This article was downloaded by: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Current] On: 6 May 2011 Access details:

Access Details: [subscription number 936673606] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Collection Management

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792303985

What's Next for Collection Management and Managers?

Faye A. Chadwella a Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon Online publication date: 30 December 2009

To cite this Article Chadwell, Faye A.(2010) 'What's Next for Collection Management and Managers?', Collection

Management, 35: 1, 3 14 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01462670903445137 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01462670903445137

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Collection Management, 35:314, 2010 Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0146-2679 print / 1545-2549 online DOI: 10.1080/01462670903445137

Whats Next for Collection Management and Managers?

FAYE A. CHADWELL
Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Current] At: 12:30 6 May 2011

Models for providing content to library users change rapidlylike almost every other aspect of our work as librarians and especially as collection managers. In this issues Whats Next for Collection Management and Managers? Id like to begin by briey proposing a model for obtaining electronic journal content that builds on some recent attempts by several libraries to take back control of content acquisition. More often than not, collection managers are at the mercy of the models that vendors and publishers foist upon us, so why not explore paths that give us alternative ways of acquiring content? Most of this column will be devoted to explicating the Google Book Settlement. Although library participation in the creation of the actual settlement is not apparent, several libraries were highly involved in the Google Library Project that resulted in the lawsuit and thus the Google Book Settlement. The settlement proposes a controversial model for delivering access to books that are copyrighted but out of print, and it is important to understand what the implications are for libraries and collection managers.

ANOTHER ACQUISITIONS MODEL FOR JOURNAL CONTENT

Two relatively recent deals that libraries cut with the scientic, technical, and medical (STM) publisher Springer inspired me to contemplate a different model for how a collection manager might pursue the acquisition of journal content. I am referring to the pilot agreement that the California Digital Library signed with Springer in early 2009 and the two-year deal that Springer signed with the Max Planck Institute. Both deals have very similar details. In addition to licensed access to Springer journal content, articles by each institutions afliated authors will be published via Springers Open

Address correspondence to Faye A. Chadwell, Associate University Librarian for Collections and Content Management, Oregon State University Libraries, 121 The Valley Library, Corvallis, OR 97331-4501. E-mail: faye.chadwell@oregonstate.edu 3

F. A. Chadwell

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Current] At: 12:30 6 May 2011

Choice option for immediate open access. Final published articles can also be deposited in California Digital Librarys eScholarship Repository (California Digital Library 2009). As we began to review and renew (and once again cancel) journal subscriptions, I have also been thinking about how inadequate the current usage statistics are for most electronic journal publishers. Specically, my colleagues in Oregon, with whom Oregon State University collaborates, were bemoaning the fact that we could not see article-level statistics. Without this kind of information, we believed we were not as well-prepared as we could be to determine what journals were worth renewing and what journals could be cancelled. Our questions included the following: Just how many unique articles were our users downloading from our subscriptions every year? Was it one signicant article that was being downloaded over and over again? Or were several articles published over multiple years generating the usage statistics? Thinking about these events and issues, I realized that there might be a way to apply a patron-driven acquisitions model to the way we buy journal content. The next time we met with the sales representative of a large STM publisher, I proposed a future pilot deal and asked the representative to take these parameters back to his bosses as the basis of the deal: Rather than subscribe to the publishers titles, we sought the right to purchase a journal article after one of our users downloads it from the publishers site. Instead of obtaining the right to own the full issue of the journal in perpetuity, we wanted to buy or own the articles that our users downloaded and add these permanently to our digital collections. Other stipulations that we would want included in this deal follow: Appropriate article metadata to accompany articles we purchased The ability to loan articles via the most up-to-date interlibrary mechanisms (i.e., Ariel) The authority to allow walk-in users to access the article content The agreement that we only begin purchasing articles that we were not part of subscriptions for which we had already paid The ability to use a system, perhaps LOCKSS (lots of copies keep stuff safe), to collect and preserve our purchased content for perpetuity The right to create a preservation copy of articles for dark archiving At least two stipulations we would be likely to make to the publisher would include securing remote access only to authorized users and providing agreed-upon branding to identify the journal publishers content. Obviously we would need to work on negotiating a price for each article that we wanted

Whats Next for Collection Management and Managers?

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Current] At: 12:30 6 May 2011

to purchase in perpetuity. We would also want to emulate both California Digital Library and Max Planck and discuss how we could purchase our afliated authors works for inclusion in our institutional repository. Likewise, we would have to work out the necessary workows with the publisher so that we could capture and be invoiced for the articles our users requested. Finally, we would have to plan the storage and preservation of the content and plan to be able to deliver the content as part of any discovery services we implemented. My university librarian asked me what incentive the publisher would have to agree to such a model. At rst I didnt have a response, other than to say, Absolutely none. But upon further reection, I think it offers the publisher another strategy for selling its journal content to libraries like my own that still need the content that commercial publishers sell but cannot afford to subscribe to all the journals they market. The sales representative asked me whether our scholars would object to losing access to journal subscriptions because of the impact on promotion and tenure. I remembered what Salvatore Mele said about authors and high energy physics (HEP) journals at the SCOAP3 meeting held at Berkeley. He acknowledged that the HEP community needed high-quality journals, as the interface with ofcialdom (Mele 2008). I told the sales representative virtually the same thing, pointing out that our users needed access to articles for research and teaching. I stressed that our mission as a library was to provide access to the content and suggested that just because we didnt subscribe to a journal didnt detract from its reputation as a worthwhile, peer-reviewed publication that authors might seek as a place for publishing. Plus, like so many libraries, we have foregone subscription-based access to hundreds of journals in the last decade or two because of the serials ination crisis. Our major concern when cancelling was more about the loss of access to future research than it was about the existence of what is increasingly becoming an outmoded model for scholarly publishing: the journal. A lot has been written about the future of journals. Ahmed Hindawi, the CEO for Hindawi, an open access publisher, describes several possible futures for the disaggregation of journals, but one of his futures relates closely to the model I propose:
The third possible future is a future in which journals are still under the toll access model but in which authors stopped caring about the journal as a brand. This is a future in which authors know that their articles are going to be evaluated without reference to the particular journal in which they were published. Authors will publish in journals that provide them with fast and professional peer review, high production services, wide distribution, online discoverability, etc. Authors will be much more demanding and publishers will have to work much harder to keep attracting authors (Hindawi 2009).

F. A. Chadwell

Hindawi goes on to say the following:

What I have just described is simply the commoditization of scholarly journal publishing. It is what happens when consumers of a particular product or service perceive little or no value difference between different brands or versions, which causes a market transformation from monopolistic competition to perfect competition (Hindawi 2009).

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Current] At: 12:30 6 May 2011

Does this model support toll-based access to content? Yes, it does, at least until we are farther along the open access highway. Does the model I propose mean the death of journals as we know them? Perhaps it does, but it doesnt mean the death of scholarship.

GOOGLE BOOK SETTLEMENT: BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE

A look at the Google Book Settlement and its implications for collection managers should start with a recap of some important dates and events along its timeline. In early 2004, Google announced that it would begin working with several U.S. research libraries to digitize books in their collections (Google 2008, Google Book Settlement, FAQs). This project, known as the Google Library Project, numbers about 20 individual libraries and library groups or consortia (i.e., CTC or the Committee on Institutional Cooperation) among its library partners. Most of the partners are U.S. institutions, but there are also some international players. To date they have scanned approximately 7 million titles. The plan is to digitize about 18 million. In 2005, the Association of American Publishers (AAP) led a lawsuit for copyright infringement. Richard Sarnoff, then president of AAP, stated, The issue is that there is a company for commercial purposes that is copying works that are in copyright, without permission, much less payment, to the copyright holder, which in this case is mostly authors and perhaps, in the minority, publishers (Swisher 2006). In a separate lawsuit, the Authors Guild also sued Google. Together the two organizations brought a suit by ling with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and alleging that Googles search project violated their rights as copyright holders. Specically, the AAP and the Authors Guild were concerned with Googles Book Search providing access to snippets of alleged copyrighted material without having sought permission or having identied who the copyright holder might be; making money on this access; and providing its library partners with a digital copy of a book they already owned (Bookselling This Week 2008). Google argued that what they were doing was not infringement. For nearly 2 years, Google worked to hammer out an out of court settlement with the AAP and the Authors Guild. They chose this route rather than take the lawsuit through what would predictably be a long, arduous, and

Whats Next for Collection Management and Managers?

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Current] At: 12:30 6 May 2011

expensive court battle. In October 2008, Google, the AAP, and the Authors Guild unveiled what was deemed the Google Book Settlement. The criticism as well as support began to come in from all sides. In all, there were 400 briefs led either for or against the settlement (Vascellaro 2009). Some of the supporters should surprise no one. They include the library partners, the American Association of People with Disabilities, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, and the National Federation of the Blind. Critics included Google competitors like Amazon.com, Open Book Alliance, the Internet Alliance, Microsoft, Yahoo, and ProQuest, to name a few. Library associations voicing concerns or reservations about the settlement include the American Library Association, the Special Library Association, the Association for Research Libraries, and the Association for College and Research Libraries. Other organizations that opposed the settlement were the American Society of Journalists and Authors, the National Writers Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the William Morris Agency. In April 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice stepped in to begin determining among other things whether the settlement violated any antitrust laws. On September 18, 2009, the Justice Department led its concerns, including information from the U.S. Copyright Ofce, with the New York court established to approve the settlement. The department made three arguments (Butler 2009) against the settlement: It does not adequately represent the members of the class, authors and publishers, with respect to the broad, open-ended rights that the original settlement would grant to Google. It conicts with the tenets of copyright law. It raises serious antitrust concerns. In response to many objections raised, Google, the AAP, and the Authors Guild asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to change the previously scheduled October hearing for approving or disapproving the settlement to a later date.

GOOGLE BOOK SETTLEMENT: ITS ALL IN THE DETAILS

The Google Book Settlement motion led for the courts approval is a 323page document that is complex and detailed. A meticulous analysis is beyond the scope of this column. However, to understand the settlements potential impact on the work of collection managers and libraries, it is best to provide a simplistic overview of what the Settlement asserts. According to The Wall Street Journal, the $125 million settlement between Google and the publishers and authors would open the door for Google to make many

F. A. Chadwell

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Current] At: 12:30 6 May 2011

millions of digital books available on the Web, with payments to authors and publishers for their use. The settlement is designed to cover the costs of earlier scanning efforts and legal fees and propose a way to pay for future use. Revenue is to come from selling ads and from user fees and institutional subscriptions. Rights holders, whether authors or publishers, would receive 63% of the revenue generated from sales, while Google takes home 37%. Google would also establish a Book Rights Registry to oversee the registration of rights holders and to coordinate payment to rights holders when their content was used. Google purports that they are spending $34.5 million to establish the registry (Trachtenberg and Vascellaro 2008). For those rights holders that make claims, there are multiple options to consider that the Google Book Settlement site outlines extensively. Among these options is one seeking to have Google remove a rights holders books from the database at any time. For many critics, the titles really at issue are those that are in copyright but out of print. The Google Book Settlement distinguishes these as titles, sometimes called orphan works, that are not commercially available because they are out of print. According to Pam Samuelson, University of California at Berkeley professor of law and information, the proposed [Google] Book Search settlement agreement solves the orphan works problem for booksat least for Google (Samuelson 2009). Why? The settlement would allow Google to apply all of its projected display uses to copyrighted, out of print titles unless the rights holder for a given title les a claim form to exclude the book from one, some, or all of the display uses. Public libraries and libraries at not-for-prot higher education institutions will have access for users to view content from the books via at least one computer terminal. To broaden that access and extend authorized uses, libraries would be assessed a subscription fee and individual consumers would have to pay according to a pricing algorithm established by Google or by a specied price that a rights holder might determine. Depending on the type of access provided or purchased, users would benet from the following display uses: Access uses include viewing and annotating the entire book and printing and copying and pasting portions of the book, subject to page number limitations. The uses include institutional subscriptions, consumer purchase of online access, and public access at libraries and elsewhere. Preview uses allow a searcher to view up to 20% of a book before making a purchase decision, but will not allow a searcher to copy and paste, annotate, or print any pages from the book. Preview uses are designed to serve as a marketing tool to sell the book. Snippet displays allow a search to view three or four lines of text from a book, with up to three snippet uses per user for the book.

Whats Next for Collection Management and Managers?

Display of bibliographic pages means that users can see the books title page, copyright page, table of contents, and index (Google 2008, Google Book Settlement, FAQs).

GOOGLE BOOK SETTLEMENT: POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS FOR COLLECTION MANAGERS

Everyone, including collection managers, should love that there will be greater digital access to millions of books. Free use will continue, although there are obviously restrictions set on what users can view and do with the content, plus, as mentioned earlier, requesting libraries can get what the settlement calls free public access service (PAS) via one PAS terminal. These terminals will allow for full-text viewing and per-page printing, although it isnt at all clear how participating libraries will collect those fees that they are required to turn over to Google. Most collection managers will likely be dealing with whether to partake in the institutional subscriptions. Because Googles settlement covers the ability to get a subset of the overall collection, part of the decision making will focus on whether to subscribe to a subset in support of one or more specic disciplines. Reading the settlement, I didnt discover any earth-shaking differences between Googles idea of an institutional subscription versus what some other e-book vendors have been offering libraries for years. Features include the ability to view the full text (in this case that of the so-called orphan works), the permission to print and copy specied amounts of text and with special commands the entire book, and the ability to annotate text. One signicant difference is that there is no perpetual access to the contentas in if you cancel, you dont get a copy of what you paid for. This represents a change in the way most libraries have historically provided access to book collections. It also differs from the way that many libraries are licensing and purchasing electronic journals as well as electronic book packages. Not having permanent access to the collection may not be a big deal to most collection managers. Many of us are already on board with the access over ownership model. In my opinion, the concern over not having permanent access all depends on the pricing of the subscription service. According to the settlement, there also arent any new pricing aspects under consideration that most of us havent already seen or heard before: what the market will bear, full-time equivalentbased costs, pricing comparable to similar products or services, and the quality of the product. My immediate question was, What would a similar product be? Early English books online? Eighteenth-century collections online? A permanent e-book collection aggregated from a vendor like ebrary or NetLibrary? A collection purchased directly from a publisher like Springer or Elsevier? As I have already stated above, many e-book providers allow libraries to maintain the

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Current] At: 12:30 6 May 2011

10

F. A. Chadwell

content in perpetuity, although the fees are not insubstantial in some cases. In his report to Association of Research Libraries directors, copyright scholar Kenneth Crews said that perhaps the scariest thing about this service is not knowing what the price will be for different types of institutions. This lack of certainty could not come at a worse time as we all continue to struggle with the economic downturn (Crews 2009). In comments led in May 2009, three major American library associations voiced support for how the institutional subscription service enabled by the settlement could evolve into an essential research facility (Davis et al. 2009, 3). At the same time, they voiced concern that in the absence of meaningful competition, the registry and Google could set the price of the subscription at a prot-maximizing point beyond the reach of many libraries (Davis et al. 2009, 3). None of us want to condone or endure the same kind of prot maximization we have suffered at the hands of many commercial journal publishers, especially since libraries were such active participants in creating what promises to be a transformational digital collection. In addition to the possible free or fee-based use scenarios the settlement proposes, the settlement creates four categories for Google library partners. Fully participating libraries are libraries that allow Google to digitize books in their collections, and in return Google provides the library with a digital copy of the scanned books. Fully participating libraries must adhere to a proscribed list of acceptable uses of the digital copies they receive. For example, they can use their digital copy to make a replacement copy if the original print copy of a book becomes lost or damaged. The next category is cooperating libraries. These libraries provide digitized content to Google; they just dont receive a digital copy. As a result, they also dont share the same responsibilities as fully participating libraries in regard to securing the use of digitized copies. The third group of libraries is the public domain group. A library in this group agrees to only provide public domain works for digitization. Like the cooperating libraries, the public domain libraries dont receive a digital copy of what has been digitized for them. The nal category is other libraries that may agree to provide books but dont become members of the three prior categories. Regardless of whether a library becomes a fully participating or cooperating library is subject to approval. There may also be a chance that both fully participating and cooperating participants will be able to negotiate a discount on the institutional subscription service (American Association of Publishers 2008). Obviously, there are advantages to being a fully participating library. You receive digital copies of books from your own collection, but also you have the right to receive digital copies of titles in your collection that Google digitized for another library. Whether you are eligible to receive these copies depends on how much of your collection Google digitizes. According to the settlement, a fully participating library may receive an LDC (library digital copy) of all of the books in its collection only if, for a collection

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Current] At: 12:30 6 May 2011

Whats Next for Collection Management and Managers?

11

of 900,000 books or more, Google digitizes more than 300,000 books from that fully participating librarys collection or, for a collection of fewer than 900,000 books, Google digitizes more than 30% of the books from that fully participating librarys collection (American Association of Publishers 2008). If receiving digital copies is an incentive for being a fully participating library, collection managers at an approved fully participating library recognize, as the saying goes, that with great power comes great responsibility. By becoming a fully participating library, a library is obligating itself to follow fairly detailed use guidelines related to managing the digital copies a library receives and to be held to somewhat onerous security obligations. The settlement covers creating and implementing a security plan and then complying with security standards outlined in a 20-page appendix to the main settlement document. And because there are also restrictions on what fully participating libraries can do with their digital copies (no interlibrary loan, no use in reserve or course management systems), there might be a greater incentive to become a cooperating library with fewer responsibilities. Though not alone, three American library associations also communicated their apprehension related to two fundamental issues for collection managers: censorship and privacy. First, these groups explored how the Google Book Service as outlined in the settlement would handle exclusions of certain materials that might affect intellectual freedom rights of users. The associations would specically like Google to consider a means for divulging what titles were excluded and the reasons for the exclusion. Another primary concern for the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries, and the Association of Research Libraries has to do with how the settlement failed to address user privacy; in particular, the library groups were concerned with how Google might address government inquiries on what a specic user is reading online and asked for the development of a privacy policy (Davis et al. 2009). Because of all the talk about data curation and data mashups, some collection managers might also be interested in whether libraries as subscribers will be able to build services on top of the Google Book Services or exploit the data in some way to the benet of their users. It is clear that fully participating libraries will be able develop or obtain and may deploy nding tools that allow its users to identify pertinent books within its LDC or generate information from its LDC to build or deploy nding aids or tools, although these aids are subject to some use restrictions in regard to how much (if any) content can actually be displayed from the library. The Google Book Settlement also refers to the establishment of a Research Corpus. The Research Corpus is a set of all LDCs of books made in connection with the Google Library Project (American Association of Publishers 2008). Host sites will support and maintain the Research Corpus so that qualied users can engage in specic types of research involving computational

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Current] At: 12:30 6 May 2011

12

F. A. Chadwell

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Current] At: 12:30 6 May 2011

analysis, linguistic analysis, and the development of new searching and indexing techniques (American Association of Publishers 2008). I was not able to nd any information about library subscribers being able to use the data similarly to the ways that fully participating libraries will be. This is a somewhat disappointing development though the Google Book Search application programming interface (API) has already been available for library developers to use since March 2008 (Google 2008, Preview books anywhere). Google is working with other groups like OCLC to build and/or improve library services. In 2008, Google and OCLC agreed to exchange data so that users of Google Book Search could easily identify library holdings in WorldCat. Likewise, Google released its API so that users of WorldCat could get a look at digitized books in the Google Book Search via the preview feature of WorldCat (OCLC 2008). Incidentally, other federated search products and/or vendors with discovery services are also making use of the Google API for book searches, including Ex Libris and Serials Solutions (Quint 2009). And for those users who still desire holding a print copy in their hands, collection managers will be interested to know that Google started working with on-demand books in mid-September 2008 to deliver printed copies of public domain books from its Book Search Service via the Espresso Book Machine (Google 2009, Books digitized).

GOOGLE BOOK SETTLEMENT: WAITING FOR THE SETTLEMENT

I would like to support the initiative that the Google Book Settlement and the Google Library Project represent. The Google Library Project and Google Book Search are excellent examples of libraries partnering with a cuttingedge rm to push the envelope in how their collections content could be provided to users. The risks were great, as the initial reaction to the Google Library Project showed and the subsequent response to the Google Book Settlement has demonstrated, and yet as Googles cofounder and president of technology says, The real victors are all the readers. The tremendous wealth of knowledge that lies within the books of the world will now be at their ngertips (Google 2009, The future of Google Books). At the same time, like many librarians, I believe there are numerous issues for libraries, such as pricing and privacy, that still need to be resolved before I can be totally satised that the agreement ought to move forward. As this issue of Collection Management is being wrapped up, Google is madly at work with its partners and realigning their agreement it in order to satisfy the objections of the U.S. Department of Justice as well as many others. Their deadline is November 9, 2009, unless there is another extension. This article has been an attempt to pinpoint some of the current issues about the Google Book Settlement that ought to be of concern to collection managers. There are obviously issues for authors and publishers that werent even addressed

Whats Next for Collection Management and Managers?

13

here, providing further evidence of just how complex the settlement and the issues are. Because of the complexities, it is incumbent on collection managers to become familiar with the details and the issues. We need to stay aware since the settlement, when approved, will in all likelihood be different in its nal form than what was spelled out in October 2008.

REFERENCES
American Association of Publishers. 2008. Google Book Settlement. Agreement. Available at: http://www.publishers.org/main/Copyright/Google/documents/ 05cv8136-BoniDeclaration.pdf (accessed September 19, 2009). Bookselling This Week. 2008. Authors Guild, AAP, Google reach settlement in copyright case. October 28. Available at: http://news.bookweb.org/news/6374.html (accessed October 3, 2009). Butler, Brandon. 2009. Background and update on Google Book Search and the proposed settlement. Prepared for the Association for Research Libraries, October 8. Available at: http://www.arl.org/bmdoc/gbs-summary-for-board.pdf (accessed October 19, 2009). California Digital Library. 2009. University of California Libraries and Springer sign pilot agreement for open access journal publishing. January 21. Available at: http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/springer open access.pdf (accessed October 4, 2009). Crews, Kenneth D. 2009. Google and books: Legal settlement or information revolution? Proceedings of the 154th ARL Membership Meeting, May 20. Recording available at: http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/mmproceedings/ 154mm-proceedings/session1.shtml (accessed October 3, 2009). Davis, Mary Ellen K., Keith Michael Fiels, and Charles B. Lowry. 2009. Supplemental Library Association comments on the proposed settlement. September 2. Available at: http://www.arl.org/bmdoc/library-associations-supp-ling-sept2-09.pdf (accessed October 3, 2009). Google. 2008. Google Book Settlement. FAQs. Available at: http://www. googlebooksettlement.com/help/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=118704 (accessed September 19, 2009). Google. 2008. Preview books anywhere with the new Google Book Search API. March 31. Available at: http://booksearch.blogspot.com/2008/03/previewbooks-anywhere-with-new-google.html (accessed October 3, 2009). Google. 2009. Books digitized by Google available via the Espresso Book Machine. September 17. Available at: http://booksearch.blogspot.com/2009/09/bookdigitized-by-google-available-via.html (accessed October 3, 2009). Google. 2009. The future of Google Books. Available at: http://books.google.com/ googlebooks/agreement/ (accessed October 3, 2009). Hindawi, Ahmed. 2009. 2020: A publishing odyssey: The possible futures of scholarly journal publishing. Version 32. Knol, September 8. Available at: http://knol.google.com/k/ahmed-hindawi/2020-a-publishing-odyssey/ 35ebnhrldxfp4/1 (accessed October 13, 2009).

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Current] At: 12:30 6 May 2011

14

F. A. Chadwell

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Current] At: 12:30 6 May 2011

Mele, Salvatore. 2008. The SCOAP3 Model. SCOAP3 U.S. Focal meeting, Berkeley, CA, February 29. Available at: http://scoap3.org/les/20080229 salvatore mele.pdf (accessed October 19, 2009). OCLC. 2008. OCLC and Google to exchange data, link digitized books to WorldCat. May 19. Available at: http://www.oclc.org/news/releases/200811.htm (accessed October 3, 2009). Quint, Barbara. 2009. Single interface library service from Serials Solutions: The summon. Infotoday, January 26. Available at: http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/ nbReader.asp?ArticleId=52370 (accessed October 3, 2009). Samuelson, Pamela. 2009. The dead souls of the Google Book Search Settlement. Communications of the ACM, 52(7), July, 2830. Academic Search Premier database, via http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.oregonstate.edu (accessed September 20, 2009). Swisher, Kara. 2006. All things digital; debating the Google suit. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). June 19, R.8. Wall Street Journal database, via http://proquest. umi.com.proxy.library.oregonstate.edu/ (accessed September 20, 2009). Trachtenberg, Jeffrey A., and Jessica E. Vascellaro. 2008. Google deal opens Web to millions of books. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). October 29, B.1. Wall Street Journal database, via http://proquest.umi.com.proxy.library. oregonstate.edu/ (accessed September 20, 2009). Vascellaro, Jessica E. 2009. Google gets until Nov. 9 to revise book pactcritics coalesce, pressing for alternatives to Internet giants plan on digital use of copyrighted material. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). October 8, B.5. Wall Street Journal database, via http://proquest.umi.com.proxy.library.oregonstate. edu/ (accessed September 20, 2009).