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