Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
On 6/1/2011 10:46 PM, Frumkin, Jeremy wrote: that content for the user? If we are indeed trying to meet our users' needs, perhaps we need not to continue to build just-in-case collections, but provide just-in-time access to information resources, regardless of their location, and perhaps even without needing a local collection at all. This is in fact exactly the goal of my Umlaut software (originally started by Ross Singer, now developed by me, with some contributions from other developers), which is seperate from the catalog, it's a sort of "link resolver", but more than the type of "link resolver" you're familiar with. The idea is that Umlaut is _not_ used for finding resources you are interested in with keyword search (like the catalog, or Google). Rather, it's for, once you've identified a particular title/work/resource you're interested in, Umlaut gives "just-in-time" access and service options. For that to work, _something_ has to send Umlaut an OpenURL (Umlaut could certainly be modified to accept things in other structured formats too, with individual citation elements identified). Then Umlaut checks the catalog, and tells you if we have it on the shelves (with call number location, and 'request' document delivery option from the catalog). It also checks the SFX knowledge base, which works for journal articles more then e-books. It ALSO checks: Amazon, Google Books, HathiTrust, and Internet Archive -- for both full text availability and "search inside" availability (which can be present even without full text, like in Amazon), and direct links to both. It also provides Inter-Library Loan links, and assorted other service links (like 'cited by' from ISI or Scopus when the "just in time" resource is an article). It's definitely not perfect, there are a LOT of challenges to trying to do this, and a lot of things I have ideas (but no time) for making better; and other things I'd like to make better but _don't_ have ideas of how to feasibly accomplish. But the aim of it is very much like what Jeremy describes. (Note that "just in time" searching the entire internet for open access copies is a HUGE challenge; you need someone with a search index of the entire internet, which has an API, which also somehow gives you enough data to figure out with some reliability if a hit really is an _open access_ copy of what you're looking for --- we don't have that, especially the third). Here's an example of Umlaut on a book, that has useful open access services Umlaut can find: http://findit.library.jhu.edu/go/3524138 (Not sure why there's an error on that page at present, but it still demonstrates the features I want to demonstrate). We also use Umlaut as a central infrastructural piece providing these services in our other interfaces that DO allow keyword searching, like the catalog. So the similar elements on this page are also provided by Umlaut: https://catalyst.library.jhu.edu/catalog/bib_2081
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
I wonder if Mr Godin, in articulating his vision of the library as a place "filled with so many web terminals there's always at least one empty," isn't framing it around the Digital Public Library of America proposal? He didn't specifically name it but, with all the acclaim for the idea in the mainstream media, it is difficult to believe he is unaware of it. In that he is primarily describing a public rather than an academic library setting in his post, access to books rather than journals and databases is probably what he had in mind and that aligns with the goals of the DPLA. In addition, the DPLA conceivably could satisfy some of the concerns voiced here about how local libraries go about maintaining links and obtaining cataloging records. To bring something new to the discussion, take a look at this post to the PLA Blog, http://plablog.org/2011/06/two-more-reasons-for-library-outposts-the-dpla-and-youmedia-learning-labs.html , describing something similar (or so it seems to me) to what Mr Godin is describing. Tom
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
I think Jeremy brings up some good points here about libraries (especially academic ones) becoming provisioning organizations versus collection building ones. In regards to journals, in a number of ways libraries already are. Libraries send checks to Ebsco, Elserver, ProQuest. etc. and out patrons get access. I wouldn't be surprised if this happens with books as well, although I don't think it will happen as quickly as some of the pundits say. There is a danger in this for librarians of course, if that is all libraries provided. The School of Science, for example, doesn't really need a librarian to pay for ScienceDirect - they just need a purchase order. One might argue that faculty don't have the time or knowledge to evaluate the databases, but I am not sure this is true, and even if it is, a single librarian can do this for a large state-wide system or consortia. Therefore, for librarians (and libraries) to survive and even flourish we do need to look at ourselves through a different lenses as Jeremy suggests. >From a content standpoint, I interpret a lot of what has been in this thread as referring to content under the bell curve. I think those more general materials will become less and less local as in some ways databases of articles have already done with journals. This is a an over-simplification, but I think in this scenario what ends up being the role of the library, then, is the long tail of collections. In the case of journals, I see this happening now with some foreign and small-press journals that are not available in electronic form. In the broader sense, I think what will become more important is local content, archives, and special collections. Of course, libraries are not just about collections and there are many other ways that librarians can improve access to resources (local or not) and other information services to our patrons. I am not sure the under-lying mission or purpose of libraries needing to change, but I do think the tools and methods will need to continue to evolve. Edward On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:46 PM, Frumkin, Jeremy wrote: > So, this is quite a good thread, and it is quite interesting to read the > different viewpoints about what information resources libraries provide. > I'm wondering if we might look at this from a slightly different angle - > most of the discussion has been about what libraries include in their > collections. I wonder, though, if thinking about this through a collection > lens colors the arguments the wrong way. As I see it, more and more it > seems that users are less aware of the boundaries of a library's > collections; many of the discovery tools employed by libraries, or > available outside of libraries, do not limit themselves to a particular > collection (Worldcat local being a prime example of a library discovery > tool that provides discovery that is not bounded by a library's > collection). The role of the library as a provisioner, or broker, of > information, regardless of where that information is located, is seemingly > increasing in importance - in part, I think, explicitly because our > discovery technologies can now be unbounded from finite collections, and > because of this, the friction that users run into in discovering > information beyond their library's collections has been greatly reduced, > if not removed entirely. Users likely expect that if they can discover > that something is available, they should have access to it - a use pattern > best exemplified by google, but that I believe has transcended to the > library sphere as well. > > So, if we stop thinking about libraries as collection building > institutions, and more as provisioning organizations, then the issue of > whether libraries incorporate free resources into their catalogs becomes > somewhat moot. The question more becomes, I think, if a user discovers an > information resource, what is the library's role in brokering access to > that content for the user? If we are indeed trying to meet our users' > needs, perhaps we need not to continue to build just-in-case collections, > but provide just-in-time access to information resources, regardless of > their location, and perhaps even without needing a local collection at all. > > -- jaf > > > > On 6/1/11 7:04 PM, "Alexander Johannesen" > wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Jonathan Rochkind >>wrote: >>> There are some unanswered questions about what the purpose of the >>>catalog is >>> or should be in our users research workflow, and it's not obvious to me >>>whether >>> that purpose will involve putting any possible book or article that >>>exists for free >>> on the internet in the catalog. >> >>I personally think that libraries in general still have some >>fundamental issues of just getting their head around the two-headed >>problem of free web resources. Not only are these free, but they don't >>physically exists. This has certain implications for libraries ; >> >>Free: as has been pointed out,
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
So, this is quite a good thread, and it is quite interesting to read the different viewpoints about what information resources libraries provide. I'm wondering if we might look at this from a slightly different angle - most of the discussion has been about what libraries include in their collections. I wonder, though, if thinking about this through a collection lens colors the arguments the wrong way. As I see it, more and more it seems that users are less aware of the boundaries of a library's collections; many of the discovery tools employed by libraries, or available outside of libraries, do not limit themselves to a particular collection (Worldcat local being a prime example of a library discovery tool that provides discovery that is not bounded by a library's collection). The role of the library as a provisioner, or broker, of information, regardless of where that information is located, is seemingly increasing in importance - in part, I think, explicitly because our discovery technologies can now be unbounded from finite collections, and because of this, the friction that users run into in discovering information beyond their library's collections has been greatly reduced, if not removed entirely. Users likely expect that if they can discover that something is available, they should have access to it - a use pattern best exemplified by google, but that I believe has transcended to the library sphere as well. So, if we stop thinking about libraries as collection building institutions, and more as provisioning organizations, then the issue of whether libraries incorporate free resources into their catalogs becomes somewhat moot. The question more becomes, I think, if a user discovers an information resource, what is the library's role in brokering access to that content for the user? If we are indeed trying to meet our users' needs, perhaps we need not to continue to build just-in-case collections, but provide just-in-time access to information resources, regardless of their location, and perhaps even without needing a local collection at all. -- jaf On 6/1/11 7:04 PM, "Alexander Johannesen" wrote: >Hi, > >On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Jonathan Rochkind >wrote: >> There are some unanswered questions about what the purpose of the >>catalog is >> or should be in our users research workflow, and it's not obvious to me >>whether >> that purpose will involve putting any possible book or article that >>exists for free >> on the internet in the catalog. > >I personally think that libraries in general still have some >fundamental issues of just getting their head around the two-headed >problem of free web resources. Not only are these free, but they don't >physically exists. This has certain implications for libraries ; > >Free: as has been pointed out, sometimes this means not being peer >reviewed, or doesn't have the quality seal of a publisher, and as such >there is no process for libraries to really understand how that >knowledge fits into the rest of their collection. (I don't think it's >a price issue; it's more a fundamental model issue) It's sometimes >hard to wrap your head around the concept of anything free being of >much *worth* where in the past worth and often quality was measured in >the name of publishers and the amount of peer-review or the reputation >of the author. The Internet has *changed* this to the core; it's all >gone or going, and new models are coming through the haze of confusion >which I think the library world is both unprepared for and seriously >underfunded to deal with. > >Links: The whole concept of web resources, of what a link (or a link >to a mirror or cache) is all about confuses libraries who are deeply >rooted in all things being physical. I know this is a dozy, but I >still find this an issue when talking to librarians even today. The >concept of virtual things in the library world really only exists with >the notion of meta data, and I don't think the transition to the >resource itself *also* being virtual has worked out well. Libraries >*likes* physical objects, they *like* shelves, they *like* their >buildings, and I don't blame them; we are physical beings who love the >smell of paper, however books are not actually important, buildings >are not actually important, that smell is definitely not important : >Ideas, knowledge and concepts are, and that's what we all try to pry >from the books. (As an aside, if ideas and concepts were valued more, >why couldn't LCSH morph into something far, far more important and >useful? The mind boggles at the lost opportunities!) You cannot pry >anything from a link except the possible resource at the other end, >but it is a few traceroutes away in a virtual place, and in need of >technological interpretation on arrival, and then comes the next level >of trouble; > >These are just the conceptual problem. The next real problem of >technology and the library world is - despite the hard and excellent >work put in by people li
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
Hi, On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > There are some unanswered questions about what the purpose of the catalog is > or should be in our users research workflow, and it's not obvious to me > whether > that purpose will involve putting any possible book or article that exists > for free > on the internet in the catalog. I personally think that libraries in general still have some fundamental issues of just getting their head around the two-headed problem of free web resources. Not only are these free, but they don't physically exists. This has certain implications for libraries ; Free: as has been pointed out, sometimes this means not being peer reviewed, or doesn't have the quality seal of a publisher, and as such there is no process for libraries to really understand how that knowledge fits into the rest of their collection. (I don't think it's a price issue; it's more a fundamental model issue) It's sometimes hard to wrap your head around the concept of anything free being of much *worth* where in the past worth and often quality was measured in the name of publishers and the amount of peer-review or the reputation of the author. The Internet has *changed* this to the core; it's all gone or going, and new models are coming through the haze of confusion which I think the library world is both unprepared for and seriously underfunded to deal with. Links: The whole concept of web resources, of what a link (or a link to a mirror or cache) is all about confuses libraries who are deeply rooted in all things being physical. I know this is a dozy, but I still find this an issue when talking to librarians even today. The concept of virtual things in the library world really only exists with the notion of meta data, and I don't think the transition to the resource itself *also* being virtual has worked out well. Libraries *likes* physical objects, they *like* shelves, they *like* their buildings, and I don't blame them; we are physical beings who love the smell of paper, however books are not actually important, buildings are not actually important, that smell is definitely not important : Ideas, knowledge and concepts are, and that's what we all try to pry from the books. (As an aside, if ideas and concepts were valued more, why couldn't LCSH morph into something far, far more important and useful? The mind boggles at the lost opportunities!) You cannot pry anything from a link except the possible resource at the other end, but it is a few traceroutes away in a virtual place, and in need of technological interpretation on arrival, and then comes the next level of trouble; These are just the conceptual problem. The next real problem of technology and the library world is - despite the hard and excellent work put in by people like us on this very list! - that they are still a slow-poke in the realm of using and developing technology. Most ILS are charmingly quaint in dealing with these things. OPAC's are mostly dreadful. Backend infra-structure never powerful or big enough for the growing digital stuff coming in. Systems running always a bunch of features away from being what we need, only getting by on a barely useful set of features (that far too often the vendors dictates) to do the minimum we have to do. Yes, yes, exceptions here and there, I would never deny that, but look at library land as a whole; you're lagging behind and you cannot really compete in a world that needs you to not only run, but win. And frankly, you *cannot* win, not on technology. There's just no way. Winning this one requires not technology as such, but paradigm shifts in thinking, both from inside and especially from the outside, coupled with proper resourcing by people who understands the value libraries truly bring to the world. And this latter thing is becoming a real problem, I think. > One reason that libraries may not prioritize putting free ebooks in the > catalog is because > there are other places users can search for free ebooks on the internet -- > but there > aren't other places users can search for non-free ebooks that they know will > be licensed > to them as library patrons, or for that matter to search for physical things > on the shelves > that they know are available from their library. Seems like an odd argument to me. Why are we talking about the price and the format of the information rather than the *quality* of it? I thought a curated collection was the bee's knees, regardless of what formats used. Hmm. Maybe I'm thinking too much like a knowledge customer than a librarian these days, and I've lost my touch or my way. :) Regards, Alex -- Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps --- http://shelter.nu/blog/ -- -- http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
Eric, The problem with linking open access materials into catalogs isn't entirely simple, and I don't agree that librarians haven't thought about how to do this. I was trying to get a file of MARC records for all of the Internet Archive's open access materials so that those could be available via a cataloging service, but with current cataloging practices it's very hard to do without artificially swelling the size of many small catalogs. This is because adding a link for a different manifestation from a bibliographic record is not only a violation of the cataloging rules but could lead to confusion. Thus a different version of the Work would add another record to the catalog. (This issue was discussed ad nauseum throughout the 1990's under the rubric of "multiple versions cataloging," an issue that in part led to the development of RDA.) When (and I hope it is "when") bibliographic data is created with the concept of a Work, then associating different versions of the work (some hard copy, some digital) should be much easier. Even with that, I'm not confident that we can accurately identify "same Work" using the metadata we have today. I ran into this issue when talking to public library librarians who would like to have the ability to bring in open access full text for works that they hold but there wasn't a neat way to do it. I believe it will be possible to export MARC records for open access texts, but getting those into library catalogs appears to be labor intensive for the libraries themselves. Another thing: none of them were interested in taking in ALL available full texts, meaning that there was still going to be the effort of matching or selection. What they wanted was open versions of non-open Works that they hold. So that's what we need to figure out how to do. kc Quoting Eric Hellman : Karen, The others who have responded while I was off, you know, doing stuff, have done a much better job of answering your question than I would have. I would have said something glib like "almost all ways, with respect to open-access digital materials". There's a shift in library mindset that has to occur along with the transition from print to digital. The clearest example that I've seen is the typical presentation of pretend-its-print out-of-copyright material. A library will have purchased PIP access to an annotated edition of a Shakespeare play, or a new translation of Crime and Punishment. But the public domain versions of these works (which are perfectly good) don't exist in the catalog. A patron looking for ebook versions of these works will then frequently be denied access because another patron has already checked out the licensed version. That can't be justified by any vision for libraries that I can think of. It can't be justified because it's hard or time consuming, or because there are a flood of PD Crime and Punishments clamoring for attention. It's just a result of unthinking and we-haven't-done-that-before. It's my hope that there are a number of not-so-hard problems around this situation that people on this list have the tools to solve. Eric On May 19, 2011, at 1:30 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: Quoting Eric Hellman : Exactly. I apologize if my comment was perceived as coy, but I've chosen to invest in the possibility that Creative Commons licensing is a viable way forward for libraries, authors, readers, etc. Here's a link the last of a 5 part series on open-access ebooks. I hope it inspires work in the code4lib community to make libraries more friendly to free stuff. Eric, In what ways do you think that libraries today are not friendly to free stuff? kc http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2011/05/open-access-ebooks-part-5-changing.html On May 18, 2011, at 7:20 PM, David Friggens wrote: Some ebooks, in fact some of the greatest ever written, already cost less than razor blades. Do you mean ones not under copyright? Those, plus Creative Commons etc. -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
So, selecting which public domain free on the internet works should be included in the catalog (presumably considering both quality of digital copy and quality/usefulness of the work itself), keeping track of them all of them in their various locations, adding links to them all to our (generally pretty damn crappy) collection tracking software, fixing or removing links when they disappear or change or go down temporarily--- are you suggesting that all of this is trivial non-expensive work, and the only reason libraries aren't doing it are because they are idiotic? I think that's silly. If someone provided a platform that aggregated many of these in a single repository, provided downloadable metadata of some kind, ideally provided some support (even for a reasonable charge) then I bet libraries would bite. For instance, Project Guttenberg does some of those things -- and there indeed are libraries that load all of Project Gutenberg in their catalog, it's not unheard of. (Although it's still not 'free' to librararies to do so, it takes resources to make that work well). But I think the idea that users can't find something if it doesn't exist in the catalog is a false one anyway, the catalog is hardly the only place our patrons look for things anymore. There are some unanswered questions about what the purpose of the catalog is or should be in our users research workflow, and it's not obvious to me whether that purpose will involve putting any possible book or article that exists for free on the internet in the catalog. One reason that libraries may not prioritize putting free ebooks in the catalog is because there are other places users can search for free ebooks on the internet -- but there aren't other places users can search for non-free ebooks that they know will be licensed to them as library patrons, or for that matter to search for physical things on the shelves that they know are available from their library. From: Code for Libraries [CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] on behalf of Eric Hellman [e...@hellman.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 4:46 PM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library Karen, The others who have responded while I was off, you know, doing stuff, have done a much better job of answering your question than I would have. I would have said something glib like "almost all ways, with respect to open-access digital materials". There's a shift in library mindset that has to occur along with the transition from print to digital. The clearest example that I've seen is the typical presentation of pretend-its-print out-of-copyright material. A library will have purchased PIP access to an annotated edition of a Shakespeare play, or a new translation of Crime and Punishment. But the public domain versions of these works (which are perfectly good) don't exist in the catalog. A patron looking for ebook versions of these works will then frequently be denied access because another patron has already checked out the licensed version. That can't be justified by any vision for libraries that I can think of. It can't be justified because it's hard or time consuming, or because there are a flood of PD Crime and Punishments clamoring for attention. It's just a result of unthinking and we-haven't-done-that-before. It's my hope that there are a number of not-so-hard problems around this situation that people on this list have the tools to solve. Eric On May 19, 2011, at 1:30 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: > Quoting Eric Hellman : > >> Exactly. I apologize if my comment was perceived as coy, but I've chosen to >> invest in the possibility that Creative Commons licensing is a viable way >> forward for libraries, authors, readers, etc. Here's a link the last of a 5 >> part series on open-access ebooks. I hope it inspires work in the code4lib >> community to make libraries more friendly to free stuff. > > Eric, > > In what ways do you think that libraries today are not friendly to free stuff? > > kc > >> >> http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2011/05/open-access-ebooks-part-5-changing.html >> >> On May 18, 2011, at 7:20 PM, David Friggens wrote: >> >>>>> Some ebooks, in fact some of the greatest ever written, already cost less >>>>> than razor blades. >>> >>>> Do you mean ones not under copyright? >>> >>> Those, plus Creative Commons etc. >> > > > > -- > Karen Coyle > kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > ph: 1-510-540-7596 > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
Karen, The others who have responded while I was off, you know, doing stuff, have done a much better job of answering your question than I would have. I would have said something glib like "almost all ways, with respect to open-access digital materials". There's a shift in library mindset that has to occur along with the transition from print to digital. The clearest example that I've seen is the typical presentation of pretend-its-print out-of-copyright material. A library will have purchased PIP access to an annotated edition of a Shakespeare play, or a new translation of Crime and Punishment. But the public domain versions of these works (which are perfectly good) don't exist in the catalog. A patron looking for ebook versions of these works will then frequently be denied access because another patron has already checked out the licensed version. That can't be justified by any vision for libraries that I can think of. It can't be justified because it's hard or time consuming, or because there are a flood of PD Crime and Punishments clamoring for attention. It's just a result of unthinking and we-haven't-done-that-before. It's my hope that there are a number of not-so-hard problems around this situation that people on this list have the tools to solve. Eric On May 19, 2011, at 1:30 AM, Karen Coyle wrote: > Quoting Eric Hellman : > >> Exactly. I apologize if my comment was perceived as coy, but I've chosen to >> invest in the possibility that Creative Commons licensing is a viable way >> forward for libraries, authors, readers, etc. Here's a link the last of a 5 >> part series on open-access ebooks. I hope it inspires work in the code4lib >> community to make libraries more friendly to free stuff. > > Eric, > > In what ways do you think that libraries today are not friendly to free stuff? > > kc > >> >> http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2011/05/open-access-ebooks-part-5-changing.html >> >> On May 18, 2011, at 7:20 PM, David Friggens wrote: >> > Some ebooks, in fact some of the greatest ever written, already cost less > than razor blades. >>> Do you mean ones not under copyright? >>> >>> Those, plus Creative Commons etc. >> > > > > -- > Karen Coyle > kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net > ph: 1-510-540-7596 > m: 1-510-435-8234 > skype: kcoylenet
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
On 5/19/2011 1:23 PM, Ryan Engel wrote: There are some who argue that if it's valuable to others, then others should pay for it (even when the improved access benefits your institution first and foremost, and distribution of the improvements is an arguably beneficial side effect) . Why should one institution carry the financial burden of improving something that benefits others beyond that institution? It's not an argument I agree with, but it's one I've heard before. It is a somewhat odd position especially for libraries who have been in the business of providing service to others at no profit to themselves for many years, including in technical matters such as cooperative cataloging and lending via ILL. Libraries have gotten to be where they are today by willing to chip in for the general good on a sort of "generalized reciprocity" basis. Jonathan
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
There are some who argue that if it's valuable to others, then others should pay for it (even when the improved access benefits your institution first and foremost, and distribution of the improvements is an arguably beneficial side effect) . Why should one institution carry the financial burden of improving something that benefits others beyond that institution? It's not an argument I agree with, but it's one I've heard before. Luciano Ramalho wrote: On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:24 AM, graham wrote: 2. It is hard to justify spending time on improving access to free stuff when the end result would be good for everyone, not just the institution doing the work (unless it can be kept in a consortium and outside-world access limited) Why is it hard to justify anything that would be good for everyone?
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Andreas Orphanides wrote: > - As Graham says, there's a sunk-cost issue: you're going to prioritize the > stuff you paid for over free stuff since you've already invested resources in > it. Everybody who believes in sunk-cost should learn to play Go, the ancient japanese game. One of the things that you learn playing Go is to let go (pun intended) of resources already spent unwisely when there are better courses of action. Wikipedia has a good introductory article on the subjec "Escalation of commitment": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment -- Luciano Ramalho programador repentista || stand-up programmer Twitter: @luciano
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:24 AM, graham wrote: > 2. It is hard to justify spending time on improving access to free stuff > when the end result would be good for everyone, not just the institution > doing the work (unless it can be kept in a consortium and outside-world > access limited) Why is it hard to justify anything that would be good for everyone? -- Luciano Ramalho programador repentista || stand-up programmer Twitter: @luciano
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
On 5/19/2011 11:01 AM, graham wrote: Replying to Jonathan's mail rather at random, since several people are saying similar things. 1. 'Free resources can vanish any time.' But so can commercial ones, which is why LOCKSS was created. This isn't an insoluble issue or one unique to free resources. You missed my point. The difficulty we have of dealing with the "breaking resources" problem is proportional to the number of vendors/sources we are dealing with. Dealing with 10 or 100 vendors is hard; dealing with 1000s of sources is harder. Ignoring free stuff is one easy way of not having to deal with this. (Not neccesarily an optimal one!). I do not disagree that there are huge advantages to free resources of course! Just trying to analyze some of the practical difficulties, which are not simply irrational prejudices or what have you. Also didn't mean to say that any of the challenges are insoluble or unique to free resources.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
There is no such thing as a zero-cost lunch; but there is such a thing as a freedom lunch. I concur with Karen that (once again) much confusion is being generated here by the English language's lamentable use of the same word "free" to mean too such different things. -- Mike. On 19 May 2011 16:01, graham wrote: > Replying to Jonathan's mail rather at random, since several people are > saying similar things. > > 1. 'Free resources can vanish any time.' But so can commercial ones, > which is why LOCKSS was created. This isn't an insoluble issue or one > unique to free resources. > > 2. 'Managing 100s of paid resources is difficult, managing 1000s of free > ones would be impossible'. But why on earth would you try? There are > many specialized free resources, only a few of which are likely to > provide material your particular library wants in its collection. Surely > you would select the ones you want, not least on grounds of reliability. > And on those grounds (longevity and reliability) you would end up using > Gutenberg in preference to any commercial supplier (not that I'm > suggesting you should)). Selection of commercial resources is done at > least in part by cost; selection of free ones can be done on more > appropriate grounds. > > 3. 'There is no such thing as a free lunch'. Who said there was? But > resources which can be used freely have advantages over ones that can't. > > > Graham > > On 05/19/11 15:44, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: >> Another problem with free online resources not just 'collection >> selection', but maintenance/support once selected. A resource hosted >> elsewhere can stop working at any time, which is a management challenge. >> >> The present environment is ALREADY a management challenge, of course. >> But consider the present environment: You subscribe to anywhere from a >> handful to around 100 seperate vendor 'platforms'. Each one can change >> it's interface at any time, or go down at any time, breaking your >> integration or access to it. When it does, you've got to notice (a hard >> problem in itself), and then file a support incident with the vendor. >> This is already a mess we have trouble keeping straight. But. >> >> Compare to the idea of hundreds or thousands or more different suppliers >> hosting free content, each one of which can change it's interface or go >> down at any time, and when you notice (still a hard problem, now even >> harder because you have more content from more hosts)... what do you do? >> >> One solution to this would be free content aggregators which hosted LOTS >> of free content on one platform (cutting down your number of sources to >> keep track of make sure they're working), and additionally, presumably >> for a fee, offered support services. >> >> Another direction would be not relying on remote platforms to host >> content, but hosting it internally. Which may be more 'business case' >> feasible with free content than with pay content -- the owners/providers >> dont' want to let us host the pay content locally. But hosting content >> locally comes with it's own expenses, the library needs to invest >> resources in developing/maintaining or purchasing the software (and >> hardware) to do that, as well as respond to maintenance issues with the >> local hosting. >> >> In the end, there's no such thing as a free lunch, as usual. "Free" >> content still isn't free for libraries to integrate with local >> interfaces and support well, whether that cost comes from internal >> staffing and other budgetting, or from paying a third party to help. Of >> course, some solutions are more cost efficient than others, not all are >> equal. >> >> Jonathan >> >> On 5/19/2011 9:31 AM, Bill Dueber wrote: >>> My short answer: It's too damn expensive to check out everything that's >>> available for free to see if it's worth selecting for inclusion, and >>> library's (at least as I see them) are supposed to be curated, not >>> comprehensive. >>> >>> My long answer: >>> >>> The most obvious issue is that the OPAC is traditionally a listing of >>> "holdings," and free ebooks aren't "held" in any sense that helps >>> disambiguate them from any other random text on the Internet. >>> Certainly the >>> fact that someone bothered to transform it into ebook form isn't >>> indicative >>> of anything. Not everything that's available can be cataloged. I see >>> "stuff >>> we paid for" not as an arbitrary bias, but simply as a very, very >>> useful way >>> to define the borders of the library. >>> >>> "Free" is a very recent phenomenon, but it just adds more complexity >>> to the >>> existing problem of deciding what publications are within the library's >>> scope. Library collections are curated, and that curation mission is not >>> simply a side effect of limited funds. The filtering process that goes >>> into >>> deciding what a library will hold is itself an incredibly valuable >>> aspect of >>> the collection. >>> >>> Up until very recently, the most important p
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
I wonder if we aren't conflating a diverse set of issues here. - free (no cost) - free and online - free = not peer reviewed - online As Jonathan notes, we already face problems with online materials, even those we subscribe to. And libraries do take in free hard-copy books in the form of donations (although weeding through those is almost not worth the trouble). In addition, there are free materials like government documents (at least in the US) that are considered quite valuable. So it seems like "free" isn't the big issue here, it's management, selection, etc. kc Quoting Jonathan Rochkind : Another problem with free online resources not just 'collection selection', but maintenance/support once selected. A resource hosted elsewhere can stop working at any time, which is a management challenge. The present environment is ALREADY a management challenge, of course. But consider the present environment: You subscribe to anywhere from a handful to around 100 seperate vendor 'platforms'. Each one can change it's interface at any time, or go down at any time, breaking your integration or access to it. When it does, you've got to notice (a hard problem in itself), and then file a support incident with the vendor. This is already a mess we have trouble keeping straight. But. Compare to the idea of hundreds or thousands or more different suppliers hosting free content, each one of which can change it's interface or go down at any time, and when you notice (still a hard problem, now even harder because you have more content from more hosts)... what do you do? One solution to this would be free content aggregators which hosted LOTS of free content on one platform (cutting down your number of sources to keep track of make sure they're working), and additionally, presumably for a fee, offered support services. Another direction would be not relying on remote platforms to host content, but hosting it internally. Which may be more 'business case' feasible with free content than with pay content -- the owners/providers dont' want to let us host the pay content locally. But hosting content locally comes with it's own expenses, the library needs to invest resources in developing/maintaining or purchasing the software (and hardware) to do that, as well as respond to maintenance issues with the local hosting. In the end, there's no such thing as a free lunch, as usual. "Free" content still isn't free for libraries to integrate with local interfaces and support well, whether that cost comes from internal staffing and other budgetting, or from paying a third party to help. Of course, some solutions are more cost efficient than others, not all are equal. Jonathan On 5/19/2011 9:31 AM, Bill Dueber wrote: My short answer: It's too damn expensive to check out everything that's available for free to see if it's worth selecting for inclusion, and library's (at least as I see them) are supposed to be curated, not comprehensive. My long answer: The most obvious issue is that the OPAC is traditionally a listing of "holdings," and free ebooks aren't "held" in any sense that helps disambiguate them from any other random text on the Internet. Certainly the fact that someone bothered to transform it into ebook form isn't indicative of anything. Not everything that's available can be cataloged. I see "stuff we paid for" not as an arbitrary bias, but simply as a very, very useful way to define the borders of the library. "Free" is a very recent phenomenon, but it just adds more complexity to the existing problem of deciding what publications are within the library's scope. Library collections are curated, and that curation mission is not simply a side effect of limited funds. The filtering process that goes into deciding what a library will hold is itself an incredibly valuable aspect of the collection. Up until very recently, the most important pre-purchase filter was the fact that some publisher thought she could make some money by printing text on paper, and by doing so also allocated resources to edit/typeset/etc. For a traditionally-published work, we know that real person(s), with relatively transparent goals, has already read it and decided it was worth the gamble to sink some fixed costs into the project. It certainly wasn't a perfect filter, but anyone who claims it didn't add enormous information to the system is being disingenuous. Now that (e)publishing and (e)printing costs have nosedived toward $0.00, that filter is breaking. Even print-on-paper costs have been reduced enormously. But going through the slush pile, doing market research, filtering, editing, marketing -- these things all cost money, and for the moment the traditional publishing houses still do them better and more efficiently than anyone else. And they expect to be paid for their work, and they should. There's a tendency in the library world, I think, to dismi
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
Replying to Jonathan's mail rather at random, since several people are saying similar things. 1. 'Free resources can vanish any time.' But so can commercial ones, which is why LOCKSS was created. This isn't an insoluble issue or one unique to free resources. 2. 'Managing 100s of paid resources is difficult, managing 1000s of free ones would be impossible'. But why on earth would you try? There are many specialized free resources, only a few of which are likely to provide material your particular library wants in its collection. Surely you would select the ones you want, not least on grounds of reliability. And on those grounds (longevity and reliability) you would end up using Gutenberg in preference to any commercial supplier (not that I'm suggesting you should)). Selection of commercial resources is done at least in part by cost; selection of free ones can be done on more appropriate grounds. 3. 'There is no such thing as a free lunch'. Who said there was? But resources which can be used freely have advantages over ones that can't. Graham On 05/19/11 15:44, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > Another problem with free online resources not just 'collection > selection', but maintenance/support once selected. A resource hosted > elsewhere can stop working at any time, which is a management challenge. > > The present environment is ALREADY a management challenge, of course. > But consider the present environment: You subscribe to anywhere from a > handful to around 100 seperate vendor 'platforms'. Each one can change > it's interface at any time, or go down at any time, breaking your > integration or access to it. When it does, you've got to notice (a hard > problem in itself), and then file a support incident with the vendor. > This is already a mess we have trouble keeping straight. But. > > Compare to the idea of hundreds or thousands or more different suppliers > hosting free content, each one of which can change it's interface or go > down at any time, and when you notice (still a hard problem, now even > harder because you have more content from more hosts)... what do you do? > > One solution to this would be free content aggregators which hosted LOTS > of free content on one platform (cutting down your number of sources to > keep track of make sure they're working), and additionally, presumably > for a fee, offered support services. > > Another direction would be not relying on remote platforms to host > content, but hosting it internally. Which may be more 'business case' > feasible with free content than with pay content -- the owners/providers > dont' want to let us host the pay content locally. But hosting content > locally comes with it's own expenses, the library needs to invest > resources in developing/maintaining or purchasing the software (and > hardware) to do that, as well as respond to maintenance issues with the > local hosting. > > In the end, there's no such thing as a free lunch, as usual. "Free" > content still isn't free for libraries to integrate with local > interfaces and support well, whether that cost comes from internal > staffing and other budgetting, or from paying a third party to help. Of > course, some solutions are more cost efficient than others, not all are > equal. > > Jonathan > > On 5/19/2011 9:31 AM, Bill Dueber wrote: >> My short answer: It's too damn expensive to check out everything that's >> available for free to see if it's worth selecting for inclusion, and >> library's (at least as I see them) are supposed to be curated, not >> comprehensive. >> >> My long answer: >> >> The most obvious issue is that the OPAC is traditionally a listing of >> "holdings," and free ebooks aren't "held" in any sense that helps >> disambiguate them from any other random text on the Internet. >> Certainly the >> fact that someone bothered to transform it into ebook form isn't >> indicative >> of anything. Not everything that's available can be cataloged. I see >> "stuff >> we paid for" not as an arbitrary bias, but simply as a very, very >> useful way >> to define the borders of the library. >> >> "Free" is a very recent phenomenon, but it just adds more complexity >> to the >> existing problem of deciding what publications are within the library's >> scope. Library collections are curated, and that curation mission is not >> simply a side effect of limited funds. The filtering process that goes >> into >> deciding what a library will hold is itself an incredibly valuable >> aspect of >> the collection. >> >> Up until very recently, the most important pre-purchase filter was the >> fact >> that some publisher thought she could make some money by printing text on >> paper, and by doing so also allocated resources to edit/typeset/etc. >> For a >> traditionally-published work, we know that real person(s), with >> relatively >> transparent goals, has already read it and decided it was worth the >> gamble >> to sink some fixed costs into the project. It certainly wasn't a per
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
Another problem with free online resources not just 'collection selection', but maintenance/support once selected. A resource hosted elsewhere can stop working at any time, which is a management challenge. The present environment is ALREADY a management challenge, of course. But consider the present environment: You subscribe to anywhere from a handful to around 100 seperate vendor 'platforms'. Each one can change it's interface at any time, or go down at any time, breaking your integration or access to it. When it does, you've got to notice (a hard problem in itself), and then file a support incident with the vendor. This is already a mess we have trouble keeping straight. But. Compare to the idea of hundreds or thousands or more different suppliers hosting free content, each one of which can change it's interface or go down at any time, and when you notice (still a hard problem, now even harder because you have more content from more hosts)... what do you do? One solution to this would be free content aggregators which hosted LOTS of free content on one platform (cutting down your number of sources to keep track of make sure they're working), and additionally, presumably for a fee, offered support services. Another direction would be not relying on remote platforms to host content, but hosting it internally. Which may be more 'business case' feasible with free content than with pay content -- the owners/providers dont' want to let us host the pay content locally. But hosting content locally comes with it's own expenses, the library needs to invest resources in developing/maintaining or purchasing the software (and hardware) to do that, as well as respond to maintenance issues with the local hosting. In the end, there's no such thing as a free lunch, as usual. "Free" content still isn't free for libraries to integrate with local interfaces and support well, whether that cost comes from internal staffing and other budgetting, or from paying a third party to help. Of course, some solutions are more cost efficient than others, not all are equal. Jonathan On 5/19/2011 9:31 AM, Bill Dueber wrote: My short answer: It's too damn expensive to check out everything that's available for free to see if it's worth selecting for inclusion, and library's (at least as I see them) are supposed to be curated, not comprehensive. My long answer: The most obvious issue is that the OPAC is traditionally a listing of "holdings," and free ebooks aren't "held" in any sense that helps disambiguate them from any other random text on the Internet. Certainly the fact that someone bothered to transform it into ebook form isn't indicative of anything. Not everything that's available can be cataloged. I see "stuff we paid for" not as an arbitrary bias, but simply as a very, very useful way to define the borders of the library. "Free" is a very recent phenomenon, but it just adds more complexity to the existing problem of deciding what publications are within the library's scope. Library collections are curated, and that curation mission is not simply a side effect of limited funds. The filtering process that goes into deciding what a library will hold is itself an incredibly valuable aspect of the collection. Up until very recently, the most important pre-purchase filter was the fact that some publisher thought she could make some money by printing text on paper, and by doing so also allocated resources to edit/typeset/etc. For a traditionally-published work, we know that real person(s), with relatively transparent goals, has already read it and decided it was worth the gamble to sink some fixed costs into the project. It certainly wasn't a perfect filter, but anyone who claims it didn't add enormous information to the system is being disingenuous. Now that (e)publishing and (e)printing costs have nosedived toward $0.00, that filter is breaking. Even print-on-paper costs have been reduced enormously. But going through the slush pile, doing market research, filtering, editing, marketing -- these things all cost money, and for the moment the traditional publishing houses still do them better and more efficiently than anyone else. And they expect to be paid for their work, and they should. There's a tendency in the library world, I think, to dismiss the value of non-academic professionals and assume random people or librarians can just do the work (see also: web-site development, usability studies, graphic design, instructional design and development), but successful publishers are incredibly good at what they do, and the value they add shouldn't be dismissed (although their business practices should certainly be under scrutiny). Of course, I'm not differentiating free (no money) and free (CC0). One can imagine models where the functions of the publishing house move to a work-for-hire model and the final content is released CC0, but it's not clear who's going to pay them for their time.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
On 2011-05-18 20:30, Eric Hellman wrote: Exactly. I apologize if my comment was perceived as coy, but I've chosen to invest in the possibility that Creative Commons licensing is a viable way forward for libraries, authors, readers, etc. Here's a link the last of a 5 part series on open-access ebooks. I hope it inspires work in the code4lib community to make libraries more friendly to free stuff. http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2011/05/open-access-ebooks-part-5-changing.html Here's a post from a Jewish Studies scholar about his own decision to self-publish under a CC license http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/05/changing-world-of-jewish-scholarship.html -- Yitzchak Schaffer
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
My short answer: It's too damn expensive to check out everything that's available for free to see if it's worth selecting for inclusion, and library's (at least as I see them) are supposed to be curated, not comprehensive. My long answer: The most obvious issue is that the OPAC is traditionally a listing of "holdings," and free ebooks aren't "held" in any sense that helps disambiguate them from any other random text on the Internet. Certainly the fact that someone bothered to transform it into ebook form isn't indicative of anything. Not everything that's available can be cataloged. I see "stuff we paid for" not as an arbitrary bias, but simply as a very, very useful way to define the borders of the library. "Free" is a very recent phenomenon, but it just adds more complexity to the existing problem of deciding what publications are within the library's scope. Library collections are curated, and that curation mission is not simply a side effect of limited funds. The filtering process that goes into deciding what a library will hold is itself an incredibly valuable aspect of the collection. Up until very recently, the most important pre-purchase filter was the fact that some publisher thought she could make some money by printing text on paper, and by doing so also allocated resources to edit/typeset/etc. For a traditionally-published work, we know that real person(s), with relatively transparent goals, has already read it and decided it was worth the gamble to sink some fixed costs into the project. It certainly wasn't a perfect filter, but anyone who claims it didn't add enormous information to the system is being disingenuous. Now that (e)publishing and (e)printing costs have nosedived toward $0.00, that filter is breaking. Even print-on-paper costs have been reduced enormously. But going through the slush pile, doing market research, filtering, editing, marketing -- these things all cost money, and for the moment the traditional publishing houses still do them better and more efficiently than anyone else. And they expect to be paid for their work, and they should. There's a tendency in the library world, I think, to dismiss the value of non-academic professionals and assume random people or librarians can just do the work (see also: web-site development, usability studies, graphic design, instructional design and development), but successful publishers are incredibly good at what they do, and the value they add shouldn't be dismissed (although their business practices should certainly be under scrutiny). Of course, I'm not differentiating free (no money) and free (CC0). One can imagine models where the functions of the publishing house move to a work-for-hire model and the final content is released CC0, but it's not clear who's going to pay them for their time. -Bill- On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Andreas Orphanides < andreas_orphani...@ncsu.edu> wrote: > On 5/19/2011 7:36 AM, Mike Taylor wrote: > >> I dunno. How do you assess the whole realm of proprietary stuff? >> Wouldn't the same approach work for free stuff? >> >> -- Mike. >> > > A fair question. I think there's maybe at least two parts: marketing and > bundling. > > Marketing is of course not ideal, and likely counterproductive on a number > of measures, but at least when a product is marketed you get sales demos. > Even if they are designed to make a product or collection look as good as > possible, it still gives you some sense of scale, quality, content, etc. > > I think bundling is probably more important. It's a challenge in the > free-stuff realm, but for open access products where there is bundling (for > instance, Directory of Open Access Journals) I think you are likely to see > wider adoption. > > Bundling can of course be both good (lower management cost) and bad > (potentially diluting collection quality for your target audience). But when > there isn't any bundling, which is true for a whole lot of free stuff, > you've got to locally gather a million little bits into a collection. > > I guess what's really happening in the bundling case, at least for free > content, is that collection and quality management activities are being > "outsourced" to a third party. This is probably why DOAJ gets decent > adoption. But of course, this still requires SOME group to be willing to > perform these activities, and for the content/package to remain free, they > either have to get some kind of outside funding (e.g., donations) or be > willing to volunteer their services. > -- Bill Dueber Library Systems Programmer University of Michigan Library
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
On 5/19/2011 7:36 AM, Mike Taylor wrote: I dunno. How do you assess the whole realm of proprietary stuff? Wouldn't the same approach work for free stuff? -- Mike. A fair question. I think there's maybe at least two parts: marketing and bundling. Marketing is of course not ideal, and likely counterproductive on a number of measures, but at least when a product is marketed you get sales demos. Even if they are designed to make a product or collection look as good as possible, it still gives you some sense of scale, quality, content, etc. I think bundling is probably more important. It's a challenge in the free-stuff realm, but for open access products where there is bundling (for instance, Directory of Open Access Journals) I think you are likely to see wider adoption. Bundling can of course be both good (lower management cost) and bad (potentially diluting collection quality for your target audience). But when there isn't any bundling, which is true for a whole lot of free stuff, you've got to locally gather a million little bits into a collection. I guess what's really happening in the bundling case, at least for free content, is that collection and quality management activities are being "outsourced" to a third party. This is probably why DOAJ gets decent adoption. But of course, this still requires SOME group to be willing to perform these activities, and for the content/package to remain free, they either have to get some kind of outside funding (e.g., donations) or be willing to volunteer their services.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
On 19 May 2011 12:31, Andreas Orphanides wrote: > - I think there's a fear of a slippery slope and/or information overload: How > do you assess the whole realm of freely-available stuff? I dunno. How do you assess the whole realm of proprietary stuff? Wouldn't the same approach work for free stuff? -- Mike.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
Quoting Karen Coyle 05/19/11 1:32 AM >>> > Eric, > > In what ways do you think that libraries today are not friendly to free stuff? > > kc >From my own (rather limited) experience, I think collection developers see >free/open source/open access stuff as a bit of a management challenge: - As Graham says, there's a sunk-cost issue: you're going to prioritize the stuff you paid for over free stuff since you've already invested resources in it. - I think there's a fear of a slippery slope and/or information overload: How do you assess the whole realm of freely-available stuff? How do you prioritize it? How do you ingest it? How do you find the staff energy to maintain all the records? How do you know when to stop? There's also the possibility of drowning out your core collection strengths with material that's irrelevant to your main users, unless you spend a lot of time and energy selecting carefully. - I imagine there's also the lingering perception of getting what you pay for in many minds: it may be perceived that free stuff simply isn't of sufficient quality to include in a high-profile collection. If you do want to vet the free stuff you add to the collection, there's more staff cost. I am sure there are other perceived challenges. I'm curious to see what Eric has to say; he's way more savvy on this kind of thing than I am, that's for sure. -Dre.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
Not replying for Eric but I hope he doesn't mind me butting in too.. As a newcomer to (academic) libraries from a software background, some of the things that first struck me were; 1. The amount of money spent on non-free stuff means it has to be emphasized over free stuff in publicity to try to get the usage to justify the spend 2. It is hard to justify spending time on improving access to free stuff when the end result would be good for everyone, not just the institution doing the work (unless it can be kept in a consortium and outside-world access limited) 3. Bizarre (to me) academic attitudes to free stuff feed through to libraries: many academic seem to feel that wikipedia should be blocked rather than improved, for example. Graham On 05/19/11 06:30, Karen Coyle wrote: > Quoting Eric Hellman : > >> Exactly. I apologize if my comment was perceived as coy, but I've >> chosen to invest in the possibility that Creative Commons licensing is >> a viable way forward for libraries, authors, readers, etc. Here's a >> link the last of a 5 part series on open-access ebooks. I hope it >> inspires work in the code4lib community to make libraries more >> friendly to free stuff. > > Eric, > > In what ways do you think that libraries today are not friendly to free > stuff? > > kc > >> >> http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2011/05/open-access-ebooks-part-5-changing.html >> >> >> On May 18, 2011, at 7:20 PM, David Friggens wrote: >> > Some ebooks, in fact some of the greatest ever written, already > cost less > than razor blades. >>> Do you mean ones not under copyright? >>> >>> Those, plus Creative Commons etc. >> > > >
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
Quoting Eric Hellman : Exactly. I apologize if my comment was perceived as coy, but I've chosen to invest in the possibility that Creative Commons licensing is a viable way forward for libraries, authors, readers, etc. Here's a link the last of a 5 part series on open-access ebooks. I hope it inspires work in the code4lib community to make libraries more friendly to free stuff. Eric, In what ways do you think that libraries today are not friendly to free stuff? kc http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2011/05/open-access-ebooks-part-5-changing.html On May 18, 2011, at 7:20 PM, David Friggens wrote: Some ebooks, in fact some of the greatest ever written, already cost less than razor blades. Do you mean ones not under copyright? Those, plus Creative Commons etc. -- Karen Coyle kco...@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
Exactly. I apologize if my comment was perceived as coy, but I've chosen to invest in the possibility that Creative Commons licensing is a viable way forward for libraries, authors, readers, etc. Here's a link the last of a 5 part series on open-access ebooks. I hope it inspires work in the code4lib community to make libraries more friendly to free stuff. http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2011/05/open-access-ebooks-part-5-changing.html On May 18, 2011, at 7:20 PM, David Friggens wrote: >>> Some ebooks, in fact some of the greatest ever written, already cost less >>> than razor blades. > >> Do you mean ones not under copyright? > > Those, plus Creative Commons etc.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
>> Some ebooks, in fact some of the greatest ever written, already cost less >> than razor blades. > Do you mean ones not under copyright? Those, plus Creative Commons etc.
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
Do you mean ones not under copyright? On 5/17/2011 3:16 PM, Eric Hellman wrote: Some ebooks, in fact some of the greatest ever written, already cost less than razor blades. Eric (who just finished writing a chapter on open-access e-books) On May 16, 2011, at 7:52 PM, Luciano Ramalho wrote: 1) Why quote the ebook price in 1962 dollars? The reality in 2011 is that Kindle books in general are too expensive, particularly when comparing their cost with the paper counterparts (think about variable costs in paperbacks, logistics etc; it is pretty obvious the cost reductions are not being fully reflected in consumer prices). Given the current situation, I see no evidence that ebooks will cost less than razor blades, ever. Eric Hellman President, Gluejar, Inc. http://www.gluejar.com/ e...@hellman.net http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/ @gluejar
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
Some ebooks, in fact some of the greatest ever written, already cost less than razor blades. Eric (who just finished writing a chapter on open-access e-books) On May 16, 2011, at 7:52 PM, Luciano Ramalho wrote: > 1) Why quote the ebook price in 1962 dollars? The reality in 2011 is > that Kindle books in general are too expensive, particularly when > comparing their cost with the paper counterparts (think about variable > costs in paperbacks, logistics etc; it is pretty obvious the cost > reductions are not being fully reflected in consumer prices). Given > the current situation, I see no evidence that ebooks will cost less > than razor blades, ever. Eric Hellman President, Gluejar, Inc. http://www.gluejar.com/ e...@hellman.net http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/ @gluejar
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
On 17 May 2011, at 11:18 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > On 5/16/2011 7:52 PM, Luciano Ramalho wrote: >> > And then we need to consider the rise of the Kindle. An ebook costs >> > about $1.60 in 1962 dollars. A thousand ebooks can fit on one device, >> >> 1) Why quote the ebook price in 1962 dollars? The reality in 2011 is >> that Kindle books in general are too expensive, particularly when > > Yeah, how much did a paperback book cost in 1962? 50 cents? $1? I wasn't > alive then, but I bet $1.60 is expensive in 1962 dollars! I usually use one of two inflation factors (the economists use a larger basket): a) what did that house have cost me then? b) what would I have earned on minimum wage then if I wasn't in a job that supplied room and board? In US, minimum wage in 1962 was $1.15/hour; in 2009 it was $7.25 (x6.3). I wish paperbacks had only inflated at that rate Local to where I am, the houses that in 1962 were offered for $12,000 go now in the $360,000 range (x30) That's actually not far off what I'm seeing for some of the "thicker" paperbacks this year. Walter Lewis
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
It's obvious, isn't it? 1962 was the Best. Year. Ever. And it's all be downhill since then. :) --Joel On May 17, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Keith Jenkins wrote: > I always get suspicious when an author converts current prices into > 1962 dollars for no apparent reason, and without explanation. > > Keith > > > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Roy Zimmer wrote: >> I think 50 cents would be right in the ballpark. My earliest scifi >> paperbacks cost me that much, mid-60's. >> >> Roy Zimmer >> Waldo Library >> Western Michigan University >> >> >> On 5/17/2011 11:18 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: >>> >>> On 5/16/2011 7:52 PM, Luciano Ramalho wrote: > And then we need to consider the rise of the Kindle. An ebook costs > about $1.60 in 1962 dollars. A thousand ebooks can fit on one device, 1) Why quote the ebook price in 1962 dollars? The reality in 2011 is that Kindle books in general are too expensive, particularly when >>> >>> Yeah, how much did a paperback book cost in 1962? 50 cents? $1? I wasn't >>> alive then, but I bet $1.60 is expensive in 1962 dollars! >>
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
I think the 1962 dollars and the razor blades point both serve to paper over the main problem with the argument: Netflix is not free, and libraries are not driven by profit motive. On 5/17/11, Keith Jenkins wrote: > I always get suspicious when an author converts current prices into > 1962 dollars for no apparent reason, and without explanation. > > Keith > > > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Roy Zimmer wrote: >> I think 50 cents would be right in the ballpark. My earliest scifi >> paperbacks cost me that much, mid-60's. >> >> Roy Zimmer >> Waldo Library >> Western Michigan University >> >> >> On 5/17/2011 11:18 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: >>> >>> On 5/16/2011 7:52 PM, Luciano Ramalho wrote: > And then we need to consider the rise of the Kindle. An ebook costs > about $1.60 in 1962 dollars. A thousand ebooks can fit on one device, 1) Why quote the ebook price in 1962 dollars? The reality in 2011 is that Kindle books in general are too expensive, particularly when >>> >>> Yeah, how much did a paperback book cost in 1962? 50 cents? $1? I >>> wasn't >>> alive then, but I bet $1.60 is expensive in 1962 dollars! >> > -- Matt Amory (917) 771-4157 matt.am...@gmail.com
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
On 5/17/11, Keith Jenkins wrote: > I always get suspicious when an author converts current prices into > 1962 dollars for no apparent reason, and without explanation. > > Keith > > > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Roy Zimmer wrote: >> I think 50 cents would be right in the ballpark. My earliest scifi >> paperbacks cost me that much, mid-60's. >> >> Roy Zimmer >> Waldo Library >> Western Michigan University >> >> >> On 5/17/2011 11:18 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: >>> >>> On 5/16/2011 7:52 PM, Luciano Ramalho wrote: > And then we need to consider the rise of the Kindle. An ebook costs > about $1.60 in 1962 dollars. A thousand ebooks can fit on one device, 1) Why quote the ebook price in 1962 dollars? The reality in 2011 is that Kindle books in general are too expensive, particularly when >>> >>> Yeah, how much did a paperback book cost in 1962? 50 cents? $1? I >>> wasn't >>> alive then, but I bet $1.60 is expensive in 1962 dollars! >> > -- Matt Amory (917) 771-4157 matt.am...@gmail.com
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
I always get suspicious when an author converts current prices into 1962 dollars for no apparent reason, and without explanation. Keith On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Roy Zimmer wrote: > I think 50 cents would be right in the ballpark. My earliest scifi > paperbacks cost me that much, mid-60's. > > Roy Zimmer > Waldo Library > Western Michigan University > > > On 5/17/2011 11:18 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: >> >> On 5/16/2011 7:52 PM, Luciano Ramalho wrote: >>> >>> > And then we need to consider the rise of the Kindle. An ebook costs >>> > about $1.60 in 1962 dollars. A thousand ebooks can fit on one device, >>> >>> 1) Why quote the ebook price in 1962 dollars? The reality in 2011 is >>> that Kindle books in general are too expensive, particularly when >> >> Yeah, how much did a paperback book cost in 1962? 50 cents? $1? I wasn't >> alive then, but I bet $1.60 is expensive in 1962 dollars! >
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
I think 50 cents would be right in the ballpark. My earliest scifi paperbacks cost me that much, mid-60's. Roy Zimmer Waldo Library Western Michigan University On 5/17/2011 11:18 AM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: On 5/16/2011 7:52 PM, Luciano Ramalho wrote: > And then we need to consider the rise of the Kindle. An ebook costs > about $1.60 in 1962 dollars. A thousand ebooks can fit on one device, 1) Why quote the ebook price in 1962 dollars? The reality in 2011 is that Kindle books in general are too expensive, particularly when Yeah, how much did a paperback book cost in 1962? 50 cents? $1? I wasn't alive then, but I bet $1.60 is expensive in 1962 dollars!
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
On 5/16/2011 7:52 PM, Luciano Ramalho wrote: > And then we need to consider the rise of the Kindle. An ebook costs > about $1.60 in 1962 dollars. A thousand ebooks can fit on one device, 1) Why quote the ebook price in 1962 dollars? The reality in 2011 is that Kindle books in general are too expensive, particularly when Yeah, how much did a paperback book cost in 1962? 50 cents? $1? I wasn't alive then, but I bet $1.60 is expensive in 1962 dollars!
Re: [CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
Mike, thanks for the link to Seth's excellent post. I do take issue with this paragraph, though: """ And then we need to consider the rise of the Kindle. An ebook costs about $1.60 in 1962 dollars. A thousand ebooks can fit on one device, easily. Easy to store, easy to sort, easy to hand to your neighbor. Five years from now, readers will be as expensive as Gillette razors, and ebooks will cost less than the blades. """ I own a Kindle and like it very much, but that sounds like Amazon.com PR. My points: 1) Why quote the ebook price in 1962 dollars? The reality in 2011 is that Kindle books in general are too expensive, particularly when comparing their cost with the paper counterparts (think about variable costs in paperbacks, logistics etc; it is pretty obvious the cost reductions are not being fully reflected in consumer prices). Given the current situation, I see no evidence that ebooks will cost less than razor blades, ever. 2) "easy to hand to your neighbor", sure, if you dont't mind being without your entire collection, or if you have several spare Kindles (but you are limited to sharing books among just a few Kindles). The whole point of DRM is to hinder sharing anything with your neighbor. 3) I totally support librarians pushing for ebook lending solutions, and not only for the sake of the future relevance of libraries, but because I want to have better options for sharing my ebooks with my friends (actually, anyone who does not live in the US cannot lend Kindle ebooks at this time; meanwhile Amazon.com is very happy selling them to us via "free" 3G). Otherwise, a great post. Cheers, Luciano On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Mike Taylor wrote: > Seth Godin is not a library professional -- he's a marketing guru with > a string of best-selling books and a blog that manages to be both > insightful AND brief on an astonishingly consistent basis. > (http://sethgodin.typepad.com/ -- highly recommended). So he's > outside the library world, looking in, and has a track record of > seeing far and clear. > > Which means he's probably worth paying attention to when he writes > about The Future Of The Library, as he does in the newest post on his > blog: > > http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/05/the-future-of-the-library.html > > To summarise: "The library is a house for the librarian ... [Kids] > need a librarian more than ever (to figure out creative ways to find > and use data). They need a library not at all ... We need librarians > more than we ever did. What we don't need are mere clerks who guard > dead paper." > > -- Mike. > -- Luciano Ramalho programador repentista || stand-up programmer Twitter: @luciano
[CODE4LIB] Seth Godin on The future of the library
Seth Godin is not a library professional -- he's a marketing guru with a string of best-selling books and a blog that manages to be both insightful AND brief on an astonishingly consistent basis. (http://sethgodin.typepad.com/ -- highly recommended). So he's outside the library world, looking in, and has a track record of seeing far and clear. Which means he's probably worth paying attention to when he writes about The Future Of The Library, as he does in the newest post on his blog: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2011/05/the-future-of-the-library.html To summarise: "The library is a house for the librarian ... [Kids] need a librarian more than ever (to figure out creative ways to find and use data). They need a library not at all ... We need librarians more than we ever did. What we don't need are mere clerks who guard dead paper." -- Mike.
