ALA and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) renewed their opposition to a petition filed by the Coalition of E-book Manufacturers seeking a waiver from complying with disability legislation and regulation (specifically Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications Act as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010). Amazon, Kobo, and Sony are the members of the coalition, and they argue that they do not have to make their e-readers’ Advanced Communications Services (ACS) accessible to people with print disabilities.
The full press release from ALA.
FCC filing from ALA and ARL
Reposted in full from the NYU Press blog, From the Square
The team of directors spearheading a university press-branded consortium to sell collections of ebooks to academic librariesSteve Maikowski, New York University Press; Eric Halpern, University of Pennsylvania Press; Alex Holzman, Temple University Press; and Marlie Wasserman, Rutgers University Pressis pleased to announce a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for $47,000, to be used to advance the venture toward its fall 2011 launch. Fifty-five university presses have expressed a strong interest in participating in this project. Managers at many of these presses understand that the separate efforts of individual presses are an inefficient solution to the challenge of disseminating university press ebooks to academic libraries. By working together to achieve efficiencies of scale, presses that join the consortium will put the needs of the scholarly community as a whole at the top of the agenda. Continue reading University Press eBook Consortia
Here’s a link to the letter sent to the DOJ from the Exec Dir’s of ALA/ACRL/ARL on December 15th, outlining concerns of pricing and the lack of academic representation on the Registry Board.
And another link for the NY Law School document outlining the objections and responses in the amended settlement.
Today I had a great conversation with Cathy Anson, Director of Sponsored Research and Ruth Connell, Head Collection Management and Systems Administration, Grasselli Library at John Carroll University. They are the researchers behind the ARL Spec Kit 313 – E-book Collections. Cathy and Ruth discussed the survey findings, including the biggest surprises and some notable quotes. Publishers and vendors, I highly recommend listening to the interview, and reading the Spec Kit.
Congrats to two fellow Ohioans (Cathy Anson and Ruth Connell) on the publication of an ARL Spec Kit – “E-book Collections” Their research discusses the practice of ebook selection, acquisition, and marketing in major academic libraries, based on survey responses. According to Cathy Anson from John Carroll University, “Our findings present a behind-the-scenes look at the difficulties experienced by ebook librarians in an academic library. The ebook process doesn’t work like the model for print books or for electronic journals and requires libraries to create new interdepartmental work flows. Publishers, vendors, and aggregators offer a variety of complex licensing agreements for ebooks which must be carefully reviewed and negotiated. The most useful method of creating a new model of selection and acquisition is through the use of task forces.”
The press release and the executive summary for “E-book Collections” published by the Association of Research Libraries is available at http://www.arl.org/news/pr/spec313.shtml .
Ah, it is the beginning of September when thoughts turn to going back to school, the days turn a little colder (in the northern hemisphere) and the smell of lawsuit briefs is in the air. Well, okay the latter might not be what you expect, but this is a special September, after all. Postponed from MayL1, the deadline for filing comments in the Google Book Search settlement is coming up. And everyone is weighing in (“again” for some) on the details of the settlement. A couple of highlights.
The American Library Association (ALA), the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) and the Association of Research Libraries (ARL)L2 again offered its support for the settlement, if only the court would promise to extend vigorous oversight of pricing and privacy practices of Google and the Books Rights Registry. This came in the form of a supplemental filingL3 to the briefL4 the three organizations filed in MayL5 (just prior to the first comment deadline). Continue reading Comments on Google Book Search Settlement Coming to a Head (Again)