Fw: If electronic is to replace paper

["Sally Morris" <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>]

What I intended to refer to was the additional cost of unnecessary
duplication by libraries - I should have put this more clearly.  And in no
way was I suggesting that publishers were better than libraries (on the
whole, I'd think many, if not all, were worse for this) - simply that it
was better done in a more centralised way, with adequate redundancy but
not more.

Sally

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rick Anderson <rick_anderson@uncg.edu>
>To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
>Date: 23 November 1999 01:09
>Subject: re: If electronic is to replace paper
>
>
>>
>>> Preservation is both difficult and expensive.  It therefore makes no
>>> economic sense for libraries to undertake it individually.
>>
>>I'm concerned by Sally's "therefore."  Libraries have always engaged in
>>difficult and expensive work, including preservation.  The fact that
>>preservation of electronic information is and probably always will be both
>>difficult and expensive does not, in itself, mean that libraries are unfit
>>for the task either individually or collectively.  Most publishers, I'm
>>pretty certain, are no better funded than most libraries.
>>
>>> Contined access is a matter of licensing.
>>
>>Actually, it's a matter of both licensing AND preservation.  There's no
>>point negotiating license terms for continued access if that access hasn't
>>been made physically (er... metaphysically?) possible.  No preservation,
>>no access.
>>
>>----------------------
>>Rick Anderson
>>Head Acquisitions Librarian
>>Jackson Library
>>UNC Greensboro
>>1000 Spring Garden St.
>>Greensboro, NC 27402-6175
>>PH (336) 334-5281
>>FX (336) 334-5399
>>rick_anderson@uncg.edu
>>http://www.uncg.edu/~r_anders