March 10, 2006
Discussion Thread for Publishing Panel
Please share your feedback on this panel.
Posted by kimballs at March 10, 2006 04:20 PM
BeDell & Wise: They're pounding on the commonalities, equating what librarians & publishers do -- as though the publishers' financial motives don't change everything. What is half-baked argumentation like this doing at a serious academic symposium? Isn't it kind of insulting of the publisher reps to ask librarians to accept this as a serious position?
Posted by: nonesuch at March 10, 2006 04:24 PM
There seems to me a tangle of ironies (which I'm not sure I can untangle)in Suzanne Bedell’s criticism of Google Print for Libraries and her championing of the TCP as a preferable model (and I’m a big fan of the TCP). She said that publishers don’t do mass digitization – but the TCP is built upon Proquest’s EEBO and EEBO is possible because Proquest/UMI engaged in mass filming (which bears a strong family resemblance to mass digitization) – of public domain content to which they now effectively control the rights.
Posted by: mbonn at March 10, 2006 04:27 PM
Dan Greenstein says we need trusted third party archives to guarantee the preservation of our digital content. So, how do we put the trust in trusted third party archive? What kind of organization would be the honest broker here?
Posted by: mbonn at March 10, 2006 04:38 PM
I give this panel credit for presenting some alternate views to this particular crowd. Specifically, Wise's caveat about the potential risks of one single company holding a monopoly in this process.
Posted by: email@example.com at March 10, 2006 05:07 PM
... and Dan Greenstein made the same caveat early in his follow-up comments, and Tim O'Reilly did even in his talk.
Posted by: kshawkin at March 10, 2006 05:12 PM
I am curious about the metadata standards and groups that Alicia Wise mentioned. Can someone direct me that?
Posted by: firstname.lastname@example.org at March 10, 2006 07:04 PM
Contractual stipulations requiring access in perpetuity, provision of files back from Google to the libraries housing the texts digitized, and academic forces gathering to collectively demand sensible copyright reform outside of the echo chambers of academia and in the public arena and in the halls of congress are three basic methods of ensuring that a "trusted third party" is not a concern.
Of course, two of the three seem far more likely than the third...
Posted by: ebassey at March 10, 2006 07:12 PM
I am glad to see nonesuch's comment, because I was afraid I was just being churlish about this panel. I understand the position that BeDell is coming from, and while I disagree, I thought her presentation was somewhat reasonable. But I can totally understand how one of the questioners (Bob Frost?) misunderstood her position on DRM, because her place on the panel was just a perfect storm of a terrible PowerPoint presentation and a confused and confusing talk.
Posted by: sooty at March 10, 2006 07:16 PM
Oops, two-year-old clamoring for attention and distracting me. That last sentence was referring to Wise's piece of the panel.
Posted by: sooty at March 10, 2006 07:19 PM
A few years ago, my wife and I attended an estate sale here in Ann Arbor. The deceased was a hoarder: a man who collected old books and papers in his tiny house.
Among the things on offer were bound Ann Arbor newspapers from the late 19th century. He had salvaged them, we were told, from the loading dock of Bell & Howell -- the people responsible for the previous microfilming efforts. When they had microfilmed the newspapers, they pitched them.
I've had opportunity to try to use the microfilmed newspapers. As an end user: They suck.
I'm glad I found that fellow found those newspapers and kept them in his attic, and that I was able to buy a few of them myself. Because I can scan them and save the content. Bell & Howell (ProQuest's predecessor) botched the job, and pitched the originals.
Not a way to win points, in my book.
Posted by: wtozier at March 10, 2006 09:28 PM
I would really have liked this panel to have included representation from some truly controversial sector--a rep from Elsevier, for example. DeBell's presence was a nod, perhaps, in this direction, but she doesn't bear the mantle of the market forces who likely do oppose mass digitization projects. A real discussion and debate on this (though, as Dan G. noted, things have improved, largely due to the strong efforts of librarians) would have been very interesting.
Posted by: email@example.com at March 11, 2006 08:34 AMLogin to leave a comment. Create a new account.