Lack of bandwidth and workstations compromises library service

Citation

Fitzsimons, E. (2007), "Lack of bandwidth and workstations compromises library service", The Bottom Line, Vol. 20 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/bl.2007.17020cab.001

Lack of bandwidth and workstations compromises library service

Noteworthy and newsworthy

Lack of bandwidth and workstations compromises library service

Although almost all of the libraries in the country are connected to the internet and are increasingly offering wireless service, they still face problems in providing adequate bandwidth and enough workstations to meet the needs of library patrons. These were preliminary results from the 2007 Public Library Funding and Technology Access Study, which is being conducted by John Carlo Bertot and Charles R. McClure of the Information Institute at Florida State University, Tallahassee. The study is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the American Library Association (ALA). The purpose of the study is to assess public access to computers, the internet, and internet-related services in US public libraries as well as the impact of library funding changes on connectivity, technology deployment and sustainability in FY2007-2009. The initial findings were presented at the ALA Annual Conference June 23, 2007, in Washington, DC, with the final report completed in September (Oder, 2007).

These are some of the findings:

• •

  Of the 15,965 public library outlets with internet connections, only 84 libraries (0.5 percent) do not provide access to the public (Oder, 2007).

• •

  More than half (54.2 percent) of US public libraries now offer free wireless access (ALA, 2007).

• •

  Library staff in more than half of public libraries provide assistance to patrons applying for or accessing e-government (ALA).

• •

  About 68 percent of libraries offer online homework resources – serving the educational needs of more than 36 million school-age children (ALA).

• •

  The typical library building has an average of 10.7 internet workstations, virtually unchanged since 10.8 in 2002 (Oder).

• •

  Only about one-fifth of public library outlets reported having sufficient workstations to meet patron needs at all times; 58.8 percent reported too few workstations for patron use at various times throughout the day, while 18.7 percent reported that they consistently had fewer workstations than needed (Oder).

• •

  Some 54.2 percent of library outlets offer wireless access, up from 36.7 percent in 2006 and 17.9 percent in 2004 (Oder).

• •

  Some 29.2 percent of libraries offer broadband access at greater than 1.5 mbps, virtually the same as in 2006 (Oder).

• •

  Library directors hope for at least one IT staffer – or an additional one – “to manage the web page, implement new systems, teach classes, and handle day-to-day troubleshooting” (Oder).

The final 2007 report will be available online and as a print-on-demand book in September 2007. More information, including links to more than a decade of related research on public libraries and the internet conducted by the Information Institute at Florida State University, is available at: www.ala.org/plinternetfunding (ALA).

New partners and old complaints for Google

Google continues to strike new agreements with libraries that wish to make their collections available for the Google Books Library Project. On June 6, 2007, Google and the 12 universities in the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) announced that they had entered into an agreement to digitize up to 10 million bound volumes. This increased the number of libraries and universities participating in the project from 15 to 25 worldwide. The agreement calls for Google to digitize “significant portions from CIC library general collections,” with each university to contribute “collection areas of particular strength and distinction.”

Wendy Pradt Lougee, University of Minnesota university librarian and a member of the six-person team that negotiated the agreement with Google said that the digitization will include both public domain and in-copyright materials. In keeping with the policy, it had already implemented with other libraries, Google will make “snippets” of in-copyright materials available through its search engine. Public domain materials, on the other hand, can be viewed, searched, or downloaded in their entirety.

Lougee also pointed out that the agreement would allow the consortium to create a “shared digital repository” that will enable CIC librarians to access the full content and “collectively archive and manage” up to five million public domain works held by CIC libraries. According to Lougee, this agreement makes possible “library digitization at a scale and scope that would not be possible within the limited means available to the individual universities.”

The CIC includes the University of Minnesota, University of Chicago, University of Illinois, Indiana University, University of Iowa, Michigan State University, Northwestern University, Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University, and the University of Michigan and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. University of Michigan and University of Wisconsin-Madison had already signed agreements with Google, and the books that are to be scanned from their collections are not counted in the ten million mentioned in this CIC agreement (Albanese, 2007).

The announcement followed on the heels of Book Expo, where there were the expected controversies over Google’s scanning material under copyright. From the beginning, many publishers have been exercised over the Google Book Search because they claim that it is an infringement on copyright, not accepting Google’s counterclaim that since they are only making “snippets” available, they are not violating copyright.

Richard Charkin, a UK executive with Macmillan, and clearly someone with a quirky sense of humor. He attended this year’s Book Expo America in New York and decided to teach Google a lesson. He stole two of the company’s laptops from their booth to drive home that Google is “stealing” the work of authors and publishers without permission (Anderson, 2007).

Charkin’s (2007) caper is best told in his on words, which are found on his personal blog in a June 2 entry, “The Heist.”.

“I confess that a colleague and I simply picked up two computers from the Google stand and waited in close proximity until someone noticed. This took more than an hour.”

“Our justification for this appalling piece of criminal behaviour? The owner of the computer had not specifically told us not to steal it. If s/he had, we would not have done so. When s/he asked for its return, we did so.”

“It is exactly what Google expects publishers to expect and accept in respect to intellectual property.”

“If you don’t tell us we may not digitise something, we shall do so. But we do no evil. So if you tell us to desist we shall.”

“I felt rather shabby playing this trick on Google. They should feel the same playing the same trick on authors and publishers. Google expects publishers to expect and accept in respect to intellectual property.”

Google is not likely to have a change of heart as a result of “the heist,” although it certainly is a vivid portrayal of the emotions that some publishers feel about the project. In fact, Lessig (2007) calls this “a silly demonstration – of just how little publishing executives understand” and “astonishing level of ignorance.” One of his main points is that making a digital copy is, in essence, different from stealing a laptop. (Read Lessig’s blog, cited in references, for a more complex treatment of the Google copyright issue and at least 26 responses). When the laptop is stolen, the owner can no longer use it. Digitizing a book does not have this same effect (Anderson, 2007).

Charkin has been criticized roundly for this very reason and takes it all with good humor. In a more recent blog entry, he admits he has been characterized:

“Variously as a fool, a child, a luddite, a crook, or a counter-revolutionary. Hey ho. At least, it has generated debate, not least as to whether physical property has greater rights to protection than intellectual property.”

About the author.

Edited by Eileen FitzsimonsFitzsimons Editorial Consultants, Chicago, Illinois, USA