From: Tony Sanfilippo <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 06:55:48 -0500 Joe, I don't think I can agree that it's a win-win. It doesn't seem to me that DDA/PDA is or will only be used to displace ILL. It currently seems to be displacing collection development at more and more libraries. From my perspective it means fewer copies being sold for each title which is likely to mean higher and higher prices. A $35 transaction expense will be a steal in comparison. And more and more consortial lending will help to bring that transaction cost down. Perhaps an equilibrium will be achieved from the libraries' perspective, but I don't think publishers will perceive it as a win. It will continue to mean fewer print and ebooks sold and more and more lending between library systems. Now if you mean that DDA/PDA is replacing ILL in instances that don't trigger a purchase—the quick check to be sure a book says what you think it says, or you just need a quick cite and the discovery system brought you right where you needed to go—then yes, there will be that net savings for libraries. But that will drive more and more publishers away from the model, possibly leading to its collapse. I suspect the other unintended consequence of DDA/PDA beyond higher title costs will be fewer publishing opportunities for scholars. When the risk to the publisher increases, they are much more selective, and will intentionally focus on the popular, and won't be able to gamble on something that is merely good or novel. It's happening now. Have you looked at the most recent season of university press catalogs? I haven't seen that many trade books coming from university presses since the nineties—cookbooks, mystery novels, poetry, memoirs, graphic novels. Seems to me to be a response to the landscape this model is creating. We're not publishing for libraries anymore, we're starting to publish for Amazon. Best, Tony Sanfilippo Tony Sanfilippo, Director Ohio State University Press 180 Pressey Hall 1070 Carmack Road Columbus, OH 43210-1002 ohiostatepress.org (614) 292-7818 On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:37 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:14:18 -0500 > > I know that ILL is not free for librarians. The last time I looked > into this I came across estimates of $35 per loan. If there is more > recent information on this, I would like to know. This is ILL for > print books, of course; ILL for ebooks would be a very different > matter, one which may be constrained by copyright law. I have no > expertise on that matter. > > My point about ILL and DDA/PDA is that DDA for electronic books is > likely to displace ILL for print (for those books that appear in DDA > aggregrations). A short-term loan may cost less than the $35 for print > ILL. Publishers are likely to support this because they receive no > income from ILL, but receive revenue from DDA (which is shared with > the aggregator and author). It's a win-win, is it not? Libraries have > lower costs, publishers receive income. The trucking companies lose > out. > > Joe Esposito > > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:11 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > From: "Gonzales, Rhonda L" <[log in to unmask]> > > Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:28:40 -0700 > > > > Joe, > > > > I always appreciate your comments. But I did want to interject that > > ILL is not free for libraries. There is a fairly high cost per volume > > to conduct ILL transactions, both borrowing and lending. Libraries > > absorb the cost of lending so that we can reap the benefits of > > borrowing - that's what makes the system work. We choose to purchase > > many print books that we could obtain for patrons via ILL both as a > > convenience for our constituents as well as a cost savings for > > ourselves. I assume that we would do this for ebooks as well, even if > > we could get them via ILL from another library. > > > > Best regards, > > Rhonda Gonzales > > Dean of Library Services, Colorado State University-Pueblo > > [log in to unmask]