UoL Library Blog

Develop, debate, innovate.

Posts Tagged ‘sed’

FileOpen is coming – help me test it!

Posted by gazjjohnson on 28 September, 2010

File Open is the new secure electronic delivery mechanism the British Library have been moving to, to replace the rather less user friendly Adobe Digital Editions (to paraphrase the BL’s words).  Over the summer the update plug-in should have rolled out to all campus machines on the CFS network, with the student PCs being the last ones done this month.  Off campus people will need to download and install the FO plug-in for themselves, but this should be a relatively painless exercise, at least according to every document supply manager I’ve spoken to who’s already done it.

I’m currently mulling over when would be the best time to make the switch over, as term is kicking off all around me this week and next it doesn’t seem the right time to spring this; but perhaps a 2011 roll out would be more suitable.  it would certainly give me more time to do a spot of testing.  I wouldn’t want to push something out before I know it’s working for our readers!

In the meantime – if you get the chance to follow this link and try opening the document on a CFS machine (or download the plug in and try on your own machine) I’d be really grateful!  If you can tell me your machine type (Mac/PC), operating system and if you’re on CFS or not, that’d be even better!

Advertisements

Posted in Document Supply, Service Delivery | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

Rust, DRM and the British Library

Posted by gazjjohnson on 24 May, 2010

With my document Supply hat on I was interested to read Peter Murray Rust’s post the other day on DRM (Digital Rights Management) and the British Library; and I’ll admit I found myself nodding in agreement with some of his comments. That said while the system previously adopted using the Adobe Digital Edition platform has had a few niggles over the years, on the whole for our users it has worked ok. I am pleased to say that the BL is moving away from this to the FileOpen platform which by all accounts is much more trouble free; and we’ll be hopefully moving to this in coming months (once I’ve tested it thoroughly and prepared the appropriate publicity and training).

On the other hand reading the latter half of Peter’s post, I would disagree with quite a few of his comments aimed at librarians.  Academic libraries have to be cautious with copyright as publishers are notoriously litigious over their IPR  being redistributed, and organisations like the CLA keep an oversight that we don’t step out of line.  But why are the publishers able to swing such a mighty hammer over article copyright?  Only because many, many academics continue to perpetuate the gifting approach to publishing – giving away their rights in an article to publishers for publication.  Once these rights are given away, legally we librarians have to abide by the rules or risk penalties.

How can the situation be changed?  Only by academics themselves taking closer account of their publication habits, since they’re the one’s the publisher’s truly listen to.  It’s the same old open access message – think before you ascribe all rights to a publisher, consider using the SPARC addendum to retain rights to deposit in your open access repository, learn what your funder requires of you, and lobby publishers with whom you have a relation to develop or maintain fairer policies to the distribution of scholarly research funded out of the public purse.

Only in this way can the shackles of the BL’s license agreement with publishers be loosened, and only then will we see a reduction in the severity DRM terms of use.

The ball is, very much, in the academics’ court.

Posted in Document Supply, Open Access | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »