From: Bernie Reilly <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:29:47 +0000 The situation is not as dire as it might appear -- but not as happy as we would like it to be. In the print era, U.S. research libraries stepped in where publishers opted out. Most notably the Library of Congress, by virtue of being the U.S. federal copyright depository, accumulated vast back runs of commercially produced magazines and trade books in the twentieth-century, as did CRL (my organization), independent research libraries like the New York Public Library and Linda Hall Library, and a number of major university libraries. Magazines preserved include The New Yorker (NYPL), Popular Mechanics (Linda Hall Library) and even Women's Wear Daily (CRL). These libraries also preserved the "serious" -- and non-serious -- work published by the trade publishers. (The same holds true for newspapers, although many libraries' newspaper holdings were long ago replaced with microfilm.) This activity is based on a longstanding, if tacit, division of labor maintained by publishers and libraries. That arrangement is now under duress as collections begin to outgrow the space libraries can allot to them. Despite scarce resources, though, there is reason for optimism. CRL, long a repository of trade literature retired over the years from academic libraries, is now pooling resources with the Linda Hall Library to preserve popular and professional scientific literature. And print journal archiving efforts, emerging under the auspices of the WEST and ASERL consortia, will prevent the loss of some non-scholarly serial literature. On the other hand, in the electronic realm -- "not so much." As we enter the third decade of Internet publishing, the U.S. does not yet have electronic copyright deposit for trade publications. And as licensed electronic access to e-books, newspapers, and other trade publications replaces print acquisition by research libraries, maintenance of published content is back in the publishers' court. While Portico, CLOCKSS, Scholars Portal, and other digital repositories focus on scholarly publications, different solutions will have to be found for the commercial content. And these will probably entail a new division of labor between publishers and libraries. Bernie Reilly CRL Global Resources www.crl.edu -----Original Messa 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