Week 8 Reflections

My book club is meeting tomorrow, so more on that next week.

I am saving the HarperCollins issue for last. I have to say, the other readings were sort of blown from my mind after that. Anyways, the ALA Code of Ethics initially seemed very short. Then I read the sentence that “The principles of this Code are expressed in broad statements to guide ethical decision making. These statements provide a framework; they cannot and do not dictate conduct to cover particular situations.” I’m guessing if they were any longer, it would turn into rules rather than guidelines. They all seem pretty straightforward. The third one about patron privacy made me think of my recent visit to the Chelsea District Library for another class. The computers there have shields over them that only allows you to see what is on the screen if you are looking at it straight on. I think this is a great example of a library protecting their patrons’ right to privacy.  The seventh principle about separating personal beliefs from professional duty makes a lot of sense, but I think it will also be the hardest to uphold. Most librarians are very passionate about the library and their work. When you become personally invested in something, I think it is also hard to keep your personal beliefs from interfering.

Pixey Anne Mosley’s “Creating a Library Assignment Workshop for University Faculty” was pretty interesting. I really liked how proactive and involved the librarians were in working with the faculty. I have never had a terrible assignment like the ones mentioned, but I can see how it would be frustrating for both the librarians and the students. I found it amusing how many times the importance of watching our for faculty egos was mentioned. Anyways, I thought the workshop was great and I liked the detailed description of how they created it, how they adjusted it, and the feedback they received.

The HarperCollins debate is really interesting and kind of addictive. I would read one thing, then read the comments, then follow the links, and then repeat. With all the many opinions I read, I am still having trouble forming my own. I do think it is an unfortunate decision for HarperCollins to make. At the same time, they are just trying to find ways to make money from digital reading. Many people mentioned how greedy they are. This may or may not be true, but regardless, their main goal is to make money. As a business this has to be their main priority. In my opinion they are just trying something out. Maybe it was a bad choice, but I think they are being unfairly attacked. Libraries don’t really know how to handle ebooks either. Everyone involved is just trying to find their way. Their statement in Library Love Fest basically says that. I don’t know. This is not me taking HarperCollins’ side. I just think they don’t completely deserve a full out attack. Although after saying that, I think it is really something that HarperCollins’ own authors aren’t taking their side in this. I personally think that says a lot. Marilyn Johnson is a really good example of someone who is looking at things rationally and is, for the most part, unbiased.

On a somewhat similar note, I feel bad for OverDrive in all this. Not that they are getting nearly as much negativity, but they still are getting some. I really liked the CEO’s comments on the issue. I thought it was properly apologetic while also not taking the blame for things outside of their control. I agree with him that the better solution was to continue to provide access to HarperCollins, than to just stop. Overall, based on his post I feel like they are the only side involved that are keeping a level head. Unlike the librarians and HarperCollins.

The library side is definitely the most interesting. In particular I love that librarians' reactions range from outraged, sad, level-headed, resigned, unsurprised... It's amazing. Some were all in favor of boycotting, others were strongly opposed. The eBook User’s Bill of Rights was very popular with many, but not all. Basically, there is not full out agreement on anything.

A librarian who was mentioned often by other bloggers is Sarah Houghton-Jan. She is absolutely furious, which doesn't really surprise me. She was really angry about the Library of Congress and Wikileaks thing too. I'm not sure how well placed or productive her fury is. In particular, I was not a fan of the San Rafael Library's letter to Harper Collins. To me, it just came across as angry and a little unprofessional. There was some good information in there, however, so I don't know why it rubbed me the wrong way. If it rubbed someone who is mostly on the library side, then I can't imagine how Harper Collins felt about it.

I also don't agree with a boycott. My opinion on this is pretty much aligned with the BluePixie blogger, who says that by boycotting "we limit patron access because of an "internal" (to the world of books) dispute. While some patrons may understand why, the vast majority won't care beyond the fact that they can't get the latest title when they want it. Along with the fact that I am philosophically opposed to limiting reader access for any reason, as should any professional librarian be, we will damage our own standing with our patrons by voluntarily limiting access. Alienating the people who pay our wages and provide the money to build our collections? It's both hypocritical and bad business." I think she is completely right. Many patrons won’t understand, and patron support is incredibly important. In Emily’s blog last week she brought up how the library in Troy is closing. Although when I looked into that a little it seems like there were many factors involved, the failure to pass the millage certainly didn’t help at all. Losing community support will kill libraries a whole lot faster than the publishing companies.

In addition to this, Sarah Glassmeyer (a law librarian) looked at the numbers involved between libraries and publishing companies. She basically said that if publishers wanted to, they could cut libraries out altogether. She doesn’t think a boycott of HarperCollins would do that much, and that is if all the libraries joined together. If only some boycott, the effect will be even less.

One of the librarians I was following for the blogger assignment is Meredith Farkas from Information Wants To Be Free. I like her a lot so I was really interested to read her opinion. She brought up some great points. She is more concerned with all the e-content issues, than this one in particular. This makes so much more sense to me. I almost get the feeling that librarians are angry about e-content in general and are taking it out on this particular situation. My favorite thing she said is “I find it amusing that some vendors and librarians want to apply the print model to e-books, until that model becomes inconvenient for them.” Print and e-books aren’t the same but both sides of the issue seem to want to treat it them that way when they are making their arguments. Librarians are saying they can get more than twenty-six uses out of a book so HarperCollins is wrong. HarperCollins is saying that books don’t last forever and ever so librarians are wrong. Really, both are moot points. I don’t think they can be compared.

So that is somewhat a summary of some of the views I read. I hope all of it made sense. It’s hard to write your opinion on something when you don’t know what your opinion is.