tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post2898867624997832768..comments2024-03-26T10:41:35.852+00:00Comments on The 1709 Blog: The London Manifesto: time for reform?Marie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-32674124750394615222015-04-01T09:49:17.116+01:002015-04-01T09:49:17.116+01:00If CILIP are serious, they ought to be making this...If CILIP are serious, they ought to be making this available in different languages, and trying urgently to get European institutions on board -- particularly French ones.<br /><br />Was eg the Bibliothèque nationale de France approached? Were other French research libraries, public libraries, and library associations? What was their response?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-26201346750460112352015-04-01T08:17:17.737+01:002015-04-01T08:17:17.737+01:00Whoops. The clause "that no institution could...Whoops. The clause "that no institution could not exploit a monopoly for financial gain" clearly go manangled in the editing stage. It should read "that no institution could exploit a monopoly for financial gain"<br />Apologies for my error.Andy Jnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-45185312609863191032015-04-01T07:56:07.194+01:002015-04-01T07:56:07.194+01:00As you hint at, Jeremy, the elephant in the librar...As you hint at, Jeremy, the elephant in the library reading room is the matter of commercial exploitation of their holdings by libraries and archives etc. If these institutions are truly asking for these changes for altruistic reasons (as I'm sure many are), then the corollary must be be that all works, whether in or out of copyright, held by them must be made available to all members of the public for free (or at least for no more than a nominal fee). <br />There should be no special admission fees or other limitations in order to access the materials to which these special exceptions would apply, that do not also apply to 'normal' materials held by the institution. This would be especially important where a library held a unique copy of a work (eg Magna Carta or Mappa Mundi), so that no institution could not exploit a monopoly for financial gain. Not only would this be morally unacceptable especially where the work concerned is not subject to copyright, but also, if commercial exploitation becomes the dominant factor in determining which works might be made more accessible (say via digitisation) then such exceptions would be in direct opposition to the economic rights of copyright owners.<br />The matter of recouping the administrative costs of the institution should be resolved so that the burden is shared equally across all users, and not based on the relative costs of acquiring or transforming particular works. In other words if an access fee is to be levied, I should pay the same to read a copy of a Jeffery Archer novel as I would to consult Copinger, despite the differences in the retail prices of the two oeuvres. <br />The Deposit Libraries and their digital equivalents should remain free to access, given that they are provided with free copies of the works concerned. Although it does not appear to form part of the Manifesto, I believe that research papers which directly result from public funding should be made freely available. Clearly this would threaten the viability of learned journals, but since they would be adding value in the sense of carrying out peer review, then it would be equitable for them to continue to charge for this service. This would be on the same principle that all works produced by the US Federal Government are free of copyright. Andy Jnoreply@blogger.com