From: Bernie Reilly <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:46:49 +0000 The copyright deposit mechanism itself didn't guarantee comprehensive preservation: 1. not all books published in the U.S. were deposited; 2. not everything deposited was selected for LC collections; and 3. what was actually selected and integrated in LC collections was subject to subsequent loss and destruction through two forces: liberal stack access up until the 1990s permitted significant theft and vandalism, and the "brittle book" preservation program systematically replaced fragile older books with microform or reprint copies. That said, the copyright deposit system for print was a powerful engine for the building of a national collection of American vernacular publishing. And much has survived that would have certainly been lost without such a system. The system was never comprehensive and it doesn't work the same in the electronic era. As Jim O'Donnell says, "the pulping is relentless," and we just don't have systems in place that arrest it. One word of optimism: the content management systems that the big commercial publishing companies use today do have robust archiving (OK, asset management) capabilities. The systems being used by The New Yorker and the New York Times are doing a better job maintaining back content, and more, than the publishers were doing when all was print. How libraries will engage with the publishers to influence their preservation decisions is not yet clear. But it will probably happen. Not much solace here for self-published books, though. Bernie Reilly CRL Global Resources -----Original Message----- From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 05:56:37 -0500 Are there guidelines emerging on what should NOT be preserved? Sandy's reference in this thread concerning self-published books gives me pause. Where do you draw the line? Todd Carpenter of NISO posted on the Scholarly Kitchen a few months ago about the impracticality of preserving certain huge, dynamic databases--that would seem to be one area to be carved out. Preserving self-published consumer titles seems to me to be a questionable allocation of resources, but I'm sure many people would disagree with me. And Gold OA scholarly articles placed with services of uncertain merit? Of course, at some point you have to ask, Who is to judge? But I think someone has to. Joe Esposito