| Previous by Date |
Index by Date
Threaded Index |
Next by Date |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Thread | Next by Thread |
Re: Electronic Resources and ILL
One of the pressing issues in this debate is that we all have to operate in
the present of ILL and these new licences restricting ILL rights in some
electronic journals has to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Certainly
here in Australia the percentage of journals delivered electronically is low
and many libraries are still dependent on supply of items from their larger
colleagues. So please debate the future but in the meantime see if we can
convince the licence owners to be lenient and let us provide ILL from their
e journals.
Tony Arthur
Associate Librarian, Customer Services
University of Melbourne Library
Phone: 61 3 9344 4414
Fax: 61 3 9347 7243
email t.arthur@lib.unimelb.edu.au
At 09:00 PM 9/07/97 -0400, you wrote:
>
>As someone who has been involved with ILL and resource
>sharing for more than twenty years, I find the recent "post-ILL"
>thread to be both fascinating and timely. I'd like to thank
>Scott Wicks for raising the following "dumb" question to
>get things started: "Should we still care about ILL for
>electronic products?"
>
>We all (librarians, publishers, etc.) talk about how paradigms
>are shifting with the continued reliance on electronic resources
>and yet, at the same time, we all seem to want to impose old
>structures on new paradigms. This "post-ILL" thread is a case
>in point. All too often, librarians and publishers alike seem to
>take a "we are right and they are wrong" stance on this and
>similar questions.
>
>Because there are librarians, publishers, vendors, aggregators
>and copyright folks on LIBLICENSE-L, I feel that this is a
>logical forum for discussion of this issue. I would like to see
>us all work together to come to some sort of agreement
>whereby no one is reasonably denied access to information
>that they need, and no publisher/vendor/aggregator is denied
>reasonable compensation for information that they might
>provide. The key word here, of course, is "reasonable".
>
>I guess I'd like to issue this as a challenge to LIBLICENSE-L
>subscribers. Can we come up with a paradigm that does not
>penalize library users OR publishers/vendors/aggregators, but
>rather BENEFITS all those concerned?
>
>I think we can.
>
>Bernie Sloan
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Bernie Sloan
>Senior Library Information Systems Consultant
>University of Illinois Office for Planning & Budgeting
>338 Henry Administration Building
>506 S. Wright Street
>Urbana, IL 61801
>Phone: 217-333-4895
>Fax: 217-333-6355
>e-mail: bernies@uillinois.edu
|
http://www.library.yale.edu/liblicense © 1996, 1997 Yale University Library |
Please read our Disclaimer E-mail us with feedback |
|