OT Muir journal collection digitized

On Dec 1, 11:24 am, Willi wrote:
When is everything at a library going to be digitized and available to
patrons online?

Everything? Never. See this excellent article (online! :-) by
Anthony Grafton from a recent New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...a_fact_grafton

(he also has an online-only selection of his favorite web resources
he

http://www.newyorker.com/online/2007...neonly_grafton)

I usually shy away from words like "never" but even Google hasn't (and
probably won't) put a dent in digitizing the printed record, let alone
keep up with what is currently published (and "published"). Let alone
usefully make it available. (I do, however, think Google Books is a
pretty cool idea.)

Our libraries in Colorado have made a bit of progress in this regard,
they have a good selection of audio books available (2000+ titles) for
download with a time limit and copy protection. I think is great. You
download the book and transfer it to a MP3 player (but not an IPOD) or
listen to it on your computer for a two week period.

DRM at work. They don't work on iPods because they use Windows DRM.
I've never actually used any of those from my public library because
the restrictions are just so foolish.

There are also some ebooks available, but they are very limited.
Personally, what I'd especially like to see are the online availability
of scientific journals.

Most are, including deep archives, but if you mean "online
availability of scientific journals from my living room" then the
answer is economics won't allow it, at least not now. Tim has pointed
out some of the issues. You should be able to access many online if
you darken the doorway of the library at Colorado State. We see
independent researchers at our place every day.

Bill

wrote:
On Dec 1, 11:24 am, Willi wrote:

When is everything at a library going to be digitized and available to
patrons online?


Everything? Never. See this excellent article (online! :-) by
Anthony Grafton from a recent New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...a_fact_grafton

(he also has an online-only selection of his favorite web resources
he

http://www.newyorker.com/online/2007...neonly_grafton)

I usually shy away from words like "never" but even Google hasn't (and
probably won't) put a dent in digitizing the printed record, let alone
keep up with what is currently published (and "published"). Let alone
usefully make it available. (I do, however, think Google Books is a
pretty cool idea.)

When I said "everything", I didn't mean EVERYTHING. I understand the
immensity of digitizing all the printed books in the world, but it seems
to me that all new works could easily be made available in digital form.


It's a much easier task to create, hold and distribute an electronic
copy, than print, house and distribute a printed book. Today "all"
books/articles etc. are written on a computer and are already in some
digital format of one type or another. Converting them into a PDF or
some other adopted standard would be extremely easy. It would be far
easier and cheaper to maintain and distribute digital information than
maintaining a brick library or if held by a brick and mortar library, it
could be done with little extra cost.



DRM at work. They don't work on iPods because they use Windows DRM.
I've never actually used any of those from my public library because
the restrictions are just so foolish.


(I understand DRM. My comment was a just dig at IPODS, and Microsoft)
Maybe the specific protection scheme is cumbersome, but I don't
understand why you think it is foolish. It is a system for information
that is covered by copywrite. You don't own the information you
download, you just "borrow" it, like you do now when you check out a
book at a library.


I figure it's resistance from authors, publishers etc that keeps this
from happening. The music industry, with alot of kicking and screaming,
has made/is making this transition. IMO, this change has expanded the
variety of music available instead of relying on "the industry" to pick,
not the best music, but the music they feel will make them the most
money. I think it's a logical step for the "printed" word. The only
reason that this change hasn't been "forced" by the public (like it was
with music) is that there isn't YET a way to read these digitized words
that is as easy and satisfying as using printed media.


That's how I look at it but I'm sure I'm missing some salient points.

Willi

Willi wrote:

I figure it's resistance from authors, publishers etc that keeps this
from happening. The music industry, with alot of kicking and screaming,
has made/is making this transition. IMO, this change has expanded the
variety of music available instead of relying on "the industry" to pick,
not the best music, but the music they feel will make them the most
money. I think it's a logical step for the "printed" word. The only
reason that this change hasn't been "forced" by the public (like it was
with music) is that there isn't YET a way to read these digitized words
that is as easy and satisfying as using printed media.


That's how I look at it but I'm sure I'm missing some salient points.

Publishers and authors in all the various media are always suspicious
and fearful of change, and for good reason. It threatens to dilute the
value of their intellectual property. Whether they're justified in these
fears or not, the fact is that their interests as producers and owners
of content aren't congruent with your interests as a consumer of content.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"Willi" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Dec 1, 11:24 am, Willi wrote:

When is everything at a library going to be digitized and available to
patrons online?


Everything? Never. See this excellent article (online! :-) by
Anthony Grafton from a recent New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...a_fact_grafton

(he also has an online-only selection of his favorite web resources
he

http://www.newyorker.com/online/2007...neonly_grafton)

I usually shy away from words like "never" but even Google hasn't (and
probably won't) put a dent in digitizing the printed record, let alone
keep up with what is currently published (and "published"). Let alone
usefully make it available. (I do, however, think Google Books is a
pretty cool idea.)

When I said "everything", I didn't mean EVERYTHING....

Right, not EVERYTHING, but there is already a stupefying quantity of free
stuff available. The trouble is cataloguing......finding what you're
interested in. There is no single comprehensive source of information on
what's available......or, none that I'm aware of, anyway. However, there
are a number of GOOD sources. Among the best I've found a

The Internet Public Library;

http://www.ipl.org/

The Online Books Page;

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/

and The Internet Archive;

http://www.archive.org/index.php

All three of these will direct you to other sources. There are many of them
out there. I have links to 50 or 60 (most of which I rarely check because
of their limited scope) that I'll be happy to send to anyone interested, but
it's easy enough to search them (and countless others) out via Google.

Wolfgang

On Dec 2, 11:04 am, Willi wrote:
wrote:

DRM at work. They don't work on iPods because they use Windows DRM.
I've never actually used any of those from my public library because
the restrictions are just so foolish.

(I understand DRM. My comment was a just dig at IPODS, and Microsoft)
Maybe the specific protection scheme is cumbersome, but I don't
understand why you think it is foolish. It is a system for information
that is covered by copywrite. You don't own the information you
download, you just "borrow" it, like you do now when you check out a
book at a library.

(Copyright)

Foolish was a hasty choice of adjective. I like your "cumbersome"
much better, and in my case also a dig at Microsoft, and as a Windows
resistant Mac user, I bristle when I see content that is labeled
"Windows only." Yeh, I know I can run Windows on my MacBook, I just
don't want to.

Bill

On Dec 2, 11:04 am, Willi wrote:
wrote:

DRM at work. They don't work on iPods because they use Windows DRM.
I've never actually used any of those from my public library because
the restrictions are just so foolish.

(I understand DRM. My comment was a just dig at IPODS, and Microsoft)
Maybe the specific protection scheme is cumbersome, but I don't
understand why you think it is foolish. It is a system for information
that is covered by copywrite. You don't own the information you
download, you just "borrow" it, like you do now when you check out a
book at a library.

OK, I thought of an analogy. You rightly point out that you are
borrowing the e-book (or audiobook) when you download it, and that,
not unlike borrowing a book, you should not expect to keep the copy
indefinitely. However, when you check out a print book, do they only
check it out to you if you meet certain restrictions? Does the book
disappear if you keep it longer than x-number of weeks? Do they first
make sure you don't own a photocopier or scanner? This is what I was
thinking about when I used the term "foolish". And I think that
rather than fight these restrictions, libraries have given in to the
publishers who insist on the restrictions so that they (the library)
can provide a service- it may not be a perfect service, but it is a
service, one in which both the client and the vendor are getting
something.

I figure it's resistance from authors, publishers etc that keeps this
from happening. The music industry, with alot of kicking and screaming,
has made/is making this transition. IMO, this change has expanded the
variety of music available instead of relying on "the industry" to pick,
not the best music, but the music they feel will make them the most
money. I think it's a logical step for the "printed" word. The only
reason that this change hasn't been "forced" by the public (like it was
with music) is that there isn't YET a way to read these digitized words
that is as easy and satisfying as using printed media.

It will be interesting to see if anyone (eg. the new Kindle) can
breathe life into the e-book reader concept. That market has
floundered for as many years as it has been extant. Although I *do*
know a few people who actually prefer to read on a screen (and in
these cases [three people] the screen is a PDA.) Of course, here we
are talking about books that one would read, not reference materials
or short articles, etc.

I like how you used the word "satisfying". There is something
satisfying about the book as an item, and reading a book as a process,
is there not? However, I would wager that a very large percentage of
the books I have read over the past several years (and an even higher
percentage of articles), I "discovered" by some digital means (reviews
found and read online, through personal contacts made online, etc.)
Even Wolfgang's "Forgotten Treasures" I usually end up digging out the
original, rather than reading on the screen (or printing out.) We are
lucky, no?

Bill

wrote:

It will be interesting to see if anyone (eg. the new Kindle) can
breathe life into the e-book reader concept. That market has
floundered for as many years as it has been extant. Although I *do*
know a few people who actually prefer to read on a screen (and in
these cases [three people] the screen is a PDA.) Of course, here we
are talking about books that one would read, not reference materials
or short articles, etc.

I like how you used the word "satisfying". There is something
satisfying about the book as an item, and reading a book as a process,
is there not? However, I would wager that a very large percentage of
the books I have read over the past several years (and an even higher
percentage of articles), I "discovered" by some digital means (reviews
found and read online, through personal contacts made online, etc.)
Even Wolfgang's "Forgotten Treasures" I usually end up digging out the
original, rather than reading on the screen (or printing out.) We are
lucky, no?


Number one seller for Amazon so far this season:

http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Amazons.../dp/B000FI73MA

Willi

wrote:

Most are, including deep archives, but if you mean "online
availability of scientific journals from my living room" then the
answer is economics won't allow it, at least not now. Tim has pointed
out some of the issues. You should be able to access many online if
you darken the doorway of the library at Colorado State. We see
independent researchers at our place every day.


But why should I have to go there?

I would think that it costs more for a library to offer the physical
facilities and equipment to provide online access to the journals at the
library than it would to provide it for home use.

What am I missing here?

Willi

"Willi" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Most are, including deep archives, but if you mean "online
availability of scientific journals from my living room" then the
answer is economics won't allow it, at least not now. Tim has pointed
out some of the issues. You should be able to access many online if
you darken the doorway of the library at Colorado State. We see
independent researchers at our place every day.


But why should I have to go there?

I would think that it costs more for a library to offer the physical
facilities and equipment to provide online access to the journals at the
library than it would to provide it for home use.

What am I missing here?

Control issues. There is a lot of money at stake here. E-texts are, by
their very nature, easier to copy, reproduce, and distribute than old
fashioned printed materials. Anybody with a computer can do it.

Wolfgang

On Dec 2, 11:28 am, Willi wrote:
wrote:
Most are, including deep archives, but if you mean "online
availability of scientific journals from my living room" then the
answer is economics won't allow it, at least not now. Tim has pointed
out some of the issues. You should be able to access many online if
you darken the doorway of the library at Colorado State. We see
independent researchers at our place every day.

But why should I have to go there?

I would think that it costs more for a library to offer the physical
facilities and equipment to provide online access to the journals at the
library than it would to provide it for home use.

What am I missing here?

This is where the economics comes in.

Colorado State, as with all academic/research libraries spends a lot
of dollars (a LOT) to procure access to the online versions of
research journals. And to the indexing tools that provide researchers
the interface they need to find the bits from within these journals
that they need for their work. Most content providers have licensing
agreements that libraries sign when they purchase these collections
(or when they purchase the right to access these collections.) These
agreements- some more strict than others- usually allow access to the
content by university (or licensee) affiliated users. So to access
the content from home, users have to authenticate. So the CSU grad
student or professor who lives next door to you can access the good
stuff from his living room, while you (and I'm assuming you are not
CSU affiliated here) cannot.

Most (not all) agreements state that walk-in library users are allowed
to access content regardless of affiliation, which is why I mentioned
it to you as a possibility. And I'm primarily talking about
scientific content, since that is what I assume you are interested
in. The Knovels, IEEExplores, Nature, ACS, Elseviers out there (and
for non-sciences, JSTOR, Proquest, Gale, etc.) are dedicated to
providing online access to historic and current content, but they also
have a vested economic interest as well and I can tell you that big
dollars change hands!

Note that there are major public library systems that are providing
more and more access to this kind (online, remote access) of content
as well, akin to the e-books you've already noticed. I wouldn't hold
your breath for them to give you access to Nature any time soon
though :-)

I know that you are probably thinking "yes, but tax dollars go to the
NSF and the NIH which pays for the research, so I should have access
to the results" and/or "Colorado State is a public institution so I
should have access to the materials to which they subscribe" and I'll
nod and smile and won't be able to explain why the answer is, simply,
"sorry!"

Cheers!
Bill