[738] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
What's Going on Here?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Public-Access Computer Systems For)
Tue Jul 14 14:42:00 1992
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 13:30:32 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
Moderators' Note: The LITA version of the PACS Review is an
annual publication only.
-----
2 Messages, 128 Lines
*----
Subject: Re: What's Going on Here?
From: Joan Eslinger <wombat@kilimanjaro.key.amdahl.com>
David Tyckoson worries that the print availability of PACS-L, the
print-only availability of the next edition of Zen, and recent goings-on
in Chile all spell the death of the networks. I contend that the print
availability of PACS-L is just the opposite, though the other two issues
are real problems. I'm a computer programmer who's been using Internet
and Usenet for ten years now, and these issues are not by any means new.
One of the most widely respected mailing-list/net.groups among computer
people is the RISKS forum, moderated by Peter G. Neumann at SRI. For
several years he has also published the best articles in the Association
for Computing Machinery's SOFTWARE ENGINEERING NOTES, a regular print
journal. (The forum is also available via FAX now.) I don't think the
print availability has in any way detracted from the on-line version.
And back when most colleges and universities weren't connected, it was
something the computer science departments could point to as
justification for connecting - to get all of RISKS as it was happening
(instead of just parts of it a few months later) and to get the
opportunity to contribute and correspond with other contributors (all of
whom provided e-mail addresses but few of whom provided more
conventional contact methods). The computer science departments already
knew some of the real values of networks, but they had to have something
concrete to show the beancounters.
I think the library community can use PACS-L the same way, to show
out-of-it librarians and administrators that computer networks are a
valid, useful thing and By the way, when are we going to get our
computer connected to this network and When will there be a terminal or
workstation on every librarian's desk so we can ask our own questions
out there? If they say "you're getting the print version, what more do
you want?" emphasize the immediate, interactive nature of the electronic
version. If you get only the print version, you have to wait for someone
else to bring up issues of interest to your library and then hope others
will make all the points you would have made. Once you're connected, the
old-fashioned administrators can continue reading the print version but
now and then they'll see something someone on their staff wrote. That's
bound to help justify it to them.
As for libraries who are already getting the PACS-L journal
electronically, why would they stop just because they can get part of
it, weeks or months later, and have to pay for it?
On to Zen and the Art of the Internet. This kind of thing has been
happening with computer software for years. Often someone will write a
neat new program and distribute it free or as shareware. If the package
is popular, the author may invest more time and effort in subsequent
releases, until deciding it may be good enough to sell. At that point
the old versions are usually still available on networks but the new
version isn't. David said "I hope that this publication of ZEN is not an
indication of future privatization of the Internet." From what I've
seen, it's getting worse every year as more different kinds of groups
discover networks, start contributing small things to them, start
thinking about how to make money off of it.
The real problem here is that our laws aren't prepared to deal with
technology that lets anyone inexpensively copy something that took real
time and effort on someone's part to produce. We also have business
structures (text and software publishing industries) that will fight
very hard if/when we try to eliminate them. There is a lot of unrest in
the intellectual property area and I hope librarians are getting
involved in the discussions.
I don't know if the library community realizes this, but many of the
builders and shapers of the technology are of a libertarian bent and
will design pay-as-you-go into the systems they build unless outsiders
influence them otherwise. An example is the new American Information
Exchange (AMIX) service, where people post information (computer
software, books, articles) with descriptions and prices, and those who
download have their accounts debited immediately. This kind of thing is
very seductive for information producers. Suppose you have a very
specialized piece of software that that took you a week to write but
only 1000 people in the world would be interested in. With the current
networks the choices are to not produce the software, or to give it away
over the Internet or similar network, or try to find someone who really
needs it and is willing to pay you for the full week. With AMIX the
author can offer it for $50 per copy and if 10% of those interested buy
it, the guy has made $5000 for a week's work. I don't know what the
policies of AMIX or the authors are toward libraries.
Chile is another problem. The lessons on the use of computers during the
breakdown of the Soviet Union obviously were not lost on the Chilean
government.
There's certainly enough to be worried about out there.
*----
From: "Peter Graham, Rutgers U., (908) 932-2741" <GRAHAM@ZODIAC.BITNET>
Subject: Re: What's Going on Here?, Part II
From: Peter Graham, Rutgers University
As so often there are some assumptions buried in the original complaint that
need to be brought out (Stu Weibel has helped on that):
1. "The network is free now and this is the golden age": The network costs
an enormous amount but we individual users don't happen to be paying for it.
At Rutgers we pay dues and fees for our Internet connection of $40,000 per
year; for Bitnet(CREN) something over $6,000. Each gateway (physical box--
e.g. Cisco) costs $10-24,000. Pulling cable costs a lot. The networking
staff to keep the institutional networks going and install new ones cost
over half a million a year. NSF is subventing the backbone at many tens of
millions a year.
It's rather like library service; it's not free. That doesn't mean that we
should charge for the services (the emotion level about not charging per
packet in the network community is just as high as the emotion level about
fees for services in the library community). It does mean that as services
get charged for they need to be analyzed on a case by case basis and not with
a knee-jerk reaction to the charges.
2. "Politicians in their most harmful guise: Governments...are going to make
us pay." From my notes above I hope it's clear that at the moment government,
both state and federal, are paying for a good deal--and it is politicians that
ultimately make that happen. Don't throw the baby out with the bath.
3. "The network is democratic and print is elite." Some thought will, I hope,
make clear that it is a technological white male educated elite who are
benefitting from the enormous subsidized value of electronic means of
communication at this point, and print remains a way of publicizing and making
available materials to the widest possible audience. We *want* electronic
communication to become pervasive, but let's not self-indulgently fool our-
selves that we are there yet--or that "we" are the people, the demos. We
are the elite, folks.
--Peter Graham
