Weekly Readings 2/7

Chapter 6: RFID in Libraries by Deborah Caldwell-Stone

This article discussed the history and continuing privacy issues raised by the use of RFID tags in libraries.

While thinking about what I wanted to write in my response, I was struck by how little RFID has been discussed in any of my other classes. During the training for my internship at MCPL, I remember the trainer mentioned in passing that the tags couldn’t track where a person went with the book. Other than that, my exposure has been limited. I think it is important for libraries to at least think about the possible privacy implications, namely for a technology that is not absolutely necessary (and the appearance when budgets are tight). I would say the biggest benefit I have seen at MCPL has been the new ability to instantly check books in when they are dropped in the return bin. And despite the concerns raised, I have never had a patron raise the issue with me.


The Next Generation Library Catalog by Sharon Yang and Melissa Hofmann

The authors examined three different ILSs (two that are open source and one that is proprietary), comparing their features, before briefly discussing the future of this significant feature of libraries.

Competition among products usually breeds better results for the consumer, but after reading this article, I’m under the impression this is not the case for OPACs quite yet. In some ways it can be difficult to translate a discussion of academic catalogs to one about public libraries (for instance, most public library users wouldn’t care about Boolean operators), but the overall point that ILSs have a long way to go stands. I did find myself wondering who services an open source catalog? I also thought about how I have dealt with a large number of patrons who are confused by MCPL’s OPAC. I had one gentleman in particular become very upset that he could never find books using the search feature because he believed it did not adequately explain the proper way to search (namely that the “exact” search would leave out materials that it shouldn’t have and that “keyword” included too many hits). I had to explain to him that the keyword function would allow him to include the title, author, etc. all in one string, which he felt would be confusing to most users. The OPACs also tend to use jargon that librarians are familiar with (browse, call number, etc.) but patrons may not be. The “call number” label for fiction books that don’t have “numbers” has confused numerous people I have helped.


Across the Digital Divide by Seanan McGuire

McGuire blogs about the divide between the “haves” and “have nots” in relation to the ebook industry and what it means for the future of libraries and printed materials.

McGuire’s article finally articulated much of what I have been feeling about the ebook craze happening in recent years. As someone relatively new to the other side of libraries, I have found it very interesting that many of the librarians who emphasize that without libraries certain people would be unable to access the wealth of information available are the same individuals touting the death of print within the next few years despite so many shortcomings. Why does print have to die for ebooks to rise, namely when the market is still so volatile? I just read recently in Library Journal that Penguin is going to limit new ebook titles available to libraries because of copyright concerns, and a blog for LJ (Annoyed Librarian) references the power publishers are still wielding mightily. In Collection Development, we discussed the growing issue of publishers placing arbitrary, shockingly low limits on the number of times a title can be checked out before it must be repurchased as if it has fallen apart. I liked how McGuire pointed out that even with a free reader program for those who need it, there would be a mountain of problems, primarily in stopping someone from just selling it. Many of her points can be said verbatim about movie and music downloads as well. Someone may be able to afford a cheap CD player or DVD player, but not the equipment to download and watch such media. Public libraries certainly are not meant to and shouldn’t serve only the disadvantaged, but they must be just as much of a consideration.

Annoyed Librarian. "In Which I Solve the Ebook Library Lending Problem." Library Journal. Library Journal, 30 Jan. 2012. Web. 4 Feb. 2012. .


Examining the Role of Libraries in an E-book World by Molly Joss

Joss examines public library’s responses to the growing ebook industry, the publishers’ responses to libraries lending ebooks, and what she believes libraries need to do in the future.

Even though this article is almost a year old, most of Joss’ points remain extremely relevant to this discussion, especially HarperCollins continuing to stick to its 26 loans per title limit. I did like that she expanded that discussion to give at least one best selling author’s point of view, since they are who the publishers are (supposed to be) representing. While I understand the need of public libraries to not be left behind and miss being on top of offering what patrons want, is this really make or break for us? One of the comments on Annoyed Librarian’s blog post stated that “if libraries can’t get hot new titles in ebook format, then they will be reinvented … [and] cease to be visited by 80% of their current patrons, their funding will dry up, and they will disappear from the American scene.” At first I thought this was meant to illustrate a point with hyperbole, but I kept reading and realized the commenter was 100% serious. Is this really true? Those “hot new titles” are still available immediately in print if patrons are that interested in them. This is not to say that libraries should roll over and give up fighting publishers for rights to lend new materials, but some of the restrictions being placed on this industry are ridiculous.


The Koha Saga by Glyn Moody

Glyn highlights the controversy surrounding the fate of Koha open source ILS following the purchase by Liblime and then PTFS before giving lessons for libraries to take from the situation.

I have to confess to not being totally clear about all the specifics of this situation, but it was interesting to read this one after the Yang and Hoffman article in regard to my question about who maintains the code for libraries. This situation highlights the importance of creators working to maintain control of their creation, especially for librarians. We tend to be a profession that encourages sharing (programs, policies, daily practices, etc.) while forgetting that not everyone is as enthusiastic about being an open community. In looking up what became of this issue, I think I understood that nothing has changed and there remains an open, community developed side and one being added to by PTFS for their subscribers.