From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:26:33 +0000

Hi, Sean --

>Thus it makes me all the more anxious to see this possible interchange
>taking place not only over books, but over books a library previously
>held in a physical format and now simply provides access to the
>digital version.  It seems to give more power to the people holding
>the monopoly of access <snip>

That's true: when we shift from permanent, locally-held, physical
collections to externally-hosted digital collections some of which may be
permanent and some temporary, we place a lot more faith in the external
host than we ever have in the past, and that certainly should give us
pause. But the acquisition of printed books and journals is also risky,
and should also give us pause. When we buy a printed book, the provider's
duty to us ends when the book is received. If the library burns down (or
floods, or is targeted by thieves, etc.), the collection is lost for good.
But once you get a couple of computers up and running again, you still
have access to all the hosted digital content you had before. That's one
major benefit of externally-hosted content, the terms of access to which
are defined by contract. This is why license agreements are so important.
Whenever a library buys access to online content, there is almost
invariably a license agreement that defines the obligations and rights of
both sides. We don't depend on the benevolence of the serial overlords to
keep our access going; we rely on contract law.

>  Even on the question of paying for usage, much of it hinges
>on whether the benevolent serial overlords will alter the framework to
>accommodate this, rather than simply making per-article fees even
>higher to keep the business in the subscription/big deal.

Of course -- but the same thing is true under the subscription model.
Nothing is stopping those who have monopoly control of journal content
from raising subscription prices at whatever rate they wish, and as a
result we see many of them raising prices at disastrous annual rates --
9.5% on average for science journals, but much higher among some. The
American Chemical Society has recently raised its journal prices by as
much as 30% for some customers (all while publishing journals that are
required for ACS "approval" of chemistry programs) while Nature regularly
hikes its prices by similar percentages. ACS and Nature are outliers, but
they're far from unique.

>In aggregate, if all librarians make this same choice - paying
>for short term access to these resources - then the ponds will
>reappear in a different form.

But remember that PDA (whether for books or for journals) doesn't
necessarily mean only buying short-term access. PDA can lead to permanent
access for individual patrons (think of traditional document delivery
services), or to temporary access for individual patrons, or to temporary
access for an entire campus, or to permanent ownership by the library (and
thus the building of a more-or-less traditional collection) or to
short-term "leases" that, if invoked repeatedly, eventually result in
permanent campuswide access, or any number of other options. PDA isn't a
storage model; it's a selection model -- it's about letting researchers
choose rather than having librarians choose for them. It can lead to any
number of temporary or permanent access structures. In no case will PDA
create a truly comprehensive and permanent collection -- but no library
has ever provided that, or ever could.

Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections
J. Willard Marriott Library
University of Utah
[log in to unmask]