• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

Collaboration Seeks to Provide Easier Access to E-Books

February 28, 2011, 6:41 pm

The steady growth of e-books has forced libraries to contend with how to curate and distribute materials in a way that makes them easy for increasingly technology-oriented patronage to access.

Some 150 public and academic libraries are trying to respond to that challenge through a new collaboration with the Internet Archive and Open Library. The arrangement will allow library patrons at participating institutions to access e-books owned and stored at libraries other than their home libraries. Brewster Kahle, founder and digital librarian at the Internet Archive, says the group has come up with a solution in which “the tech doesn’t suck” and “everyone will get paid.”

The collaboration will use Open Library, an existing e-book lending service, as a means to curate the more than 80,000 e-books that partner institutions have offered up as part of the initial push, Mr. Kahle says. Open Library allows users to check out an e-book that can be read through a Web browser or downloaded as a PDF or ePub file. After an allotted checkout period, the e-book self-destructs.

Most of the titles now available as part of the collaboration are works from the 20th century, but as the effort moves forward, the collaboration will place a greater emphasis on purchasing newer materials. Mr. Kahle says, for now, the group’s motto is “Buy what we can; scan the rest.”

Recently, some publishers have expressed concerns that e-books, because they are immune from the wear-and-tear of traditional print books, might undercut profits if circulated without limits. Mr. Kahle believes that libraries have long ago dealt with that problem by simply paying more for some titles than do individual buyers. He said the collaboration is working with publishers, such as Cursor and OR Books, to create more amicable agreements that allow for the purchase and distribution of e-books.

Though most of the libraries in the collaboration are public, Mr. Kahle says, he believes academic libraries will benefit from being able to share the vast materials in their research collections.

Judith Russell, dean of university libraries at the University of Florida, has worked with Mr. Kahle before in an effort to digitize some of the materials in Florida’s libraries. She says that since 82 percent of her budget for new acquisitions is now devoted to digital materials, any effort to better curate and share them is welcome. “We are all watching to see it mature, to see how it grows and expands,” she says of the new collaboration.

Florida’s initial offerings to the collaboration will be brittle books: books in which the “paper has deteriorated to the point that they can’t be handled” but that contain information that is still valid for students and faculty members, Ms. Russell says.

Mr. Kahle explains that the kind of knowledge found in such works is especially relevant for public-library users pursuing genealogy. “Lots of people are interested in research collections; people don’t just want the latest monograph,” he says.

So far, Mr. Kahle says, he has received lots of positive reactions from users, but he remains cautious: “I don’t know if this will blossom,” but it is a step in the right direction, he says.

This entry was posted in Libraries, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • http://www.writessay.com Essay Writer

    E-books really provide better relief when making assignments or personal resource. Hope they will come up with better ways to make e-books more accessible. http://www.writessay.com

  • http://twitter.com/Brad_Norwood Brad Norwood

    I did not fail to notice that 1 minute after Border’s declared bankruptcy, Amazon increased the average price of Kindle book downloads by $3.00; Amazon is a shark waiting for bookstores to close their doors, so they can double their prices on Kindle downloads!!!
    I won’t buy anymore!
    My library provides free book downloads, audio and visual.

  • jmdeisler

    @ Brad Norwood (et al.) Did you notice that Borders’ e-book prices also went up at around the same time that Borders declared bankruptcy and Amazon’s prices went up? I know this simply because I was comparison shopping around then and discovered that some prices were higher at Borders than at Amazon. I wondered if maybe Borders didn’t have the clout to get the prices lower. My understanding is that the higher prices are publisher-set, and now that there was a court ruling that producers of goods can set prices (and can refuse to sell to retailers who undercut those prices), the world of retail pricing has changed.

    That said, it doesn’t seem right that e-books are selling for higher than physical books in many cases. While e-books don’t get worn down in the same way physical books do, they also cost little to produce, once the text has been created, and nothing to transport. I hope this collaboration bears fruit and that more and more e-books (including newer books) become available for loan. It would really help those of us who live far from larger research libraries.

  • rmelton5

    Brad – What your library provides is definitely not free–not to the library, that is, and thus not to you as a taxpayer or tuition payer.

  • bobraxton

    My interest in e-Book is for a primary school in East Africa in a subsistence “farming” community “in the bush” where a family may live on $250 or less per year. We have begun One Laptop Per Child deployment which is tough where Internet access which goes for $200 in the rest of the world costs perhaps four times that much for comparable pipeline / capacity.

  • ssaulvolk

    Evil? As for anti-democratic, you might take a look at the current Republican administration in the state. As the Cleveland Plain-Dealer recently reported: “If you wanted to talk
    with Ohio’s treasurer [Josh Mandel], you’d have to buy a ticket — $500 to $2,500 was
    the advertised price — and do your business in private.” See you at the polls in November (unless, of course, the Ohio legislature continues to devise ways to prevent voters from voting).

  • jffoster

    Not germane.  Some other evil does not make the kind we were talking about OK.

  • grizzlyinohio

    Foster is wrong on several counts. Most faculty unions are not “union shops.” You don’t have to join though at many you have to pay “fair share” fees for the services you are provided and for the work the union does for you. Member or not, the union works for you. The faculty unions were created by democratic votes and they operate democratically. As such, they are perfect institutions at the university for giving voice to faculty concerns. More importantly, without the faculty unions, faculty senates would have no teeth. Witness the actions at Idaho State where the administration has dissolved the faculty senate. And another silly idea is that unions have no place with public employers. In the real world, modern universities have adopted the corporate model in which property management and profit making are paramount. Unions defend academic freedom, shared governance, and the instructional mission of the university. The charter university strategy combined with the crushing of unions will create institutions that have all the academic integrity of a Burger King.

  • grizzlyinohio

    We Ohio faculty are actively campaigning against Senate Bill 5. We are speaking and carrying a big a stick as we can. These Republicans have created this budget problem through irresponsible and sweeping tax cuts, such as a 21 percent cut to the state income tax that has been a windfall to the wealthiest Ohioans. And as far as fearing Kasich, the most recent polls shows him with an approval rating of about 33 percent and it is exactly because of this kind of silly legislation.

  • jffoster

    If one has to pay “fair share” fees for services one did not vote for nor request, that’s damned near a union shop — certainly an onion shop.  I’d vote to make Ohio a right-to-work state.

  • jffoster

    “And another silly idea is that unions have no place with public employers.”

    Were George Meany and Franklin Delano Roosevelt silly?

  • 22108469

    Good list. Parties were always hard for me, and now that I don’t drink anymore I find that cleaning up messes, getting refills for others, and being the unofficial coat check clerk works pretty well.

  • henry_adams

    “You’ll find other introverts when you step outside
    to decompress?  True, but not really the place where someone will be happy to
    see you.”

    I disagree.  Many introverts are perfectly happy to chat with one other person, preferably another introvert.  But houses crowded with extroverts, roaring and hooting like howler monkeys and expecting all other human beings to enjoy roaring and hooting like howler monkeys?  That exhausts introverts.

    Henry Adams

  • cronicao

    Find out in advance when the party will take place and make plans to be out of town.

  • http://twitter.com/patriciasbowne Patricia S. Bowne

    These are good tips, but I question the premise. I don’t think it is either socially or politically important to be seen at holiday parties. Wiser for those of us without administrative ambitions to put that effort and time into creating our own personal social networks, that will be there for us when the job is over.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/LM-Umpierre/100003030773202 LM Umpierre

    They can be challenging but if you just go with no expectations just for the pleasure of company and looking for nothing else just to make people feel happy about themselves and you feel that you belong. My two cents.

  • owens

    My objective at such an event is to get a picture of someone (who ranks above me of course) doing something embarrassing.  Used effectively this method can expedite personal career goals faster than traditional methods!

  • cosmo10

    This is absolutely true for me (an introvert).

  • dank48

    If they’ve had enough to drink that they’re saying meaningless things, their feelings won’t be hurt when you leave them alone. They probably wouldn’t notice if you burst into flame.

  • htate

    How sad. I really don’t think you have to pretend to be the house help or dog walker to have a good time at a party.  And really? Eavesdropping on your drunk colleagues from the kitchen?.  Not cool. Have a drink and compliment an introvert on whatever s/he is wearing, which will probably be probably be a red sweater vest.  Before long you’ll be hooting like howler monkeys and actually having a good time.

  • procrustes

    Many would apply the same criticisms to Obama, who sometimes appears as little more than warmed over Bush.  It is astounding how little attention Bush’s economic policies (or lack of them) received in this article.  Bush inherited a surplus and strong employment.  Eight years later we were in near economic collapse.  While he certainly was not responsible for the whole situation (every administration since Reagan contributed in its own unique way to making that debacle), Bush II did nothing to help and much to exacerbate the problems.

  • crunchycon

    Are you negating the effect of 9/11?  Were it not for the way Bush handled it, the country could have been put into a deep depression.  There were terrible economic consequences to the near collapse of the air industry, with effects rippling throughout the economy.  Apparently, the intervening years have dimmed (or should I say dulled) memories. 

  • crunchycon

    Not that I am defending Bush’s policies in his second term.  The last three years of his second term were anything but fiscally conservative — seemed more like a lib was in office, in fact.

  • pianiste

    That’s a new one for me: Bush’s handling of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 prevented a depression. Economic, I assume, and not a psychological one.

    I’m still working on us being attacked by Saudis who trained in Pakistan causing Bush to attack Iraq in response. That there was no palpable connection between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaeda is now indisputable and the only argument is whether the Bush Administration outrightly faked “intelligence” “proving” there was, or whether it was just incompetent in getting and evaluating intelligence. Doubtless, heating up the economy (a chicken in every pot! a Hummer in every garage!) with a costly war that was put on the national credit card, “prevented” a recession. Way to go.
     

  • cwinton

    The first President I paid any attention to was Eisenhower, and I think I can say that he, and those who have followed him, with the glaring exception of GWB, all had accomplishments I would identify as positive from my own observations of their stewardship.  Although it is too soon to pass judgment on Obama, it is ironic that he can claim credit for bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice, making good on a vow GWB apparently abandoned in favor waging preemptive war, something our country had taken pains to avoid previously.  GWB’s legacy is the Patriot Act, a Supreme Court that thinks corporations are afforded the same rights as individuals under the Constitution, a Presidency that started with a surplus and ended with an enormous deficit and near economic collapse, a doctrine of preemptive war, a system of governance far more polarized than he found it, significant loss of credibility abroad, and let’s not forget the mess he made of FEMA and other government agencies that had previously performed well.  It is particularly disingenuous to cite his obligation to “preserve, protect, and defend” since that was the one thing that he showed promise for after 9/11, only to make a mess of it by pursuing his agenda for Iraq and the rest of the Middle East (presumptively to establish democracy, although it would be hard to ignore Cheney’s hatred for Saddam, and then there was Iraq’s oil wealth and the Bush family ties to big oil).  The ineptness of his administration was all the more evident in its open speculation that Iraq would be but the first domino, revealing an incredible ignorance of the internecine conflicts that have plagued the region for centuries, dating from historic animosity between Sunni and Shia.  It’s hardly a rush to judgment for GWB when the more we reflect on his administration, the worse he looks.

  • quacker

    That’s rich!  Obama “can claim credit for bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice, making good on a vow GWB apparently abandoned in favor waging preemptive war … .”   And just how do you think Obama obtained the intelligence that eventually led to Bin Laden’s demise?  That intel was pieced together over several years, a small tidbit at a time, from numerous sources, most especially Gitmo detainees.  

    Far from abandoning his vow, Bush doggedly pursued the interrogation techniques for which he was so heavily criticized by Obama and his cronies.  To give Obama all the credit and Bush none for getting Bin Laden is just WRONG. Obama is disingenuous when discounting the importance of Gitmo in taking out Bin Laden (notice that Gitmo is rarely mentioned anymore, yet still operates just like in the Bush years).  I applaud Obama for having the chutzpah to OK the operation that took out Bin Laden.  I have NO doubt that Bush would have done the same, had he still been in office. 

  • betterschool

    I appreciated this article. Some of the partisan bickering below and surely to follow show why we need to wait a decade or so before attempting to wrap up our analysis. 

  • jsibelius

    I have long maintained that Bush is certainly not the “worst president ever” as people are so fond of saying.  We Americans simply have short memories.  I heartily agree that we need perspective before coming to a conclusion.  Four years isn’t enough time to show the success or failure of a presidency.  I think for many years Eisenhower wasn’t very popular with southern voters over integration in Little Rock.  LBJ still gets very little acknowledgement for advances in education and civil rights that happened on his watch, overshadowed as he is by the legacy of Vietnam.  On the other hand, I suspect Andrew Jackson was pretty heavily congratulated for his efforts to end the nation’s “Indian problem.”  I’m sure he’d be vilified today for even thinking of such things – as he should be.  The national opinion poll does not represent a president’s effectiveness.  Only time and objective observation does that.

  • bsmilwaukee

    One less partisan or less passionate way to assess Presidents is by their re-election or lack of it.  The voters do not tend to reward failed Presidents with another term– should they seek it.  And few Presidents fail to seek re-election.  Off-hand Polk is the only then-living President I can think of who decided after one term that he had had enough.  By measuring this way, I saw Presidents I did not support in the “successful” camp and others I did in the “failed” camp.  An interesting guide to self-reflection, perhaps.

  • rsgassle

    Reread your recent history. From 1945 to 1983 the deficit as a % of GDP fell consistently, even under liberal presidents. Only under the conservative Ronald Reagan did that trend reverse itself, and then again under the conservative Bush II. 

  • 11290894

    Oh dear….defending GWB is sort of silly.  History will judge, not an arm-waiving book by one of his buddies!  To Mr Knott I’ll simply say Not. 

  • James Stagg

    Bush’s adversaries (and they are legion) will continue to demonize him, just like the Demo’s did to Lincoln.  Then someone like BO comes along and claims ole Abe for himself, and suddenly, “everything is okay; Abe is one of the ‘great’ ones.”

    Grow up, you guys, and stop passing illiterate judgments before you actually have the facts.  When you do, you will see your Messiah, the great BO, uses ALL of the methods GWB did, but gets NO criticism for it, not even killing American citizens, which even GWB was not accused of doing.  And you call yourselves “historians” and “objective”.  Just “goofy” in your arguments will suffice.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KQ5AHUMCV2YCEDMVZCZJVJWVNI spidey_man

    William Shirer, author of “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” starts his Forward by appologizing to his fellow historians for writing a historical view of the Third Reich only 15 years after its demise. Fifty years ago it was thought to write history with less than 30 to 40 years to be able to completely document and understand an era was to be a rush to judgment. 

    The modern era, with the illusion of massive amounts of information, lives under the possibly flawed assumption that everything you need to know about anything is available immediately.  With more information however comes the fog of disinformation.  We live in a 24/7 news cycle where red-light bulletins are measured in seconds, and the need to be first overrides the need to be right.

    The final story on W, like Harry Truman, will be when misinformation is omitted and information is contempleted, and we are far enough away from the canvas to see the entire painting. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KQ5AHUMCV2YCEDMVZCZJVJWVNI spidey_man

    Respectfully, we have never had a surplus.  The three years you mention were balanced on the surplus of Social Security collections, which both politicians and citizens both agree are for the payment of Social Security benefits.  The closest we got was in 1998, when without the SS payments we had a deficit of around 150 billion.

    The greatest political failure, which can be abscribed to both Democrats and Republicans, was using this surplus to mask the greater failure the United States has had in balancing its budget. 

  • tom27

    I hope none of the anti-Bush commentators below are academics, because their remarks, particularly on Bush’s invasion of Iraq, display a painful ignorance. In 2008, the first compilation of translations from Saddam’s secret police showed a level of involvement with world terrorism which justified the invasion of Iraq far more than an invasion of Afghanistan. Saddam funded, supplied and trained most of the terror networks throughout the world, including affiliates of Al Qaeda. Typically, The New York Times devoted two paragraphs in the back pages to the story but they didn’t refute the facts of the findings.

    Afghanistan was merely Osama’s landlord, charging rent to allow him to stay. Iraq was using his oil money to keep terrorist entities alive throughout the world. When doing battle with a stateless enemy, controlling real estate is less important than going after the bankers. 

    We have stupidly abandoned Iraq too early, possibly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and certainly making any reaction to Iranian nuclear weaponry – whether a peaceful or belligerent reaction – infinitely more difficult. Meanwhile, we will stay mired in Afghanistan uselessly, spending blood and treasure just to prop up the election chances of the current occupant of the White House.

    The stupidity of the political and media elites is the direct result of America’s academic elites. America produces the stupidest smart people in the world. It doesn’t have to be that way.

  • Synopticist

    In foreign policy terms, the period 2000-2008 would be best desribed as “the Vice-Presidency of Dick Cheney”.
     There was a week (i think) in 2004, when things were slipping out of control in Iraq, we Brits sent a high powered delegation to Washington to try to get some sort of grip over events on the ground. This was supposedly highly planned and co-ordinated. Tony Blair sat on George. The British foreing secretary spoke to Colin Powell,( or Maybe it was Rice) the defence secretatry to Donald Rumsfeld (?), the MI6 bloke spoke to the head of the CIA. They thought they’d covered all the bases.The delegation left, extremelly satisfied, thinking they’d got what they wanted, more decisive, political coalition control over the slowly unfolding chaos in Iraq.

    A few weeks went by, and the US annouced a totally different policy to the one Tony Blair thought he’d squared with Bush. It was described as “coming from a completelly unexpected direction.” It was Cheney who had made the key decision, and he’d been basically ignored by the Brits.

     These guys were top British politicians and intel people. They thought they truly understood US politics, and in a sense they were right. Had it been Obama, Clinton, Bush the Elder, Reagan or even Carter, there was no way a highly powered delegation, on a matter of such foeign policy  importance, would have needed to speak to Mr Vice. Why bother with a pitcher of warm spit?

    But this was President  ”W”, and he wasn’t the guy who made Iraqi policy..

    Now i cant remember all the details of this visit, or even the year it took place, but i’m sure the author of this book knows the event i’m referring to.

     Bush wasn’t stupid, or particularly wicked, but he was LAZY,and that meant he gave his subordinates too much power. Cheney over foreign affairs and taxes, Rove over domestic policy, Rumsfeld in Iraq, ( not to mention Paul Bremer, what a lightwieght), FEMA, the SEC, the list goes on. Delegation is one thing, but it was Bush who had the ultimate responsibility for the poor decisions made by his delegates, and to be a great leader, you need the grit and determination to steer them in the right direction, and the grip to keep them there.

    The relentless demamds of a high powered political job in the 21st century are like little else. 
      Bush just wasn’t willing to keep his nose to the grindstone, put in the hard hours, and just WORK DAM**D HARD for 8 years. How can a guy spend 3 months on the ranch every year, and go to bed at 9.pm, while still being a great President?

  • jsibelius

    I won’t necessarily disagree with you about transfer of power, but I will vehemently disagree with you about LAZY.  Maybe it was possible once upon a time, but certainly not in the past 50 years.  The president does not get vacations and he does not get days off.  Even when he spent long stretches at his ranch, he was working.  He got daily briefings, signed off on various things that needed it.  Most of us mortals can take a vacation and actually shut off work.  The president never gets that option.  And I wonder how many times he got called back into work at 2 a.m. over a “situation.”  Compare – how often does that happen to you? (IT people and emergency services – we know, and we appreciate you for it!)

    Couple that with the fact that Bush was a recovering alcoholic, and I’d say trying to de-stress was vital to his ability to do his job.  If that means a 9 pm bedtime and extensive – what do you call them? – “vacations,” I say sweet dreams and happy trails.  Eight years in office and we are still here.  We didn’t implode and we didn’t fall off the planet.  Time to move on.

  • stefanstackhouse

    I don’t know if W was the absolute worst President, but he has clearly earned a place in the bottom tier.

    I was suckered once by the lies about a “humble foreign policy” and “compassionate conservativism”, but I sure wasn’t suckered twice. The man was an absolute disaster for the nation, and I don’t know if we’ll ever recover from the damage he caused.

  • d_reamy

    I gather from the article that scholarship money is at the heart of this.  The school gives you an education in return for your commitment to play there.  This is a problem that D-III schools and players don’t really have.  So I would add that the scholarship money and any other stipulations should become a “contract” just like the pros.  The player and the school can negotiate based on that and a courting school can “buy out” or negotiate a new contract.   

  • ggurney

    Institutions should not restrict their athletes from transferring in any manner.  They currently are treated as chattel and universities are intent on protecting the interests of their celebrity coaches.  So long as college athletes are quasi-professionals and not students, they should be freed from their bondage.  Coaches freely break their contracts with the university.  If a player has met his eligibility requirements at the university, he should be free to leave and receive a scholarship to whatever university he wishes.  The APR points is nothing more than an NCAA manufactured mirage to shape public opinion that they treat athlete academic achievement seriously.  For more ideas regarding transferring, see   http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2012/03/22/essay-urges-reforms-how-college-sports-programs-recruit-athletes.

  • jroane

    NCAA scholarships are contracts. Most are one year renewable for up to usually 4 years, more in certain situations, medical redshirt, for example.  The problem is that the University has all the leverage, the athletes can’t have representation to bargain for them. There’s no one representing the athletes at any of the NCAA meetings. Of course, the college Presidents and ADs will say that they represent the athletes but of course their number one responsibility is the school’s bottom line, not the athlete’s bottom line. Presidents and ADs can’t represent both the University and the athlete because what’s good for the “U” may not be in the best interest of the athlete.  For example, the addition of a 12th regular season football game. This helps provide more revenue for universities but exposes the athlete to more injuries and allows less time for academics. The college football season has expanded from 10 to 12 games but there has been no adjustment to the scholarhsip for football players. Even the idea of paying full need was shot down.

  • Socratease2

    No, scholarship money is not the issue, if a player leaves school to transfer that contract ends and his money is simply given to then next one-and-done wonder,  what motivates schools to restrict transfers is fear and greed.

  • Socratease2

    What the hell does a student’s current 2.6 gpa have to do with APR? Absolutely nothing. A student-athlete earns 2 APR points at the end of every quarter/semester. One for being retained by the university as “a student in good standing” and the other for being eligible to compete. A 2.0 gpa is the cut-of for eligibility (though NCAA starts freshmen at 1.8 for eligibility and moves up from there) so a 2.6 gpa obviously provides that APR point. Any internal rules stipulating a 2.6 gpa for transferring are capricious and arbitrary. Anti-trust laws don’t apply here but they should.

  • libwitch

    NCAA division 1 schools send a FAR rep to their meetings – who yes, are faculty, but  should (and generally) do a good job representing the student-athlete interest – at least in that they generally are not looking at the bottom line. 

  • sparty43

    Can someone ask Mr. Barnes his take on SMU’s new basketball coach, Larry Brown’s, initial moves on taking over the program and kicking kids out of the basketball program?  While the school offered to provide the players with scholarships, why does the NCAA not see these people (like Coach Brown and other athletic administrators) are the ones teaching the kids that this approach to treating people like this is okay?  It doesn’t even matter if you are committed to the school, the program and a good student.  One day the old coach or the new coach, may not like you anymore.  Heaven forbid, a student-athlete may feel the same!  While I believe the rule was originally set up to prevent coaches from pilfering players from other programs, it should be reconsidered and written with limitations.

  • glenthomas

    It was probably 40 years ago when I first heard the comparison: The only difference between professional athletes and Division I athletes is how they get paid.  Whether the “scholarship” money or the campus’ prestige is the issue, it’s the money that creates the leverage.  The difference in policy with Division III gives that away.