Ted, It seems to me that you have "hit the nail on the head", only I'm afraid you and I may be using different nails and maybe even a different hammer. I think we both recognize the issue of whether or not a brand name can be owned, but it's clear to me that you think "Dewey" and "Kleenex, et al." are or ought to be in the same category. Perhaps, legally, they are. That is for a court to decide. But, personally, I don't believe they should be. Likewise, I don't believe, contrary to what appears to be the view of many in our profession today, that we are or should be in the information business. Information, to me, involves raw data. The IRS is in the information business. The business office of my college is in the information business. Libraries, to one extent or another, depending upon what sort of library one has in mind, contain and deal in some information, but, for the most part, they deal in knowledge and wisdom. As such, it seems to me, that we should think of ourselves and our work in different terms than those that the marketplace sets. My college seems to think that the services I offer the public have some financial value, ergo they provide me with a regular paycheck. Perhaps, therefore, it can be said that I do not offer my services altruistically, but in most cases the college does. We do not limit access to patrons who have paid tuition or who are in the paid employ of the college. Our library is open to anyone who cares to walk in and use our materials. We offer community borrowing privileges as well. Our electronic catalog is accessible by anyone with an internet account. Professionally speaking, I don't think we are alone in these practices.
I remember a discussion in one of my graduate classes (I won't say how many years ago!) that involved the question of whether or not works composed by individuals were in earlier times considered public or private property (recognizing, of course, that western law today considers them private property). Our instructor made the point that in the manuscript period there seemed to be a much looser attitude towards property rights than there are today. He cited, as his proof, that manuscript copies of the same medieval Jewish legal work could sometimes differ from one another significantly. He attributed this not to copyist error, but to legal authorities, other than the original, feeling that they had the right to add their own decisions to the manuscript as well, not necessarily identifying themselves in the process. If this is a correct interpretation of the manuscripts, I can't help wondering if we have lost something of real value in our communities and our larger society. Best, Dan Rettberg Klau Library Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion Cincinnati, Ohio [EMAIL PROTECTED] ========================================================================== HaSafran - The Electronic Forum of the Association of Jewish Libraries Submissions for HaSafran, send to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SUBscribing, SIGNOFF commands send to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Questions, problems, complaints, compliments;-) send to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AJL HomePage http://www.JewishLibraries.org/
