[659] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
Publishers vs libraries and ILL
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cindy Goldstein)
Thu Jul 2 10:45:20 1992
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1992 09:41:20 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
From: Cindy Goldstein <LB04ILF@MUSIC.TCS.TULANE.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
A library director friend sent me a copy of a mailing he received
from a group called the Association of American Publishers, Inc. It
is a five page "Statement of the Association of American Publishers
(AAP) on Commercial and Fee-Based Document Delivery". In short it
is a declaration of war on libraries providing in house 'photocopy
on demand' services and/or participating in organized resource
sharing efforts. The following are excerpts from this document:
"The problem today is that the advent of post-1976 technologies --
fax machines, computer networks, low-priced scanners and CD-ROM's -
- has facilitated the interlibrary delivery of photocopies of
articles and chapter-length excerpts from books and generated
services focussed on this conduct. Some facilities have begun to
charge service fees for providing the copies while not paying
royalties to publishers because the copying is, according to them,
'interlibrary loan and permissible under the CONTU guidelines.'
However, as stated above, this copying is far beyond that permitted
under CONTU and therefore, may be done only with permission of
copyright holders."
"Additionally, librarians have vigorously promoted 'resource
sharing' which amounts to nothing less than the Senate's third
example of forbidden coordinated subscription buying to 'save
money' by filling patron needs from source libraries. This copying
and document delivery far exceeds the scope of interlibrary
'lending' contemplated by Congress or CONTU in permitting
interlibrary loan arrangements under the proviso. When the push
for resource sharing and the development of consortia are combined
with the new networks and even the existing inter-university
network (Internet), one sees a formula for the erosion of
publishing revenues in this country, from: (1) lost book and
journal subscription sales, (2) lost royalty income from licensing,
and (3) lost new product opportunities. The revenue base that now
supports publishing relies on multiple opportunities to exploit a
product such as income from sales, subscriptions, and licenses.
The interlibrary copying without permission and other nonauthorized
document delivery denies the copyright owner its rights under the
law."
The document contains a review of the development of copyright law
in this country with excerpts from pertinent passages which the
group feels support their contention that libraries share resources
to 'save money' rather than buying all the resources each of them
should have to fill the bulk of their patrons' needs. I am not an
expert on copyright law, so I won't even comment on what libraries
are or are not doing to abide by it.
However, it should come as no surprise to anyone that libraries do
engage in resource sharing simply because the price of journals has
gone thru the roof, and no library can afford to buy everything
their patrons need. God knows, librarians would love to be able to
do that, but library budgets have never been so generous that that
was ever a possibility (not in my 20 year career). When a
library's journal budget is $200,000 one year and it gets hit with
a 10% increase ($20,000) the next year, and the following year 10+%
of the $220,000, ($22,000),etc., etc. The cumulative effect is
what all of us are experiencing - the inability of our institutions
to fund acquisitions at an ever increasing rate - simply to
continue to stand still. Consequently, we drop title after title
and spend more and more for less and less.
If organized resource sharing grinds to a halt, as I assume AAP is
advocating, then it seems to me that traditional library journal
subscriptions as we know them would cease to exist. The 'just in
case' versus 'just in time' debate would come to a screeching halt.
You would see the further proliferation of commercial document
delivery services being subsidized by our meager acquisitions
budgets. The current situation in which we receive physical issues
in hard copy would be replaced with full text on CD's or online in
some kind of pay as you go arrangement. Each time an article was
accessed, printed, downloaded, etc., the library would incur a
charge, part of which would go back to the copyright holder
(publisher). Granted, there are already commercial document
delivery services that provide articles in just this way, but I
don't think anyone knows what the cost of such a program would be
if implemented on a large scale.
I'd be interested in hearing your ideas on this situation. Who
received the same document? My library did not so I have no idea
how widely it was distributed. If anyone did not get one and would
like a copy, I'll be happy to send you a copy (a poor copy from a
fax). Or if there is a lot of interest, I might just type the
thing and send it out on the list.
Cindy Goldstein
Tulane University Medical Center Library
1430 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112-2699
(504) 587-7317
(504) 587-7417 (FAX)
LB04iLf@MUSIC.TCS.TULANE.EDU
