From: Linda Wobbe <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2016 17:51:43 -0800

Hi,

It is interesting to see the publisher perspective on DDA/PDA.

Here's a librarian view:

DDA/PDA has the potential to destroy InterlibraryLoan/Resource
sharing, since ebooks as a general rule cannot be loaned between
libraries. (We should have the right to do so, but until more
publishers agree to allow their ebooks to be shared through such
mechanisms such as the Occam's Reader project, lending is not
possible.)  And, with many academic libraries choosing ebook as their
preferred acquisition format, there will be little in our collections
that we can lend.

While publishers may be celebrating this, it gives each library a
false impression that they can serve all of their community's needs.
Of course, no library collection is sufficient to provide everything
varied researchers choose to study.  And no DDA/PDA collection will
come close to meeting all research needs.

So, in a DDA/PDA eBook-preferred library collection,  Interlibrary
Lending and academic research will be stymied.  That is the future I'm
afraid I see.

…Linda



On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:12 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 01:12:40 -0600
>
> This would then be the resumption and intensification of a trend for trade-type books to displace monographs in the lists of university presses that I foresaw and warned about in an address I gave to a plenary session of the AAUP annual meeting back in 1991 in a talk titled "Back to Basics," which may be found here: https://scholarsphere.psu.edu/files/9880vr01t
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
>> From: Tony Sanfilippo <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 06:55:48 -0500
>>
>> Joe, I don't think I can agree that it's a win-win. It doesn't seem to
>> me that DDA/PDA is or will only be used to displace ILL. It currently
>> seems to be displacing collection development at more and more
>> libraries. From my perspective it means fewer copies being sold for
>> each title which is likely to mean higher and higher prices. A $35
>> transaction expense will be a steal in comparison. And more and more
>> consortial lending will help to bring that transaction cost down.
>> Perhaps an equilibrium will be achieved from the libraries'
>> perspective, but I don't think publishers will perceive it as a win.
>> It will continue to mean fewer print and ebooks sold and more and more
>> lending between library systems.
>>
>> Now if you mean that DDA/PDA is replacing ILL in instances that don't
>> trigger a purchase-the quick check to be sure a book says what you
>> think it says, or you just need a quick cite and the discovery system
>> brought you right where you needed to go-then yes, there will be that
>> net savings for libraries. But that will drive more and more
>> publishers away from the model, possibly leading to its collapse.
>>
>> I suspect the other unintended consequence of DDA/PDA beyond higher
>> title costs will be fewer publishing opportunities for scholars. When
>> the risk to the publisher increases, they are much more selective, and
>> will intentionally focus on the popular, and won't be able to gamble
>> on something that is merely good or novel. It's happening now. Have
>> you looked at the most recent season of university press catalogs? I
>> haven't seen that many trade books coming from university presses
>> since the nineties-cookbooks, mystery novels, poetry, memoirs, graphic
>>
>> novels. Seems to me to be a response to the landscape this model is
>> creating. We're not publishing for libraries anymore, we're starting
>> to publish for Amazon.
>>
>> Best,
>> Tony Sanfilippo
>>
>>
>> Tony Sanfilippo, Director
>> Ohio State University Press
>> 180 Pressey Hall
>> 1070 Carmack Road
>> Columbus, OH 43210-1002
>> ohiostatepress.org
>> (614) 292-7818
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:37 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
>>>  Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:14:18 -0500
>>>
>>>  I know that ILL is not free for librarians. The last time I looked
>>>  into this I came across estimates of $35 per loan. If there is more
>>>  recent information on this, I would like to know. This is ILL for
>>>  print books, of course; ILL for ebooks would be a very different
>>>  matter, one which may be constrained by copyright law. I have no
>>>  expertise on that matter.
>>>
>>>  My point about ILL and DDA/PDA is that DDA for electronic books is
>>>  likely to displace ILL for print (for those books that appear in DDA
>>>  aggregrations). A short-term loan may cost less than the $35 for print
>>>  ILL. Publishers are likely to support this because they receive no
>>>  income from ILL, but receive revenue from DDA (which is shared with
>>>  the aggregator and author). It's a win-win, is it not? Libraries have
>>>  lower costs, publishers receive income. The trucking companies lose
>>>  out.
>>>
>>>  Joe Esposito
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:11 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>  >
>>>  > From: "Gonzales, Rhonda L" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>  > Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:28:40 -0700
>>>  >
>>>  > Joe,
>>>  >
>>>  > I always appreciate your comments. But I did want to interject that
>>>  > ILL is not free for libraries. There is a fairly high cost per volume
>>>  > to conduct ILL transactions, both borrowing and lending. Libraries
>>>
>>>  > absorb the cost of lending so that we can reap the benefits of
>>>  > borrowing - that's what makes the system work. We choose to purchase
>>>  > many print books that we could obtain for patrons via ILL both as a
>>>  > convenience for our constituents as well as a cost savings for
>>>  > ourselves. I assume that we would do this for ebooks as well, even if
>>>  > we could get them via ILL from another library.
>>>  >
>>>  > Best regards,
>>>  > Rhonda Gonzales
>>>  > Dean of Library Services, Colorado State University-Pueblo
>>>  > [log in to unmask]