Stephen Joyce might not allow digitization, but others will...
Libraries are bifurcating, currently with much overlap, into,
a) digital collections & services, purveying texts qua
texts alone, image "texts" included, i.e. regardless of
the "support"; and,
b) book & paper collections & services, which are more
concerned with traditional books and archival
collections, i.e. paper and film and other older "supports".
The French already call text-alone "documentation", and the other
"bibliothéconomie"... Evidence of the trend may be found in UK &
US and most other large libraries, as well: consider any of the
new "offsite storage facilities" -- giant modern warehousing, out
in inexpensive suburbs, to which the "80/20 rule" little-used
collection increasingly goes, for preservation & restoration &
bottom-line-budgeting purposes... and for *safeguarding*... keep
those grubby user-fingers off the precious & expensive books...
Copyright will have to bend until it breaks, to accommodate these
trends: because too many of its own customers, nowadays --
libraries and authors and publishers -- have no other
cost-effective alternatives left which can compete with digital.
Already, traditional copyright concerns are "chilling" a great
deal of online publication: things don't get published digitally
-- meaning far less hurt, though, to those who would publish
digitally than it does to those who hold the copyrights. So if
Mr. Joyce and other copyright-holders refuse digital publication,
they simply won't get published much. That won't last.
Jack Kessler, kessler@well.com
ps. E.Levin: And libraries need not pay for the publishing:
publishers will, just as before. For now Google Inc. is a
publisher, and others will follow. Copyright which does not
accommodate the changes will rob authors of income, and bankrupt
publishers: so ultimately the almighty $ will change copyright.
All this is pace Mr. Joyce, who apparently does not need the $.
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, S. COX wrote:
> But, if they are working with 20th century materials, they
> almost always would need the permission of the copyright
> holder, and almost always it would be refused. I doubt that
> Stephen Joyce would allow the digitization of his grandfather's
> letters, which are heavily used through all holding
> repositiories.
>
>
> ---Shelley Cox
> Emerita, SIUC
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "s cheiner" <drscheiner@YAHOO.COM>
> To: <EXLIBRIS@MAIL.ECW.NAME>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [EXLIBRIS] Old-Fashioned Definition of "Wrong" (was Mr.
> Smiley's lawyer)
>
>
> >I am not sure mass digitization is so impossible if
> > the international library community is involved.
> > Gates/Google et al want to do this as a commercial
> > venture. We already have had list members give links
> > to outstanding digital libraries that are accessible
> > on-line. The Gutenberg project has word processed the
> > texts of many books - some rare or scarce.
> > A complete, central registry of digitized books is a
> > first step. Patrons can be made to pay for the
> > digitizing. When in the past I ordered microfilm from
> > the British Library I paid one fee if the book had
> > already been copied onto a master microfilm and a
> > higher fee if it had not.
> > The most fragile items can be digitized using a
> > digital camera, which I find much faster than
> > scanning.
> > The question is, are libraries willing to do this,
> > even if they receive a royalty each time an item they
> > digitized is used? Every journey starts with a single
> > step, and a single step by 100,000 libraries adds up
> > to a considerable distance.
> > C.J. Scheiner
> >
> >
> > --- Edward Levin <edwardlevin@HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> >> Very few (if any) libraries have the financial resources to
> >> scan or microfiche all of their rare materials, if indeed
> >> this could even be done without risking damage to their more
> >> fragile materials.