rufwork

Unescaped From at start of line, single-part message

Jul 10th, 2015
603
0
Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 23.81 KB | None | 0 0
  1. From - Sun Jun 21 21:30:11 2015
  2. X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
  3. X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
  4. Delivered-To: [email protected]
  5. Received: by 10.140.100.165 with SMTP id s34csp633627qge;
  6. Wed, 27 May 2015 22:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
  7. X-Received: by 10.42.120.66 with SMTP id e2mr7394973icr.37.1432789211714;
  8. Wed, 27 May 2015 22:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
  9. Return-Path: <[email protected]>
  10. Received: from mail.crl.edu (mail.crl.edu. [209.175.55.103])
  11. by mx.google.com with ESMTP id x6si13025414igl.33.2015.05.27.22.00.10
  12. Wed, 27 May 2015 22:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
  13. Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 209.175.55.103 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.175.55.103;
  14. Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
  15. spf=pass (google.com: domain of [email protected] designates 209.175.55.103 as permitted sender) [email protected]
  16. X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1432789204-0815cc69d4ddd30001-tYDu7y
  17. Received: from mail.crl.edu (crlmail.crldomain.edu [192.168.1.22]) by mail.crl.edu with ESMTP id EPeiidWCrQsqdllI; Thu, 28 May 2015 00:00:04 -0500 (CDT)
  18. X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: [email protected]
  19. X-ASG-Whitelist: Sender
  20. Received: from LISTSERV (192.168.1.42) by mail.crl.edu (192.168.1.22) with
  21. Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.174.1; Thu, 28 May 2015 00:01:21 -0500
  22. Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 00:00:00 -0500
  23. Reply-To: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
  24. Sender: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
  25. From: LIBLICENSE-L automatic digest system <[email protected]>
  26. Subject: LIBLICENSE-L Digest - 26 May 2015 to 27 May 2015 (#2015-98)
  27. X-ASG-Orig-Subj: LIBLICENSE-L Digest - 26 May 2015 to 27 May 2015 (#2015-98)
  28. Message-ID: <LIBLICENSE-L%[email protected]>
  29. Precedence: list
  30. List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?body=INFO%20LIBLICENSE-L>
  31. List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
  32. List-Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
  33. List-Owner: <mailto:[email protected]>
  34. MIME-Version: 1.0
  35. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
  36. Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
  37. X-Barracuda-Connect: crlmail.crldomain.edu[192.168.1.22]
  38. X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1432789204
  39. X-Barracuda-URL: https://192.168.1.23:4430/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
  40. X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at crl.edu
  41. X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1
  42.  
  43. There are 5 messages totaling 701 lines in this issue.
  44.  
  45. Topics of the day:
  46.  
  47. 1. Joy of Imaginary Data (Re: Global coalition of organizations denounce
  48. Elsevier's new "sharing" policy)
  49. 2. COAR-recting the record
  50. 3. In Defence of Elsevier
  51. 4. UKSG webinar 9 June - Creative Commons and Education =E2=80=93 are we there yet?
  52. 5. June 17 NISO Virtual Conference: The Eternal To-Do List: Making Ebooks
  53. work in Libraries
  54.  
  55. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  56.  
  57. Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 18:42:41 -0400
  58. From: LIBLICENSE <[email protected]>
  59. Subject: Re: Joy of Imaginary Data (Re: Global coalition of organizations denounce Elsevier's new "sharing" policy)
  60.  
  61. From: "Bargheer, Margo Friederike" <[email protected]>
  62. Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 06:45:25 +0000
  63.  
  64. Hi All,
  65.  
  66. At our research library we cancel journals when budget constraints
  67. (usually caused by raising prices from stock market noted publishers)
  68. force us to do so. The choice we make is based on price plus faculty
  69. use and whether we can actually cancel them. So if journals have a
  70. price worth saving, faculty shows little use and does not object a
  71. cancellation, we'll cancel, if we can.
  72.  
  73. It might be well the case that there is little use from scholars due
  74. to a high prevalence of easily accessable material caused by green OA.
  75. But if that held true, it would only show that scholars and their
  76. institutions have decided to organise the scholarly communication in
  77. this particular way. If that scholarly choice is in conflict with
  78. publisher's revenue expectations they better adjust their business
  79. model along the needs of scholars and their libraries instead of
  80. tightening their OA policies.
  81. Best
  82. Margo
  83.  
  84. Electronic Publishing
  85. SUB G=C3=B6ttingen
  86. Margo Bargheer
  87.  
  88.  
  89. > Am 27.05.2015 um 05:04 schrieb LIBLICENSE <[email protected]>:
  90. >
  91. > From: Rick Anderson <[email protected]>
  92. > Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 02:12:03 +0000
  93. >
  94. > Thanks very much for this useful response, Christina. One clarification:
  95. >
  96. >> Physics has the highest levels and longest history of green OA. The
  97. >> evidence from physics to date is that high levels of green OA don=C2=B9t
  98. >> cause journal cancellations.
  99. >
  100. > I agree that this is true at the discipline level, but what I=C2=B9m
  101. > particularly interested in is evidence at the journal level, since that=
  102. =C2=B9s
  103. > where subscription and cancellation decisions are made. (You can=C2=B9t c=
  104. ut
  105. > "physics journals," you can only cut particular physics journals.)
  106. >
  107. > So what I=C2=B9m still interested in knowing is whether anyone is aware of
  108. > examples of particular subscription journals most or all of whose content
  109. > is available for free in Green OA versions. (Of course, as Anthony points
  110. > out, the concept of "available" is kind of squishy; if the content is
  111. > technically available but hard to find, that will obviously make it less
  112. > likely that its availability would result in subscription cancellations.)
  113. >
  114. > ---
  115. > Rick Anderson
  116. > Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections
  117. > Marriott Library, University of Utah
  118.  
  119. ------------------------------
  120.  
  121. Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 18:49:01 -0400
  122. From: LIBLICENSE <[email protected]>
  123. Subject: Re: COAR-recting the record
  124.  
  125. From: Kathleen Shearer <[email protected]>
  126. Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 12:38:39 -0400
  127.  
  128. (sorry for any cross-posting)
  129.  
  130. In its recently released =E2=80=9CSharing and Hosting Policy FAQ=E2=80=9D, =
  131. Elsevier
  132. =E2=80=9Crecognize(s) that authors want to share and promote their work and
  133. increasingly need to comply with their funding body and institution's open
  134. access policies.=E2=80=9D However there are several aspects of their new po=
  135. licy
  136. that severely limit sharing and open access, in particular the lengthy
  137. embargo periods imposed in most journals- with about 90% of Elsevier
  138. journals having embargo periods of 12 months or greater. This is a
  139. significant rollback from the original 2004 Elsevier policy which required
  140. no embargos for making author=E2=80=99s accepted manuscripts available; and=
  141. even
  142. with the 2012 policy change requiring embargoes only when authors were
  143. subject to an OA mandate.
  144.  
  145. With article processing charges (APCs) that can cost as much as $5000 US
  146. dollars for publishing in one of Elsevier=E2=80=99s gold open access titles=
  147. or
  148. hybrid journals, this is not a viable option for many researchers around
  149. the world. Furthermore, the rationale for lengthy embargo periods is to
  150. protect Elsevier=E2=80=99s subscription revenue. We do not believe that sci=
  151. entific,
  152. economic and social progress should be hindered in order to protect
  153. commercial interests. In addition, there is currently no evidence that
  154. articles made available through OA repositories will lead to cancellations.
  155.  
  156. Elsevier=E2=80=99s new policy also requires that accepted manuscripts poste=
  157. d in
  158. open access repositories bear a CC-BY-NC-ND license. This type of license
  159. severely limits the re-use potential of publicly funded research. ND
  160. restricts the use of derivatives, yet derivative use is fundamental to the
  161. way in which scholarly research builds on previous findings, for example by
  162. re-using a part of an article (with attribution) in educational material.
  163. Similarly, this license restricts commercial re-use greatly inhibiting the
  164. potential impact of the results of research.
  165.  
  166. Elsevier=E2=80=99s Director of Access & Policy, Alicia Wise states that the=
  167. y =E2=80=9Chave
  168. received neutral-to-positive responses from research institutions and the
  169. wider research community.=E2=80=9D Yet, since the =E2=80=9CStatement agains=
  170. t Elsevier=E2=80=99s
  171. sharing policy=E2=80=9D was published just one week ago (on Wednesday May 2=
  172. 0,
  173. 2015), it has been signed by close to 700 organizations and individuals,
  174. demonstrating that there is significant opposition to the policy.
  175.  
  176. Elsevier has indicated that they =E2=80=9Care always happy to have a dialog=
  177. ue to
  178. discuss these, or any other, issues further.=E2=80=9D We would like to off=
  179. er the
  180. following concrete recommendations to Elsevier to improve their policy:
  181.  
  182. Elsevier should allow all authors to make their =E2=80=9Cauthor=E2=80=99s a=
  183. ccepted
  184. manuscript=E2=80=9D openly available immediately upon acceptance through an=
  185. OA
  186. repository or other open access platform.
  187.  
  188. Elsevier should allow authors to choose the type of open license (from
  189. CC-BY to other more restrictive licenses like the CC-BY-NC-ND) they want to
  190. attach to the content that they are depositing into an open access platform.
  191.  
  192. Elsevier should not attempt to dictate author=E2=80=99s practices around in=
  193. dividual
  194. sharing of articles. Individual sharing of journal articles is already a
  195. scholarly norm and is protected by fair use and other copyright exceptions.
  196. Elsevier cannot, and should not, dictate practices around individual
  197. sharing of articles.
  198.  
  199.  
  200. We strongly encourage Elsevier to revise their policy in order to better
  201. align with the interests of the research community. We would also be
  202. pleased to meet to discuss these recommendations with Elsevier at any time.
  203.  
  204. Kathleen Shearer, Executive Director, COAR
  205.  
  206. Heather Joseph, Executive Director, SPARC
  207.  
  208.  
  209. On May 21, 2015, at 7:41 PM, LIBLICENSE <[email protected]> wrote:
  210.  
  211. From: "Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)" <[email protected]>
  212. Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 15:58:30 +0000
  213.  
  214. Hello everyone =E2=80=93
  215.  
  216. Just a quick note to draw your attention to our article, posted today
  217. in Elsevier Connect and in response to yesterday=E2=80=99s statement by COA=
  218. R:
  219.  
  220. http://www.elsevier.com/connect/coar-recting-the-record.
  221.  
  222. I=E2=80=99ll also append the full text of this response below.
  223.  
  224. You might also be interested in this Library Connect webinar on some
  225. of the new institutional repository services we are piloting
  226. (
  227. http://libraryconnect.elsevier.com/articles/2015-01/webinar-institutional-r=
  228. esearch-repositories-characteristics-relationships-and-roles
  229. )
  230. and reading our policies for yourselves:
  231.  
  232. =C2=B7 Sharing =E2=80=93
  233. http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-posting-policy
  234.  
  235. =C2=B7 Hosting - http://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/hosting
  236.  
  237.  
  238.  
  239. With best wishes,
  240.  
  241. Alicia
  242.  
  243. *********
  244.  
  245. COAR-recting the record
  246.  
  247. We have received neutral-to-positive responses from research
  248. institutions and the wider research community. We are therefore a
  249. little surprised that COAR has formed such a negative view, and chosen
  250. not to feedback their concerns directly to us. We would like to
  251. correct the misperceptions.
  252.  
  253. Our sharing policy is more liberal in supporting the dissemination and
  254. use of research:
  255.  
  256. * At each stage of the publication process authors can share their
  257. research: before submission, from acceptance, upon publication, and
  258. post publication.
  259. In institutional repositories, which no longer require a formal
  260. agreement to host full text content
  261.  
  262. * Authors can also share on commercial platforms such as social
  263. collaboration networks
  264.  
  265. * We provide new services to authors such as the share link which
  266. enables authors to post and share a customized link for 50 days free
  267. access to the final published article
  268.  
  269. * For authors who want free immediate access to their articles, we
  270. continue to give all authors a choice to publish gold open access with
  271. a wide number of open access journals and over 1600 hybrid titles
  272.  
  273. Unlike the claims in this COAR document, the policy changes are based
  274. on feedback from our authors and institutional partners, they are
  275. evidence-based, and they are in alignment with the STM article sharing
  276. principles. They introduce absolutely no changes in our embargo
  277. periods. And they are not intended to suddenly embargo and make
  278. inaccessible content currently available to readers =E2=80=93 as we have
  279. already communicated in Elsevier Connect.
  280.  
  281. In fact, we have been developing services, in partnership with
  282. libraries, to help institutional repositories track research output
  283. and display content to their users. This includes:
  284.  
  285. =E2=80=A2 Sharing metadata: In order to showcase an institutions=E2=80=99 =
  286. work, an
  287. institutional repository must identify their institution=E2=80=99s research
  288. output. By integrating the ScienceDirect metadata API into the
  289. repository, this task becomes simple. Even in cases where the
  290. repository doesn=E2=80=99t hold the full text manuscript, the article
  291. information and abstract can be displayed..
  292.  
  293. =E2=80=A2 Sharing user access information and embedding final articles: We
  294. are testing a workflow in which a user=E2=80=99s access level to the full t=
  295. ext
  296. is checked on the fly, and if full text access is available, the user
  297. will be served the final published version, instead of the preprint or
  298. manuscript hosted by the repository. Users who are not entitled to
  299. view the full text of the final article will be led to the version
  300. available in the repository, or- if this is not available- to a page
  301. where they can view the first page of the article and options for
  302. accessing it (including via interlibrary loan). This ensures that
  303. users will always be served the best available version. This also
  304. enables the repository to display the best available version to their
  305. users even if no self-archived manuscript is available.
  306.  
  307. We have not only updated our policies, we are active in developing and
  308. delivering technology that enables research to be shared more widely.
  309.  
  310. COAR states that the addition of a CC-BY-NC-ND license is unhelpful.
  311. Feedback suggests that clarity about how manuscripts can be used is
  312. welcome, when asked in surveys often choose NC ND of their own
  313. volition (see the T&F study from 2014 at:
  314. http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/explore/open-access-survey-june2014.pdf
  315. ), and it works across a broad range of use cases.
  316.  
  317. Our refreshed policies are about green OA, and some elements of this =E2=80=
  318. =93
  319. for example the use of embargo periods =E2=80=93 are specifically for green=
  320. OA
  321. when it is operating in tandem with the subscription business model.
  322. Here time is needed for the subscription model to operate as libraries
  323. will understandably not subscribe if this material is available
  324. immediately and for free.
  325.  
  326. In closing, we appreciate an open dialogue and are always happy to
  327. have a dialogue to discuss these, or any other, issues further.
  328.  
  329. Dr Alicia Wise
  330. Director of Access and Policy
  331. Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB
  332. M: +44 (0) 7823 555 555 I E: [email protected]
  333.  
  334. ------------------------------
  335.  
  336. Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 18:53:01 -0400
  337. From: LIBLICENSE <[email protected]>
  338. Subject: In Defence of Elsevier
  339.  
  340. From: Stevan Harnad <[email protected]>
  341. Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 13:44:11 -0400
  342.  
  343. I beg the OA community to remain reasonable and realistic.
  344.  
  345. Please don't demand that Elsevier agree to immediate CC-BY. If
  346. Elsevier did that, I could immediately start up a rival free-riding
  347. publishing operation and sell all Elsevier articles immediately at cut
  348. rate, for any purpose at all that I could get people to pay for.
  349. Elsevier could no longer make a penny from selling the content it
  350. invested in.
  351.  
  352. CC-BY-NC-ND is enough for now. It allows immediate harvesting for data-mini=
  353. ng.
  354.  
  355. The OA movement must stop shooting itself in the foot by
  356. over-reaching, insisting on having it all, immediately, thus instead
  357. ending up with next to nothing, as now.
  358.  
  359. As I pointed out in a previous posting, the fact that Elsevier
  360. requires all authors to adopt CC-BY-NC-ND license is a positive step.
  361. Please don't force them to back-pedal!
  362.  
  363. Please read the terms, and reflect.
  364.  
  365. SH
  366.  
  367. Accepted Manuscript
  368.  
  369. Authors can share their accepted manuscript:
  370.  
  371. Immediately
  372.  
  373. * via their non-commercial personal homepage or blog.
  374.  
  375. * by updating a preprint in arXiv or RePEc with the accepted manuscript.
  376.  
  377. * via their research institute or institutional repository for
  378. internal institutional uses or as part of an invitation-only research
  379. collaboration work-group.
  380.  
  381. * directly by providing copies to their students or to research
  382. collaborators for their personal use.
  383.  
  384. * for private scholarly sharing as part of an invitation-only work
  385. group on commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement.
  386.  
  387. After the embargo period
  388.  
  389. * via non-commercial hosting platforms such as their institutional reposito=
  390. ry.
  391. * via commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement.
  392.  
  393. In all cases accepted manuscripts should:
  394.  
  395. * Link to the formal publication via its DOI.
  396.  
  397. * Bear a CC-BY-NC-ND license =E2=80=93 this is easy to do, click here to fi=
  398. nd out how.
  399.  
  400. * If aggregated with other manuscripts, for example in a repository or
  401. other site, be shared in alignment with our hosting policy.
  402.  
  403. * Not be added to or enhanced in any way to appear more like, or to
  404. substitute for, the published journal article.
  405.  
  406. How to attach a user license:
  407.  
  408. Elsevier requires authors posting their accepted manuscript to attach
  409. a non-commercial Creative Commons user license (CC-BY-NC-ND). This is
  410. easy to do. On your accepted manuscript add the following to the title
  411. page, copyright information page, or header /footer: =C2=A9 YEAR, NAME.
  412. Licensed under the Creative Commons [insert license details and URL].
  413.  
  414. For example: =C2=A9 2015, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons
  415. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
  416. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
  417.  
  418. You can also include the license badges available from the Creative
  419. Commons website to provide visual recognition. If you are hosting your
  420. manuscript as a webpage you will also find the correct HTML code to
  421. add to your page
  422.  
  423. ------------------------------
  424.  
  425. Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 18:44:14 -0400
  426. From: LIBLICENSE <[email protected]>
  427. Subject: UKSG webinar 9 June - Creative Commons and Education =E2=80=93 are we there yet?
  428.  
  429. From: Maria Campbell <[email protected]>
  430. Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 10:46:44 +0000
  431.  
  432. Dear Colleagues,
  433.  
  434. I am pleased to invite you to the next free UKSG webinar - CREATIVE
  435. COMMONS AND EDUCATION - ARE WE THERE YET?
  436.  
  437. http://www.uksg.org/webinars/creativecommons
  438.  
  439. Date: Tuesday 9 June 2015
  440. Time: 1400 BST
  441. Duration: 45 minutes including Q&A (up to 60 minutes maximum if there
  442. is sufficient demand for an extended Q&A)
  443.  
  444. Speaker:
  445.  
  446. Joscelyn Upendran, Co-founder of Zilpa
  447.  
  448. Join Joscelyn for a look at Creative Commons licences, their impact
  449. and use in education.
  450.  
  451. This is a free webinar and open to all. If you are interested, but
  452. unable to join the live event, please register anyway as a recording
  453. will be made available to all who register.
  454.  
  455. For more information and to register, please visit:
  456.  
  457. http://www.uksg.org/webinars/creativecommons
  458.  
  459. Feedback from May's webinar: =E2=80=9COpen Access is a complex and potentia=
  460. lly
  461. very contentious area, e.g. academic freedom to publish. So amongst
  462. all the conflicting mandates and policies it was really useful to have
  463. the institutional role so clearly delineated - and an action plan to
  464. follow up on.=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93 Candace Guite, University of Stirling 92%=
  465. of survey
  466. respondents would recommend May's webinar.
  467.  
  468. Thank you for your attention. I do hope you can join us.
  469.  
  470. Maria
  471.  
  472. Maria Campbell
  473. Digital Communications Associate, UKSG
  474.  
  475. ------------------------------
  476.  
  477. Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 18:46:33 -0400
  478. From: LIBLICENSE <[email protected]>
  479. Subject: June 17 NISO Virtual Conference: The Eternal To-Do List: Making Ebooks work in Libraries
  480.  
  481. From: NISO Announce <[email protected]>
  482. Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 11:45:37 -0400
  483.  
  484. June 17 NISO Virtual Conference: The Eternal To-Do List: Making Ebooks
  485. work in Libraries
  486.  
  487. Virtual conferences are 5-6 hour conferences held online in
  488. webinar-like formats, with occasional breaks in the schedule for
  489. participants. The longer length allows the depth of coverage of a
  490. conference coupled with the convenience of a webinar.
  491.  
  492. Date: June 17, 2015
  493.  
  494. Time: 11:00 am - 5:00 pm Eastern
  495.  
  496. Event webpage: http://www.niso.org/news/events/2015/virtual_conferences/ete=
  497. rnal_ebooks/
  498.  
  499. ABOUT THE VIRTUAL CONFERENCE
  500.  
  501. From scholarly monographs to textbooks, the range of e-book formats
  502. and use cases is rapidly expanding. Libraries are on the front lines
  503. of this issue, actively evolving their approach to offering e-books to
  504. meet patron needs and expectations. This virtual conference, The
  505. Eternal To-Do List: Making E-books Work in Libraries, will probe the
  506. key issues surrounding e-books from a variety of library, technology,
  507. and end-user viewpoints and share experiences of how some libraries
  508. have met these challenges.
  509.  
  510. Participate in the community discussion for advancing e-book
  511. distribution and understanding their use, as speakers examine issues
  512. such as:
  513.  
  514. =E2=80=A2 How the four stakeholder communities=E2=80=94librarians, publishe=
  515. rs,
  516. suppliers, faculty and students=E2=80=94are affected by e-book acquisition,
  517. usage, and technology changes
  518.  
  519. =E2=80=A2 E-book business models, including various demand driven acquisiti=
  520. on
  521. (DDA) options, and the impact on collection development, consortial
  522. selection
  523.  
  524. =E2=80=A2 Evolving standards and best practices for e-book management
  525.  
  526. =E2=80=A2 Assessment and gauging the value of e-books through benchmarking =
  527. and
  528. case studies
  529.  
  530. =E2=80=A2 The reactions, engagement, and usage trends from student feedback=
  531. on e-books
  532.  
  533. =E2=80=A2 How e-textbooks are challenging libraries
  534.  
  535. =E2=80=A2 Creating e-book library =E2=80=9Cwish lists=E2=80=9D
  536.  
  537.  
  538. TOPICS AND SPEAKERS
  539.  
  540. Keynote Address: E-Books: Promise into Practice
  541. Suzanne M. Ward, Professor and Head of Collection Management, Purdue
  542. University Libraries
  543.  
  544. Evaluating Academic Ebook Platforms from a User Perspective
  545. Christina Mune, Academic Liaison Librarian, San Jose State University
  546.  
  547. Making ebooks discoverable
  548. Erica Findley, Cataloging/Metadata Librarian and Sandy Macke, Catalog
  549. and Metadata Administrator, Multnomah County Library
  550.  
  551. E-book Workflows: The Ongoing Challenges of Managing Materials and
  552. Improving Discoverability
  553. Molly Beisler, MA, MLS, Head, Discovery Services, Mathewson-IGT
  554. Knowledge Center, University of Nevada
  555.  
  556. The Business Side: Making ebooks work in Libraries
  557. Micah May, Director of Strategy & Business Development at New York
  558. Public Library
  559.  
  560. DDA: How best practices lead to a healthy bottom line
  561. Stephen Bosch, Materials Budget, Procurement, and Licensing Librarian,
  562. University of Arizona Library
  563.  
  564. Roundtable Discussion: The e-book =E2=80=9Cecosystem=E2=80=9D and perspecti=
  565. ves on the
  566. e-book supply chain, including acquisition, usage, and technological
  567. hurdles for accessibility and discoverability.
  568.  
  569. REGISTRATION
  570.  
  571. Registration is per site (access for one computer) and closes at 4:00
  572. pm Eastern on June 16, 2015 (the day before the virtual conference).
  573. Discounts are available for NISO members and students. All virtual
  574. conference registrants receive access to the recorded version for one
  575. year.
  576.  
  577. Can't make it on the day of the virtual conference? All registrants
  578. receive access to the recorded version for one year. Take advantage of
  579. the Virtual Conference subscription package
  580. (http://www.niso.org/news/events/2015/virtual_conferences/#subscription)
  581. for all six of the 2015 Virtual Conferences and save 33%. (Previously
  582. held 2014 virtual conferences available in recorded versions.)
  583.  
  584. For more information and to register, visit the event webpage:
  585. http://www.niso.org/news/events/2015/virtual_conferences/eternal_ebooks/
  586.  
  587. # # #
  588.  
  589. ------------------------------
  590.  
  591. End of LIBLICENSE-L Digest - 26 May 2015 to 27 May 2015 (#2015-98)
  592. ******************************************************************
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment