There is no such thing as a zero-cost lunch; but there is such a thing as a freedom lunch. I concur with Karen that (once again) much confusion is being generated here by the English language's lamentable use of the same word "free" to mean too such different things. -- Mike. On 19 May 2011 16:01, graham <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Replying to Jonathan's mail rather at random, since several people are > saying similar things. > > 1. 'Free resources can vanish any time.' But so can commercial ones, > which is why LOCKSS was created. This isn't an insoluble issue or one > unique to free resources. > > 2. 'Managing 100s of paid resources is difficult, managing 1000s of free > ones would be impossible'. But why on earth would you try? There are > many specialized free resources, only a few of which are likely to > provide material your particular library wants in its collection. Surely > you would select the ones you want, not least on grounds of reliability. > And on those grounds (longevity and reliability) you would end up using > Gutenberg in preference to any commercial supplier (not that I'm > suggesting you should)). Selection of commercial resources is done at > least in part by cost; selection of free ones can be done on more > appropriate grounds. > > 3. 'There is no such thing as a free lunch'. Who said there was? But > resources which can be used freely have advantages over ones that can't. > > > Graham > > On 05/19/11 15:44, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: >> Another problem with free online resources not just 'collection >> selection', but maintenance/support once selected. A resource hosted >> elsewhere can stop working at any time, which is a management challenge. >> >> The present environment is ALREADY a management challenge, of course. >> But consider the present environment: You subscribe to anywhere from a >> handful to around 100 seperate vendor 'platforms'. Each one can change >> it's interface at any time, or go down at any time, breaking your >> integration or access to it. When it does, you've got to notice (a hard >> problem in itself), and then file a support incident with the vendor. >> This is already a mess we have trouble keeping straight. But. >> >> Compare to the idea of hundreds or thousands or more different suppliers >> hosting free content, each one of which can change it's interface or go >> down at any time, and when you notice (still a hard problem, now even >> harder because you have more content from more hosts)... what do you do? >> >> One solution to this would be free content aggregators which hosted LOTS >> of free content on one platform (cutting down your number of sources to >> keep track of make sure they're working), and additionally, presumably >> for a fee, offered support services. >> >> Another direction would be not relying on remote platforms to host >> content, but hosting it internally. Which may be more 'business case' >> feasible with free content than with pay content -- the owners/providers >> dont' want to let us host the pay content locally. But hosting content >> locally comes with it's own expenses, the library needs to invest >> resources in developing/maintaining or purchasing the software (and >> hardware) to do that, as well as respond to maintenance issues with the >> local hosting. >> >> In the end, there's no such thing as a free lunch, as usual. "Free" >> content still isn't free for libraries to integrate with local >> interfaces and support well, whether that cost comes from internal >> staffing and other budgetting, or from paying a third party to help. Of >> course, some solutions are more cost efficient than others, not all are >> equal. >> >> Jonathan >> >> On 5/19/2011 9:31 AM, Bill Dueber wrote: >>> My short answer: It's too damn expensive to check out everything that's >>> available for free to see if it's worth selecting for inclusion, and >>> library's (at least as I see them) are supposed to be curated, not >>> comprehensive. >>> >>> My long answer: >>> >>> The most obvious issue is that the OPAC is traditionally a listing of >>> "holdings," and free ebooks aren't "held" in any sense that helps >>> disambiguate them from any other random text on the Internet. >>> Certainly the >>> fact that someone bothered to transform it into ebook form isn't >>> indicative >>> of anything. Not everything that's available can be cataloged. I see >>> "stuff >>> we paid for" not as an arbitrary bias, but simply as a very, very >>> useful way >>> to define the borders of the library. >>> >>> "Free" is a very recent phenomenon, but it just adds more complexity >>> to the >>> existing problem of deciding what publications are within the library's >>> scope. Library collections are curated, and that curation mission is not >>> simply a side effect of limited funds. The filtering process that goes >>> into >>> deciding what a library will hold is itself an incredibly valuable >>> aspect of >>> the collection. >>> >>> Up until very recently, the most important pre-purchase filter was the >>> fact >>> that some publisher thought she could make some money by printing text on >>> paper, and by doing so also allocated resources to edit/typeset/etc. >>> For a >>> traditionally-published work, we know that real person(s), with >>> relatively >>> transparent goals, has already read it and decided it was worth the >>> gamble >>> to sink some fixed costs into the project. It certainly wasn't a perfect >>> filter, but anyone who claims it didn't add enormous information to the >>> system is being disingenuous. >>> >>> Now that (e)publishing and (e)printing costs have nosedived toward $0.00, >>> that filter is breaking. Even print-on-paper costs have been reduced >>> enormously. But going through the slush pile, doing market research, >>> filtering, editing, marketing -- these things all cost money, and for the >>> moment the traditional publishing houses still do them better and more >>> efficiently than anyone else. And they expect to be paid for their >>> work, and >>> they should. >>> >>> There's a tendency in the library world, I think, to dismiss the value of >>> non-academic professionals and assume random people or librarians can >>> just >>> do the work (see also: web-site development, usability studies, graphic >>> design, instructional design and development), but successful >>> publishers are >>> incredibly good at what they do, and the value they add shouldn't be >>> dismissed (although their business practices should certainly be under >>> scrutiny). >>> >>> Of course, I'm not differentiating free (no money) and free (CC0). One >>> can >>> imagine models where the functions of the publishing house move to a >>> work-for-hire model and the final content is released CC0, but it's not >>> clear who's going to pay them for their time. >>> >>> >>> -Bill- >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Andreas Orphanides< >>> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 5/19/2011 7:36 AM, Mike Taylor wrote: >>>> >>>>> I dunno. How do you assess the whole realm of proprietary stuff? >>>>> Wouldn't the same approach work for free stuff? >>>>> >>>>> -- Mike. >>>>> >>>> A fair question. I think there's maybe at least two parts: marketing and >>>> bundling. >>>> >>>> Marketing is of course not ideal, and likely counterproductive on a >>>> number >>>> of measures, but at least when a product is marketed you get sales >>>> demos. >>>> Even if they are designed to make a product or collection look as >>>> good as >>>> possible, it still gives you some sense of scale, quality, content, etc. >>>> >>>> I think bundling is probably more important. It's a challenge in the >>>> free-stuff realm, but for open access products where there is >>>> bundling (for >>>> instance, Directory of Open Access Journals) I think you are likely >>>> to see >>>> wider adoption. >>>> >>>> Bundling can of course be both good (lower management cost) and bad >>>> (potentially diluting collection quality for your target audience). >>>> But when >>>> there isn't any bundling, which is true for a whole lot of free stuff, >>>> you've got to locally gather a million little bits into a collection. >>>> >>>> I guess what's really happening in the bundling case, at least for free >>>> content, is that collection and quality management activities are being >>>> "outsourced" to a third party. This is probably why DOAJ gets decent >>>> adoption. But of course, this still requires SOME group to be willing to >>>> perform these activities, and for the content/package to remain free, >>>> they >>>> either have to get some kind of outside funding (e.g., donations) or be >>>> willing to volunteer their services. >>>> >>> >>> > >