From: Bernie Reilly <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:46:49 +0000

The copyright deposit mechanism itself didn't guarantee comprehensive
preservation:

1. not all books published in the U.S. were deposited;

2. not everything deposited was selected for LC collections; and

3. what was actually selected and integrated in LC collections was
subject to subsequent loss and destruction through two forces: liberal
stack access up until the 1990s permitted significant theft and
vandalism, and the "brittle book" preservation program systematically
replaced fragile older books with microform or reprint copies.

That said, the copyright deposit system for print was a powerful
engine for the building of a national collection of American
vernacular publishing.  And much has survived that would have
certainly been lost without such a system.  The system was never
comprehensive and it doesn't work the same in the electronic era.

As Jim O'Donnell says, "the pulping is relentless," and we just don't
have systems in place that arrest it. One word of optimism: the
content management systems that the big commercial publishing
companies use today do have robust archiving (OK, asset management)
capabilities. The systems being used by The New Yorker and the New
York Times are doing a better job maintaining back content, and more,
than the publishers were doing when all was print.  How libraries will
engage with the publishers to influence their preservation decisions
is not yet clear.  But it will probably happen.

Not much solace here for self-published books, though.

Bernie Reilly
CRL Global Resources


-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 05:56:37 -0500

Are there guidelines emerging on what should NOT be preserved?

Sandy's reference in this thread concerning self-published books gives
me pause.  Where do you draw the line?  Todd Carpenter of NISO posted
on the Scholarly Kitchen a few months ago about the impracticality of
preserving certain huge, dynamic databases--that would seem to be one
area to be carved out.  Preserving self-published consumer titles
seems to me to be a questionable allocation of resources, but I'm sure
many people would disagree with me.  And Gold OA scholarly articles
placed with services of uncertain merit?  Of course, at some point you
have to ask, Who is to judge?  But I think someone has to.

Joe Esposito