Atlantic site--proposing
an idea that could vastly increase the amount of money available for the
library system. Check out the National Information Stimulus Plan at
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/06/guest-post-david-rothman-on-the-ipad-stimulus-plan/58539/
.
Despite the title that Jim Fallows gave the post with the word "iPad" in
it--he wanted something catchy--I am fervently against a proprietary
approach. In fact, standards are key. Essentially I'm talking about
systematically redirecting resources from public and private bureaucracy to
useful activities such as the proposed library system. Popularize tablet
technology through tax breaks, etc., and get it into the hands or ordinary
citizens and give them help if need be--although, with 100 year-olds using
iPads, the ease of use is much better than in past years. But what about
examples of potential economies? Well, do you realize that we're spending at
least several hundred billion a year or more on healthcare-related
paperwork, just to give one example. Reduce that by just a fraction and
you've probably paid for all or a good part of the annual costs of the
library system in its early stages. Significantly, the Stimulus Plan would
also trim healthcare costs by such strategies as improving doctor-patient
communication, which, if not satisfactory, can result in patients not taking
drugs as prescribed--thereby resulting in higher costs for both drugs and
other healthcare (not to mention even the possibility of extra lives saved).
Healthcare is just one example. No magic here. I'm just scaling up an old IT
concept--the savings that multiuse creates. The Obama people are doing good
things in healthcare, but so much more could be accomplished with a more
holistic approach.
I hope this is helpful. I may be in and out today but will do my best to
answer questions if there's interest. I love the presence of Europeans on
this list, by the way--imagine the learning opps in both directions!
Sleepily,
David (Rothman)
703-370-6540
805 North Howard St.
Alexandria, VA 22304
davidrothman_at_pobox.com
Address of the latest essay on the Atlantic Web site...for latecomers...
http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2010/11/why-we-cant-afford-not-to-create-a-well-stocked-national-digital-library-system/66111/
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Karen Coyle <lists_at_kcoyle.net> wrote:
> Dan, this is all fine and well in theory, but the publishing industry has
> incredible clout here in the US (not the authors, who are but chattel). So
> unless the *publishers* see an economic advantage and are aboard, this is
> just a numbers game. I agree that it *should* be possible, but *should*
> doesn't get us very far.
>
> This doesn't mean that things will not change. Initially the publishers
> were totally against the concept of ebooks because they feared massive
> piracy a' la Napster. It took a few years of experimentation for them to
> come around, but now ebooks are the fastest growing product of the
> publishing sector (albeit still a small percentage of sales).
>
> The plans to pay publishers for public use, however, seems to me to be a
> slippery slope. Already the Assn of American Publishers has been stating
> that they should get payment for every book lent in a public library (as is
> done in some countries). This is more complex than it may seem on the
> surface, in part due to the great variety of jurisdictions under which
> public libraries operate, and the fact that some number of those
> jurisdictions (including the late great state of California) are near
> bankruptcy. (As is the federal government.) No additional public monies are
> available, the politics of increasing taxes is incendiary, and the country
> is hurtling down the road of "there's no government like no government."
> This is a reality that has to be taken into account.
>
> kc
>
>
> Quoting Dan Matei <Dan_at_CIMEC.RO>:
>
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 00:40:10 -0800, Karen Coyle said:
>>
>> <snip>
>> rothman has been pushing this for at least 10 years, but I think he
>> doesn't understand the basic economics. What he wants is for there to
>> be one, big public digital library that lends digital books to anyone
>> for free. So... where would revenue for the publishers come in? He
>> thinks that some kind of monolithic fee system would satisfy the
>> publishers, but where would the money for a tempting fee come from?
>> </snip>
>>
>>
>> Well, I'm not so concerned about the publishers' revenues. I'm more
>> concerned about the authors' revenues. But I know of an example of a
>> reasonable "business model" for a national digital
>> library:
>>
>> www.pim.hu/object.90867f8f-d45e-40f9-8a6b-fe0034f0db87.ivy
>>
>> The Hungarian Government pays copyright fees to the most important
>> contemporary Hungarian authors (including the Nobel Prize winner Kertész
>> Imre) and publishes their oeuvre online (for free) !
>> Bravo, I would say !
>>
>> Having my country (Romania) in mind, let's imagine a (much simplified)
>> scenario.
>>
>> Say: a successful contemporary novel: 3 printings of 5,000 copies each,
>> $10 a copy, all sold, i.e. $15,000 revenue.
>> Say: 10% copyright fees, i.e. the author makes $15,000.
>>
>> Now, suppose my brave government wants to offer the digital version of the
>> book for free.
>> Say: it pays $15,000 to the author.
>> Say: it pays a publisher $5,000 for the production of the e-book version.
>>
>> (All the numbers are exaggerated, I'm sure).
>>
>> That is, for $20,000 the e-book could be offered to the public "for free".
>> That is, for $1,000,000 the National Digital Library could offer 50
>> successful Romanian contemporary novels "for free".
>> (Or ten times more poetry books !)
>>
>> How many copyrighted books could be offered with the public money spent
>> for a bomber ?
>>
>> Dan Matei
>>
>>
>>
>> PS. It's "funny": in order to buy bombers, we never think of private money
>> (foundations etc.). But in order to buy books for the public libraries
>> (including the digital public libraries), the
>> private money comes to mind !
>>
>> So, I could easily imagine an e-book offered for free, carrying the
>> mention "Published with the generous support of Good Samaritan Co."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Dan Matei, director
>> Institutul de Memorie Culturală - CIMEC
>> Piata Presei Libere nr. 1, CP 33-90
>> 013701 București [Bucharest], Romania, www.cimec.ro
>> tel. (+4)021 317 90 72; fax (+4)021 317 90 64
>> www.cimec.ro
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
Received on Mon Nov 15 2010 - 04:15:55 EST