Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

Anne Klinefelter <aklinefe[_at_]law.miami.edu> wrote:
>
> Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 16 Aug 1998, Anne Klinefelter <aklinefe[_at_]law.miami.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > To divert the exchange for a moment... I agree with the assertion
> > > that a purpose of libraries is to provide a preservation and access
> > > role, particularly for material which publishers and bookstores are
> > > no longer or not easily providing. If a local library does not own
> > > a copy of the title sought, that local library is permitted to try
> > > to borrow it from another library on behalf of the local patron.
> > >
> > > This purpose of libraries, though, is threatened by the trend
> > > towards licensing rather than sale of material and by the
> > > uncertainty of long-term readability of various technologies now
> > > used for publication. The shift away from the book and the
> > > increasing irrelevance of the first sale doctrine mean consumers
> > > may not be able to rely on libraries for access to some
> > > "out-of-print" publications in the future.
> >
> > Interesting. The "access not ownership" has been advocated mainly
> > by library organizations like the Association of Research Libraries.
> >
> > I have always felt it was adopted as the lesser of two evils, the
> > other course being to oppose university management and the science
> > bureaucracy.
>
> My understanding is that "access not ownership" was a battle cry
> formulated several years ago to encourage libraries to share among
> themselves or to band together to form consortia which could purchase
> materials for the member libraries to share. Yes, this was a choice
> of the lesser of evils when budgets were tightening, publication was
> increasing, and the costs, particularly of scientific journals, were
> skyrocketing.
>
> However, "access" to material owned by a library or by libraries is
> very different from "access" to digital material not sold, but rather
> licensed for specified uses by specified persons for a certain period
> of time. Such licenses can leave the publisher as the only entity
> legally able to preserve such publications.

There is a real problem with the "Access not ownership" approach in that the economics of it are formulated entirely from the library's perspective. There was a fashion for library consortia to set up consortia union catalogues and cancel any duplicate subscriptions: result, a major saving which on paper should offset the administrative costs of maintaining inter-library photocopy supply services between members of the consortium. However from the journal publisher's perspective these cancellations result in the costs of each volume being shared amongst a smaller number of subscribers - yet another upward push on subscription prices. The digital environment with site licences, often negotiated by consortia, allows more flexible pricing models which avoid this problem. That said, most current pricing models for site licences are very crude (typically, current journal expenditure in exchange for the whole of a publisher's repertoire).

-- 
Edward Barrow
edward[_at_]plato32.demon.co.uk