digitaldeposit

Cuts in LC budget threaten NDIIPP

Submitted by jrjacobs on Wed, 2007-09-12 23:45.

And this is *exactly* why we need a distributed system of digital deposit, collection, preservation and access.

"Cuts Impact Digital Work At Library Of Congress", National Journal's Technology Daily, Sep 11, 2007 PMedition by Aliya Sternstein

Budget cuts this year and a paltry funding outlook for fiscal 2008 are frustrating digitization efforts at the Library of Congress, according to Library employees. Meanwhile, Democrats and Republicans disagree on how much money to supply the program in the future.

The National Digital Information Infrastructure and Preservation Program, established by Congress in 2000, devises means of finding, saving and providing long-term access to cultural resources that exist only in electronic format. But $47 million -- half of the program's funding -- was rescinded in fiscal 2007 to support other critical library programs.

Another Example of Access Bad, Ownership Good

Submitted by dcornwall on Mon, 2007-08-13 19:07.

Update 8/19/2007

It turns out that this story is both more complex and more unnerving than I present here. So while I am leaving up my original post as a historical record that I am falliable, I suggest you stop reading right now and go to my colleague Jim Jacob's very well researched pieces:

 

 

But the best part about Jim's story is that it doesn't end with hopeless fear. He suggests concrete actions you can take to ensure the gov't will not "googlize" our info away.  - Daniel

 

The BBC is reporting "Google is shutting down its premium video service, leaving users who have bought or rented content unable to view their videos in the future."

These people paid to access their content and now they not only can't have it, but according to the BBC, they won't be getting refunds, either.

If these same users had bought DVDs from a company that either went under or stopped selling them, these would be happy people watching their programs. But because they bought into an access model that assured them content would be available 24/7 on a third party server, they have nothing but their memories.

I'm positive Google didn't start up the service with the intention of shutting it down. They had every intention of being good to their users. But that was something that for whatever reason, they could not live up to.

Can you see where I'm going with this? The Government Printing Office wants us to accept a centralized model where we point to content housed in FDSys rather than depositing digital documents with the nation's Federal Depository Libraries. They assure us, just like Google assured their subscribers, that their servers will always be available to us on today's usage terms. But they can't really commit future generations of public servants any more than Google could keep its promise to its subscribers. And Google has WAY more money that GPO ever will.

Try to take some time this week to tell your Congress members that you want to see the decentralized depository system of the future, not another monolithic model that can be unplugged at will.

UPDATE: We have updated the information about this issue and its implications in a two part article:

 

Syndicate content