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

ReL If electronic is to replace paper

Sally Morris of ALPSP writes:
From: "ALPSP" <sec-gen@alpsp.org.uk>
To: "Liblicense" <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Subject: Re: If electronic is to replace paper
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 07:01:32 -0000

By 'therefore' I meant to refer to the additional cost of unnecessary
duplication - 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 they were worse for this) - simply that it was better done in a more
centralised way, with adequate redundancy but not more.


-----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