[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Response from Ted Bergstrom to Ann Okerson

I want to call attention to the last two sentences of Karl's reply.

The view he expresses is perfectly reasonable if one is buying
recreational material for oneself. But libraries buy for their community--
and the buy to support not just the recreational needs but the information
needs. If they are academic libraries, they buy to support the information
needs of research and teaching, primarily but not exclusively of their own

I do not see that a rich community has greater information needs than a
poor community (public or academic). I do not see how it is in the public
interest that different groups get differential access to information on
the basis of expense.

Some goods are not appropriately provided for by the free market. (And I
think this is compatible with a view that "capitalism"  is in general the
fairest, best or most productive way of pricing most things. )

We do have alternatives for information provision-- that's Open Access,
which is at least potentially within our capabilities.

Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Karl Bridges
Sent: Fri 11/11/2005 5:07 PM
To: Peter Banks
Subject: Re: Response from Ted Bergstrom to Ann Okerson

I don't see it as a conspiracy.  I just wonder why an activity is
proscribed in one forum, but allowed in another?  Personally, I don't have
a great problem with publishers.  Either you can afford what the market
price for a product is or you can't.  It's called capitalism.

Karl Bridges