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