Libraries Reject Google/MS free offers and pay OCA for freedom instead
OfflineFrom slashdot:
"The Internet Archive, whose main claim to fame is the Wayback Machine, designed to archive the internet's web history, has created a new project: the Open Content Alliance. It's purpose is to open the nation's library collections to universal web search.
A number of major library systems, including the Boston Public Library and Smithsonian, have refused to sign up with competing ventures by Microsoft and Google because they do not provide for universal access to digitized books.
These commercial ventures prohibit books being accessed by competing search engines. So far, 80 libraries and research institutions have signed on with Open Content Alliance.
They must pay for the scanning of their books while Google and Microsoft offset that cost for their participating institutions."
I'm not surprised at this, fond memories of the European Conference on Digital Libraries in Roma, 2002, include a very strong impression that openness and sharing figure highly with collection keepers.
Collections are jealously guarded, it's not just the collector mentality, you can make an archivist cry by mentioning the Library of Alexandria. This protective instinct traditionally restricted the openness of collections, access to the one and only copy of anything is a hair-raising risk.
It was quickly realised that the Internet offered the long dreamed of solution. Keep original manuscripts under lock and key and climate control, and let the whole world see the digital copy. As work began it was quickly apparent that interoperability was a major challenge, digital collections were often islands unto themselves. Enter the Open Archives Initiative and standards like Dublin Core, when I dipped my toe in the pond in 02 these were well understood and accepted by the community.
The library community are savvy. Even small fry among their many thousands command huge digital collections. Scrolls, books, music scores, paintings, newspapers, magazines, radio, tv, cinema, endless publications from artists, governments, universities, research labs and the list just goes on and on, information dating from antiquity going digital by the petabyte.
Imagine yourself as a librarian in charge of manuscripts and books dating back to 1100AD. You've seen the records of access written by all the librarians who kept it safe before you, most written with quill and ink. You too will have to be careful about granting access but you'll be the first one in history with the opportunity to make a digital copy available to the world. Google and Microsoft offer to digitise at no charge but they'll restrict access for commercial gain. Would that arrangement do justice to the collection, it's creators, it's keepers, and it's hopeful users, or would you see it as a betrayal?
Copyright © 2004 - 2008 Libervis Network - Some Rights Reserved :: Advertise :: Privacy Policy :: Contact :: Search Engine Optimisation by Blogstorm
I think it's a betrayal. Information belongs to everyone, I think, and must be unrestricted to be valuable.
I had my own little "battle" with my library about restricting information by offering DRM-encumbered downloads.
The two interesting parts are:
http://www.foreverdean.info/kevin/index.php/2007/09/02/frederick-county-public-libraries-in-need-of-free-software/
and
http://www.foreverdean.info/kevin/index.php/2007/10/11/frederick-county-library-the-official-responce/
reply quote
Of course it would be betrayal and it's good to hear that there are libraries who genuinely care about the preservation of heritage and culture for everyone equally and without foolish corporate intervention.
Good will always be done when people work out of a genuine concern for what they work with rather than concern for money.
My Memeverse | My Music | Libervis promo video | Help spread the word
reply quote
As you probably guessed I'm also for unencumbered access.
Re. FCPL, the email and response are interesting, do I sniff an opportunity there to go up against these "vendors" and give librarians what they want?
reply quote
I got the distinct impression from Elizabeth Cromwell that they dislike DRM BUT that the library would rather meet the needs of the people demanding downloadable content than advocate for the end of DRM and not meet those people's needs.
This indicates a few problems to me... Firstly, like most government organizations in the US, they are given a limited amount of money and have to use that money to meet the needs of the most people - there are more people clamoring for content (even restricted content) than calling for the end to DRM.
She made it very clear that the FCPL is not an advocacy organization, which seemed very clear that their resistance to DRM goes about as far as "We don't like it, here's your money". It saddens and angers me that tax dollars are going there.
It also indicates to me that we need to reach more people. I've discussed DRM with a LOT of people but frankly, even the people who get it right away would RATHER put up with it than go without the content. Or more rare, but probably pretty common, people who would rather "pirate" it than fight to get it in a legal way.
Under that sadness, though, is a very clear tone: DRM hurts libraries, and hurting libraries hurts a community.
reply quote
Post new comment