On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 Peter Picerno <ppicerno@NOVA.EDU> wrote:

> I would imagine that Rick can do away with the fire-retardent apparel (it's
> too hot to be wearing all that gear, anyway!) since some of the concepts he
> expresses are worthy of consideration. I'd like to address a couple of them:
>
> Archiving has been as expressed: until the advent of e-publishing, it was
> the provenance of libraries. The fact of the matter remains that if it were
> not for the dread site-license, it could (and would) still be the provenance
> of libraries, except that there has been no model worked out for this.
> Publishers won't presently allow it. I think that part of that reason is
> that we, in the USA, do not have a national library which would be a very
> likely place for such a project to reside in terms of a funding source and a
> centrally accessible set of servers. Things like Project Muse and JSTOR show
> us a glimmer of what such a model could be, but these projects exist at
> institutions of higher learning and while they are both extremely valuable,
> they cannot begin to cover many of the bases for archiving journal
> literature for all disciplines and from various publishing sources, nor can
> their funding sources extend that far. In addition to the consideration of
> details such as servers, access, and such, the little detail of copyright
> enters into this discussion in a big way ... especially when one considers
> the digital copyright complications. It *would* be possible to negotiate
> some sort of comprimise which would permit the sort of archiving which Rick
> envisions, but it would mean that libraries, publishers, authors, and
> lawmakers would all have to drop their historically-based ideas and opinions
> and look towards a future which none of those groups has been prepared (or
> possibly even willing) to consider.

        Librarians, too, should reassess their position on
        copyright and resource sharing. As soon as 'fair
        use' and the plain paper photocopier gained
        acceptance in the late 1960s,library funding took a
        nose dive. Any number of self-sacrificing librarians
        bought into resource sharing as the salvation of
        higher education profitability. Moreover, budets
        were slashed in advance of any proof that resource
        sharing would adequately serve library patrons.

        Not only were collections sacrificed. I believe
        many Serialst readers old enough to remember the
        1960s might testify that the status and career
        opportunities for academic librarians that once
        existed have also taken a tumble. And just look
        what's happened to some library schools.

        As I see it, copyright has saved more jobs and
        collections than it has harmed.

        Best wishes,

Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1532@compuserve.com>