Certainly they could be terrific contractors or otherwise participate,
but this should be a genuine system with wide participation. I am all
in favor of overlapping people and links. But I would rather not see
public libs and others get lost in the shuffle. Am big IA booster,
etc. It's just a governance thing. Also remember that many publibs are
just conduits for OverDrive books and the like--they don't really have
their own tech for real. DR
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:15 AM, David H. Rothman <davidrothman_at_pobox.com>wrote:
> 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 - 08:52:29 EST