Re: ALA Panel on Perpetual Access - seeking input

[Peter Hirtle <pbh6@cornell.edu>]

At 04:24 PM 1/14/2009, Ann Okerson wrote:

Dear Readers:  Let's say that you were invited to be a panelist 
on the ALA panel on Perpetual Access, Sunday, Jan. 25, 4-5:30 pm 
at Hyatt Regency Denver, Capitol Ballroom Let's further say that 
as a librarian and a well informed member of the scholarly 
information chain, you hope to offer 10 or so minutes of measured 
and important comments and insights about this topic.

What are the key points that you think such a panelist ought to 
make? Ann

****

Two points to make:

Frst, I think most librarians now realize that we made a bad, bad 
mistake when we gave up our ownership rights and instead accepted 
the principle that publishers could license content to us rather 
than sell it to us. Perpetual access is one way of trying to 
correct our previous mistake and to ensure that we retain at 
least one of the rights that first sale afforded us.

Second, I would want to stress that for librarians, perpetual 
access is different than a guarantee that the product will 
continue to be offered. I am sure that Elsevier thinks that in 
this age of the Long Tail, they will be offering their database 
products long after some libraries have gone out of business. 
And that is an important service on one on which libraries rely. 
But for librarians, perpetual access means not only a guarantee 
that we can continue to consult material even if the publisher's 
business model changes.  It also means the assurance that content 
hasn't changed or altered. Publishers needs and archival needs 
are different in this regard (and it is one area where I even 
have problems with services like PORTICO that must follow the 
dictates of publishers).

Best,

Peter B. Hirtle
Senior Policy Advisor
Scholarly Resources and Special Collections
Cornell University
peter.hirtle@cornell.edu