From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:31:13 -0600

But, as required by the copyright registration process, all those
trade publishers send at least two copies to the Library of Congress.
Doesn't the LC have a preservation policy?

Sandy Thatcher

P.S. University presses, in addition, usually have deposit at least
one copy of every book they publish with their own university's
library.


> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:47:41 -0500
>
> You have the same situation with trade books.  There are no
> preservation policies that I can detect.  I have tried to drum up
> interest in this and would be interested to hear from others who are
> working in this area.  We know that we don't want to lose the output
> of the university presses at Harvard, Chicago, California, Georgetown
> et al, but do we want to walk away from the serious work published by
> Random House and HarperCollins?
>
> Joe Esposito
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:55 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>  From: Jim O'Donnell <[log in to unmask]>
>>  Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:51:47 -0500
>>
>>  So an issue of the New Yorker from this fall (the double issue Oct
>>  29/Nov 5 with Mitt getting a tattoo on the cover) went missing, and we
>>  went to get a replacement.  Seems not to have shown up at all.  Called
>>  the New Yorker's subscription service number from the masthead in the
>>  back of the magazine and found that it can't be done.  They now retain
>>  only the current issue and two immediately previous and pulp
>>  everything else.  If you want a back issue older than that, go to the
>>  secondary market and good luck to you.
>
>  >
>  > 1.  Am I wrong that this is a big comedown in service over days of
>  > yore?  I understand the $$ drivers, but for a magazine as
>  > non-evanescent as the New Yorker, it still seems extreme.
>>
>>
>>  2.  Makes me realize that while we've been focused on assuring
>>  preservation of and access to e-versions of serial publications, we
>>  may be approaching the brink of losing the old assurance of print
>>  preservation.  Once upon a time, lots of libraries got things in
>>  print, bound them carefully, cataloged them, shelved them, cared for
>>  them lovingly.  Loving care for print materials is no longer something
>>  you can count on (colleagues trying to give away books at the point of
>>  retirement are getting some rude awakenings around me) and when people
>>  switch from p- and e- to e-only, there may well be things that just
>>  get lost.  Reminds me a bit of the great loss of print books in the
>>  Catholic church in the 1960s when Latin went out and mountains of
>>  stuff got trashed, replaced by mimeographed booklets.  It's actually
>>  hard to find those old liturgical books now.  Same of the New Yorker
>>  in 50 years?  Or Popular Mechanics?
>>
>>  Jim O'Donnell