From: Richard James <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 16:49:11 -0500

The quality of the works purchased was not the point of interest in
this story. That's a conversation better suited for multiple alternate
venues. The point is that a library *purchased* digital content using
an agreement with a publisher that is apparently devoid of weasel
words and incomprehensible caveats. Congratulations to all of you who
have never in your careers purchased s****y content.

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013, LIBLICENSE wrote:

> From: Todd Puccio <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 15:41:48 +0000
>
> .Self-published works are not worthless.  That's a real snobbish way
> of thinking. They just may not be worth the money that this library is
> paying.
>
> One of the reasons they may be doing this is that often Public Library
> service is about the numbers.
>
> By joining this service they can up their e-book holdings statistics.
>
>
> Todd Puccio
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Goodman <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 21:32:31 -0500
>
> These are apparently self-published titles. As they may be essentially
> worthless in the first place, I can not see how a public library
> paying to buy them or to buy access to them is spending money wisely
> no matter how favorable the terms. This  is not  a positive  precedent
> for anything.   David Goodman