Open Access News

News from the open access movement


Friday, October 07, 2005

Cost-recovery instead of OA at GPO and LOC

The U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) and the and Library of Congress Cataloging Distribution Service (CDS) have decided not to allow open access to the latest edition of the Library of Congress Subject Headings (e-LCSH). From the announcement (October 5):
Note that the 28th edition (2005) of LCSH was distributed by FDLP in paper this year based on the current selection profiles. Please note that the Library of Congress Subject Headings is a CDS sale product for which costs must be recovered to sustain its continued availability. This electronic version is being made available to the Federal Depository Library Program with the condition that the files NOT be redistributed or made accessible outside the premises of participating FDLP libraries. If downloaded to a local server, the e-LCSH files must be placed on a location that is not accessible to Web crawlers or to users outside the premises of the FDLP library. To download the review copy of the e-LCSH, please go [here].

Thanks to James Jacobs at Free Government Information for the alert and also for this comment:

This is an excellent (though sad and ironic) example of the promise of digital information being crippled by contract for economic reasons. Where digital information holds the promise of being easily copied, re-distributed, and re-used, we see instead extreme restrictions being imposed on the information because "costs must be recovered". The restrictions bear repeating so that we can imagine the future of a world without digital deposit or a world with DRM locked down deposit or a world where use is limited not by copyright, but by contract: [1] Files may "NOT be redistributed", [2] Access only on "the premises", [3] Digital access hidden from web crawlers, [4] Digital access prohibited by users outside the library. The true "Luddites" are those that impose restrictions on access to government information rather than envisioning and enabling the possibilities created by digitization of information.

(PS: Of course costs must be recovered. But this is taxpayer-funded information. The cost-recovery model envisioned here is to charge taxpayers twice. This model is not only unfair to taxpayers, who have already paid once, but thwarts the public purpose in producing the information in the first place. Instead of being available to all taxpayers with a need to use it, the information will be available only to the subset who pass a means test.)