Reflections on the End of the World Wide Web and the Future of the Internet as an Information/Service Resource

[This post is in an essay written in preparation for the December 10, 2010, Episode 16 of "Law Librarian Conversations," a podcast about all things law library.... This week's podcast with guests Tom Boone, Reference Librarian, Loyola Law School; Jason Wilson, Vice President Jones McClure Publishing; Ed Walters, CEO, Fastcase.

If you are reading this before Friday, 12/10, you can join us by clicking on this link:
https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/537047386

Title: LawLibCon 16 - Future of Interface Design (12/10/2010)
Date: Friday, December 10, 2010
Time: 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM CST
After registering you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the Webinar. Follow the conversation in the chat room during the live broadcast athttp://lawlibcon.classcaster.com/chat.

Subscribe to LawLibCon on iTunes here: http://u.cali.org/2jwf . Enough shameless self-promotion.... RL]
==================================================

I've been fascinated recently by a new trend in consumer use of the internet.

The internet itself has remained pretty stable as a continuing backbone for the electronic exchange of information. It has been surprisingly robust and scalable. Embarrassingly, I was one of those people who, in the early 1990's was predicting that the internet would soon break from the volume of usage as it spread from academic to commercial users. At the time, it seemed that as usage - especially, graphical intense usage - would fill the capacity of routers and cables of our national infrastructure. Surprise, surprise. Hardware manufacturers and ISPs have somehow figured out to meet the demand. (And have they ever….)

But while the internet backbone has scaled up and provided one and all with (potential) capacity for the mammoth amounts of bandwidth. A well wired home could (does?) have a wireless access point that supports at least ten simultaneous devices on the same router at speed and capacity to allow all ten users to stream music while surfing the web with several tabs open.

So the internet itself supports surprisingly intense usage. But the people who make money on the sale of this usage are the ISPs. What about the information providers who provide the information or services that consumers use? In order for content and service providers to make money for their information or services, they need two things: Unique, high quality information or services, and, eyeballs. Service or information providers either make money on the information that they sell to users, or they give their information or services away for free and sell advertising to others. This much is obvious. It's also the great challenge of being in business on the internet.

Either way, the vendor has a vested interest in holding the users' attention as long as possible. One way that they are doing that is by creating new "platforms" for access to, or usage of information or services available on the internet. If you think about it, this basic concept underlies nearly all recent developments in cyber-business. The creation of the iOS and its use of apps to access the internet was one of the very first examples of a way to lure users away from the wide-open world wide web and into a world where use of the internet was now carried out completely from within an application. This provided us with excellent, robust access to and usage of the information or services, while at the same time, keeping us in that very location for focused, discreet periods of time.

But as Mobile Safari began to become a major source of internet activity, other service and information providers began to see the potential for customized, focused internet experience. Google keeps developing more and more products and services and makes them available for free to all-comers - and yet makes billions. And they make that money without ever sending you a bill! The strategy is simple, get users to click into the world of Google for search, mail, documents, RSS feeds, phone, etc.; And keep them there! Google is striving to extend their reach even further by developing its mobile platform, Android and its forthcoming operating system, ChromeOS. Once in the Google world, a user will be able to stay in that world. FaceBook, too, making plays to become the one-stop source of all your internet life and activity.

Developments such as these may ultimately serve to make the intent a series of walled gardens where users can't easily move from one application or platform at will, at least not easily. Examples of how fine these walled gardens have become can be seen in two recent announcements of publishing ventures which have begun entirely as applications on the iPad. For example, Rupert Murdoch's announcement of the creation of an iPad based newspaper called "The Daily," and Richard Branson's new magazine called, "Project." The Daily isn't yet released (as of this writing) but Project is. And it is stunning in nearly every respect. It's beautiful, packed with features and utility. But it is limited in one important respect.

Even if I wanted to share with you the wonderful cover story in Project, I couldn't. First off, there is no URL. Second, even if I could, somehow send you a link to the article, because Project was developed on an app built especially for the iPad, you need one in order to view it. And there's no end in sight. Such applications are bound to appear in all major platforms.

The irony is that well-executed applications provide outstanding experience for the user and many people prefer the experience of browsing Twitter, Facebook, RSS feeds and databases through available apps over accessing the same information with a browser.

What's a developer to do? The hope, from a user's point of view is that developers will focus their efforts on building good services and databases and make them available on every available platform. It is also important for a new system of link locators be developed so that links from within a ChromeOS application will be able to find the same article or information in an iOS application or from within a browser.

Such challenges are so subtle and nuanced as to be nearly invisible today. Tomorrow they may well be extreme obstacles for cross-platform use and may make today's successful platform the preferred one for distribution of tomorrow's information and services….

Two Observations About the State of Modern Law Book Publishing

First, things cost too much and the prices keep increasing at rates that are out-stripping inflation and funding for libraries. It's almost as though publishers don't want law libraries to buy law books any more. Second, while the quality of online services, and, indeed, even print resources get better and better, there is still an indication that publishers aren't developing their materials for what people need, but, rather, what they can profit from.

Think that the reason that we're in these predicaments is at least partly because most of our publishers are so far removed from their customers that they simply don't understand who their customers are, or how or why they are using them.

For the most part, the executives of the big three publishers of materials about American law are not lawyers, nor publishers. Even if they have law degrees, they usually also have MBA's and come from business backgrounds. They are corporate types who see their companies as manufacturing widgets! They don't appreciate the grave responsibility that they have as publishers. (Seriously.)

Think about it. Without publishers, we'd have no idea what the law is. After all, the law is ideas, and it doesn't become static or fixed in any way, shape or form until it's captured in some form or other. The government and the courts have traditionally done a half-a**ed job of publishing legal materials, but that's about it. The only two government publications that are effectively published are the Federal Register and the CFR. Everything else they publish is poorly done: slow, bizarre formats and classification systems, etc. Without commercial publishers, we wouldn't have a workable USC, US Supreme Court Reports, federal court reporters, etc. What's more, even if we did have all that it wouldn't be worth much without looseleafs, treatises and law reviews to tell us what it all means. (See Jason Wilson's excellent post on why Secondary Sources are Like Cheeseburgers. The work of publishers isn't just like manufacturing hub caps or widgets, it's a vitally important role in our whole legal system. It's the lynchpin of our understanding the law.

But publishers and executives who come to the law publishing industry thinking that they are publishing widgets, will view their work differently than those who realize that they are not publishing widgets. This is the first problem: the new publishers are not serving us, they're serving themselves. They think they're making widgets.

Second, in the aftermath of the enormous mergers of the Ninties, the companies have merely grown more dense at the top. People who make decisions about what should be published and what shouldn't, or how they should serve their customers or how they shouldn't are now made by people who are so far removed from their customers, that they can't really hear what's being said. Sales people don't know who to communicate with inside companies in order to pass along good ideas. (Librarians are full of good ideas, by the way. No fooling.) I had an experience recently in which a single title published by a single publisher was available in both print and electronic formats. Managers of the print format didn't even know there was an electronic format available! The left hand didn't merely no know what the right hand was doing; the left hand didn't even know the right hand existed!

There are a couple publishers still around who are independent and produce good materials, and they succeed, in part I think because they are still small enough where actual customers can talk to the publishers and the product development people. But with the likes of the big three (or four, depending on how you count), you can't get any face time with a person who matters unless you can deliver.... profits.

Now, lest this sound too pessimistic and negative, please understand that I'm simply trying to be objective with this post. All this is understandable and remediable. Publishers must realize that their roles are critical components of our legal system and take a broader, bigger view of what they do. And, we customers must be more understanding about who were are dealing with; and we must continually strive to inform them. Especially the those newest to the field. If they don't get it, we must work to explain to them why we care so much, and why they should care about why we care.

The 21st Century Law Library Conundrum: Free Law and Paying to Understand It

For years people have been predicting the death of books and the general demise libraries. The people who have been most passionate about them are those who stand to gain financially by their own predictions. And that’s not to say that we haven’t all benefited from digital developments in the world of legal bibliography. But in this past decade has seen some extraordinary technological developments. It looks like world of law libraries may finally be at the cusp of a fundamental change in how we collect, organize and distribute legal materials.

Primary Legal Materials
For the entire history of our Western legal system, the publication of primary legal materials (cases, statutes and regulations) was intimately tied up with tools that help lawyers understand the law. The nineteenth century saw the rise of the industrialization of case reporting when John B West created the National Reporter System, a reporting service that systematically and promptly reported every published case that came from the United States judicial system. The process for collecting and publishing them was strictly objective and so efficient that the volume of reported cases made research virtually impossible without an elaborate indexing system, or some sort of key to finding needed cases. West’s Key Number System, that purported to index every legal issue decided by the courts and was accessible through the encyclopedic digest system served two purposes: reporting cases quickly and authoritatively, as well as providing subject access to the courts’ rulings specific issues.

Over time, West Publishing was so successful at its business that it became the reporter of record for many jurisdictions. Even when a state published its own cases, the West reporter versions were preferred because of their widespread distribution, reliability and speed with which they were published, none of which the official reporters could compete.

West also eventually tackled publication of state and federal codes with the same zeal. Although they were considered “unofficial” versions, their annotated codes became well regarded and authoritative, and, in some cases were adopted as official versions.

Since for most practicing lawyers, West was the best possible source for case law, the company assumed a business model that relied heavily on sales of primary legal materials. This left us in the peculiar situation in which most primary legal materials, that are, in fact, free to everyone, were only available from a single (very expensive) commercial source. West Publishing found itself in the awkward position of being a virtual monopolist of a great deal of free, public legal materials, through no fault of its own. Since ours is a nation of laws, it is difficult to understand how states and federal courts and legislatures could not have made it a priority to publish its laws and cases, but it is a fact that the federal government’s official US Code is so slow to be published as to be virtually unusable; the same with the publication of the official reports of the United States Supreme Court. It is equally difficult to understand how or why the federal courts have never even attempted to publish cases from any other federal courts.

Of course, West also publishes a prodigious amount of important secondary legal materials such as encyclopedias, treatises, textbooks, practice materials and form books. It’s unknown what portion of West’s revenue came from secondary materials, but it is likely that it was a significant percentage, perhaps as much as fifty percent. In any case, publication and sales of primary legal materials constituted a significant source of revenue. The company also integrated many features of both enterprises into an environment in which lawyers could easily move between primary and secondary materials. West’s slogan, “Forever associated with the practice of law,” was descriptive; not merely aspirational.

The “Open Access” Movement
Regardless of the nature of their intentions, by the 1980’s there was a significant amount of activism against West’s de facto monopoly on the publication of primary legal materials. Also known as the “free law” movement, activists in the last two decades have been working to make all primary legal materials freely accessible and free to everyone. They reason that since case law, statutes and regulatory materials are the primary sources of the law that governs them, all citizens should have free, easy access to the materials. The fact is, much of the best sources of this material is published by the West Publishing company, which, as described above, was the source of substantial corporate profit. As calls came for governments and courts to freely release their cases and codes, many were unable to do so because they weren’t the publishers of their own materials!

In the early 1990’s the situation heated up intensely, and open access advocates eventually brought the matter to the attention of the Justice Department, alleging that West Publishing was in violation of a number of anti-trust laws and moral principles for refusing to freely turn over their editions of federal case law to the courts or to emerging publishers who wished to scan the contents of the National Reporter System and distribute it on CD-ROMs, microfilm or their own databases.

The issue settled before it was fully heard in the courts, and resulted in West being able to sell their collections of primary materials for licensing fees. Little is known about the specific terms of the settlement, but it is known that publishers pay West to use the volume and page numbers for cases. But the most significant result of the controversy was the sale of West Publishing to Thomson, a Canadian newspaper publisher. The 60 shareholders of West were fed up with the controversy surrounding their publishing of primary legal materials, they simply wanted to get out while the going was good. The company sold for more than 3.5 billion dollars. And the new company, The West Group, a division of Thomson Reuters, still publishes primary legal materials.

But the world is changing and West, as well as the other main publisher of primary legal materials, Lexis, are struggling to keep up. As the government and courts make increased use of the internet and various other online digital technologies to publish and distribute primary legal materials, it is becoming less necessary for researchers to buy them from West or Lexis. As legal researchers, we are not yet in a position a position to abandon altogether the outstanding primary law products from Lexis and West, which are enhanced with elaborate indexing, digesting and case-verification tools, but it is clear that individuals and organizations are working to develop new programming tools to make web-based legal materials affordable and useful. Two examples are Govtrack.us, and Google Scholar’s Legal Opinions and Journals. Govtrack.us is an example of an outstanding free service that gives researchers superior access to pending federal legislation. It has substantially outdone West and Lexis’ offerings for tracking federal law making. Google’s SLOJ, is brand new and, though clearly an inferior means of researching US case law, Google is clearly committed to continuing to improve it, in terms of it’s content and usefulness. With the resources that Google can through into the process, it’s potential is nearly limitless.

This move to free access to primary legal materials appears to be inevitable. The major problems with digital access to primary legal materials are reliability and permanence. At present, there are no standards that can guarantee that any particular document retrieved from the internet at any point in time is the authoritative version of the underlying law or case. Neither is there a standard for for collecting, compiling and preserving electronic versions of this kind of material. These are huge obstacles, but many groups are presently working on developing such standards, including, among many others, the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws and the American Association of Law Libraries, and there is every reason to think that some meaningful standards will be forthcoming. In the end, everyone with an internet connection and a web browser will be able to have instant access to all primary legal materials from every jurisdiction, court and legislative body in the land.

“Not Free” Law
That means that law libraries and law books will simply disappear in a digital mist, right? Not quite. Every lawyer knows that having access to all needed primary materials doesn’t always help you solve a research question. What’s more helpful is a work that interprets the cases and describes the procedures and rules that come from them, or a system that provides you access to only the most important, instructive cases. Books that not only describe, discuss and criticize the laws, but provide practical information about how they are applied, plus forms and examples of practical documents, are the most valuable resources that publishers publish, and that libraries collect.

In the old, analog world, libraries could purchase a copy of a book and maintain, and make it available to all patrons and unlimited amount of time. In this environment, secondary materials, the most valuable materials to legal researchers, were distributed extremely broadly. A public library could purchase the materials it could afford and make them available to anyone. A law firm library could purchase a single copy of a treatise and not only make it available to all attorneys in the firm, but the could loan it to other firms, too.

The great revolution in legal research and publishing came not simply because online gave quick access to materials, it allowed publishers the ability to sell access to the materials based on a new paradigm: the volume of time the materials were used. This changed the landscape in fundamental ways by making publishers see the sale of online access to legal materials as the real way to increase profits. Essentially, the sale of online legal materials represents a second sale where libraries purchase online subscriptions to materials they already owned in print. And the sale of secondary materials is really a lease. Westaw and Lexis, as publishers sell two things: primary and secondary legal materials. Under this new paradigm in the present economic climate with shrinking budgets for legal materials, there is increased incentive for discontinuing paying for access to primary materials.

What all this means for today’s lawyers and libraries is that at some point we will be able to gradually discontinue our reliance on commercial publishers as sources for primary legal materials. Logically, this means that we’ll have to purchase less materials from Lexis and West. Sadly, while it may be the case that we won’t have to subscribe to as many titles as before, we will continue to pay them more, for less content.

This is how it will work. Even if we cancel the entire National Reporter System and all the annotated codes published by West, we will still need the indexes, digests and Key Numbers that they publish. Without West’s indexing system and catalog of secondary materials, legal researchers are lost. (Imagine sitting down at your computer and launching a service that has access to all cases ever published and inputing a query designed to retrieve all relevant cases on the subject of when a minor can commit to a binding contract. Would you really want every single case ever decided on the subject, or just the ones that are most influential?) As West and Lexis see their revenue decline from sales to primary materials, they will (and are) increasing their prices for access to their secondary materials to make up the difference.

The Revolution
Will increased access to free primary materials make libraries disappear, or become cheaper? It is unlikely that as demand for premiere versions of primary law, such as that available from Westlaw and Lexis declines, the cost for the enhanced, secondary materials will increase in order to account for the anticipated loss of revenue. Of course, part of the irony is that West has had decades to develop and enhance their primary offerings with annotations and cross references to encyclopedias, form books and treatises, such that it’s nearly unthinkable that someone can practice law with only access to free law resources.

For the last fifteen years, prices of materials have increased at rates steadily ahead of inflation or reason. The digital revolution, that once upon a time promised free access to legal materials, will deliver on that promise; it’s just that the free materials it will deliver, even if it comprises the sum total of all primary law in the the country at every level and jurisdiction, will amount to only a minor portion of the materials that lawyers need in order to practice law, and the public needs in order to understand it.

Why I'm Signing the Durham Statement

[I wrote this the day after hosting a podcast with Professors Richard Danner and John Palfrey, authors and architects of the Durham Statement. The podcast can be found on iTunes, here. The transcript of the chat room can be found here. RL]

[In a curious irony, when I logged onto the website to "sign" the statement, I got a 404 error.... Uh, I guess the gods do have a sense of humor! RL]

OK, I'm convinced. I'm going to sign the Durham Statement. But with an asterisk. Here's why.

I fully support all the goals and objectives of 'the open access' movement. I believe that it is critical that as more legal materials are born digital, librarians should be working with content creators (governments, authors, academics, publishers, bloggers, etc.) to be sure that digital information is produced and preserved in systematic, efficient and stable formats. There's a need for that format to be simple, objective and thorough so that software and hardware developers can easily develop applications and search engines that make the material not just accessible, but usable, useful. And, perhaps most important, the formats must be open so that they can be used by developers (of search engines, readers, aggregators, or who knows what kind of tool) for any platform, while at the same time remaining strictly controlled and loyal to established standards. Standards must take into account not only the data itself but its metadata and as well as format.

The desire for an end of print materials is not what's driving the growth in the availability of digital legal information. What's driving its growth are technological developments. Better html, java and Ajax web development tools have made web pages more hospitable for users and developers, and, as a result, more useful for finding, accessing and using information and documents retrieved. Better processing power, bandwidth and storage capacities have made the development and distribution of databases practical, both on the server and user sides. Looking back at history, consumers of legal information have never simply stopped using one format to await the arrival of the next. Any new format must prove itself before it will become the new standard. The same will occur as legal materials transition from print to digital formats. (The question of whether this transition will be total or partial, or somewhere in between - my choice - is beyond the scope of this essay.)

There's also a practical reason for my reservation about the "end of print" declaration in the Statement. By declaring 'the end of print' as an end in itself, I am afraid that it gives too much encouragement to publishers and information creators to put the cart before the horse, and cease printing material before reliable online alternative formats are fully developed. This could lead to disaster in two ways. First, they may move too quickly and develop online tools using new, unproven technologies that may end up making access to the material more difficult than before without refinements and upgrades. And then there's the danger that all early adopters risk: adopting formats that don't survive in the marketplace and may be lost forever.

This is why I object to the language in the Durham Statement that calls for "an end of print publication" of law reviews. In my mind the call is unnecessary, even vacuous. If the printing of law reviews is doomed, it will happen only when there are acceptable substitutes. And not a second sooner.

I'm signing the Statement with the above reservations, and whole-heartedly support it's underlying goals and objectives, (I support AALL, NCCUSL, LIPA and Law.gov, too), the call for the development of rigorous standards for materials that are born digital. I also like the idea that legal scholarship be included in the open access movement. There's great potential to create a fascinating, organic living encyclopedia of legal scholarship.

The Year In Law Libraries

The panel had some good comments on the year's biggest developments. And predictions.... the predictions are available in the chat room transcript, which you can find by clicking here.

I'll post more information about the show later.

Interview with Carl Malamud; Thoughts on "Free Law," Kerfuffles and Law.Gov

On Friday afternoon, 6 November 2009, we interviewed Carl Malamud, founder of Public.Resource.org. A transcript of the chat room can be found here. You can download the interview from The Law Librarian's BlogTalkRadio web page or find it on iTunes.

Law.Gov was the focus of the interview, and it seems that much of the hoopla (and kerfuffle) about Law.Gov and the "free law" movement is all misguided worry on the part of commercial publishers. The worry on the part of researchers is justified, but, after listening to Malamud's explanation of the Law.Gov movement, not cause for pessimism.

Lexis and Westlaw are the two largest commercial sources of very high priced primary legal material (VHPPLM), as opposed to "free (primary) law," (FPL). The worry on the part of VHPPLM providers is that the free law, or the Open Access movement, will result in loss of market share and lost revenue. The logic of this is really extraordinary. VHPPLM providers get the primary material for free, refine and repackage it with very good (no, excellent) indexing and finding, and then sell it to professionals at a premium.

This is perfectly fair (if over-priced), because the market will get what it can for its services.

The problem with the equation is that the people who deserve the FPL, the people who actually, by right of citizenship, own it, end up in a position that makes it difficult for them to even get access to it. Ordinary citizens must have complete and reliable access to FPL. It is argued by many that unfettered access to it is even critical to our democracy. As our government depository program dries up and disseminates more and more government information via the internet or formats that require mediating technology or services, access to information becomes less available to the general population.

In fact, over the last century governments have, in some cases, abdicated their responsibility to freely disseminate their laws and legal materials to commercial publishers, making VHPPLM the sole source of access to the law. For example, until the late 1970's, when Lexis came on the scene, the opinions federal district and circuit courts were only published by West Publishing. Many states have ceased publication of their own case law in favor of West's Regional Reporters, and, in some cases ceased publication of their statutes in favor of commercial publication of their codes. This left access to the law beyond the reach of most citizens and, even, many public libraries.

If an informed citizenry is critical to a functioning government, what can be done to make sure that the laws are accessible to everyone who wants to read them? Who looks out for the public, who simply wants, indeed by rights needs free access to government information? Well, Open Access advocates do, as do people and movements that work to build free databases that strive to provide reliable access to primary materials. LII is an example of a service that's been around for a long time and that provides as much access to free information as possible. The problem for aggregators like LII is that the information that they provide is only as good as the sources available to them. And governments are just not very good sources of their own information.

Law.Gov is a movement that is determined to work to raise the quality of government information. They are determined to establish standards for state and local courts, legislatures and agencies to follow in the production and distribution of their own legal materials.

If Law.Gov succeeds in its mission, it will mean that governments and courts will produce better information, in formats that are reliable, accurate and distributed freely to all who need it. And all who need it include both private citizens and providers of VHPPLM. As such, this is good for news for providers of VHPPLM, as well as ordinary consumers of primary legal materials.

As Malamud said in response to a question from the chat room that asked whether he sees Law.Gov as a competitor to Lexis and Westlaw, (paraphrasing) "No, absolutely not! We are simply looking to formulate a system that will assist governments and courts to provide free, reliable access to government information." Lexis and Westlaw, will be the beneficiaries of the movement, as will the public. (Gee, they are members of the public, aren't they?) Nothing in the movement should discourage them from developing their critically important secondary materials.

Law.Gov is entering a phase of self-study and over the next year will be examining how governments and courts can work to systematically and freely publish and distribute government and legal materials. Visit http://public.resource.org/law.gov to learn more about Law.Gov. At the website you can find out about how to donate to the project and support its work, and about a nationwide series of workshops that will be held next year to discuss how its work will be accomplished.

U of Michigan Biting the Dust (?), Poised to Turn into Blog....?

The Great Lakes IT Report reports that the U of Michigan Press is following the trends and will revamp their publishing operation and expand into "3D animation and video", as well as publish it's scholarship in digital format so it can provide hot links and graphics. The announcement says that it "will be "restructured" to focus primarily on digital monographs, not the printed version."

It seems to me that ceasing publication is quitting publishing, and selling scholarship as pdf's and web pages won't enhance it's prestige, but will dilute it. It also seems odd to brush off concerns about customers who want to "hold something" can simply print them off on their own. Most scholars that I know would rather publish with a publisher who can actually capture the scholarship and sell it as an item. Blogs and hot links still don't have the cache of a printed book.

That's not to say that blogs don't have their place, or that bloggers aren't thinkers. It's just that their material is inherently different. It's a new format that's gaining respect and notoriety all it's own. Witness, Obama has even called on Politico correspondents in his first two press conferences. If that act alone hasn't given bloggers credibility, then nothing has. But does this mean that blogs are equivalent to University Presses?

UM's announcement, I think, is short-sighted. If anything, they should go slow, and start a blog, perhaps, and use it to promote it's catalog.

Fortunately, the announcement doesn't say that it is going to completely cease it's print publishing, but, spokes-people quoted in the article seem to indicate that it is going in that direction. I predict that ten years from now, it will largely be the same as it is now. But with the addition of a digital division; it will have higher overhead and will probably be selling more books.

Finally, I'd like to know how many libraries, or customers, for that matter, actually buy digital books. When I see adverts for e-books, I usually pass them up. What's a library to do with e-books, any way? To me, it seems that delivery of e-books is too personal for libraries to be involved with. I can provide links to the material, or direct patrons to useful titles, but I can't be responsible for how they actually obtain use, or fuss with setting up their equipment or software to guarantee their ability to use it.

If a patron has a Kindle (or the new e-book reader/web-book from Apple that's coming in the summer) how can a library lend it out? There's a missing link in this business model.

I wish the U of Michigan Press well, and hope that they are able to complete their misguided experiment before too many others go down the same road.

OK, a final thought: If a publisher publishes a title in a format that no one can read, have they still published a title? The thing that's neat and tidy about publishing a book is that the end user needs only two things to read it: light and the ability to read. (OK, knit-pickers, they do need access, but that's theoretical....) But look what's required to read an e-book: power, equipment of a particular variety, connection to the internet, software and the ability to make it all work together - plus the ability to read.

Lexis and West are Losing Money? Oh My!

Weird. I just looked up Reed Elsevier’s and Thomson Reuters’ stock quotes for the recent past. In the case of Thomson, Yahoo! Finance’s charts only go back a couple of years, and in the case of Reed Elsivier they go back much further. If stock is any indication of anything at all, it’s the company’s profitability. And over the long haul, both companies are not doing well at all. The charts show a general decline. In the case of Reed Elsevier, it's about at the same place it was ten or fifteen years ago. Surprising? I think so. How in the world can companies with such great, vital products be loosing money?

Lack of foresight. They failed to create the next generation of information product when they had the means. They’ve stayed loyal to what they know: sell what you’ve got, and keep it that way! Instead of innovating and using the tools at their disposal and distributing their product with the greatest of ease, they have priced themselves and their products out of existence.

As Carl Malmud and others advocate for thorough and free distribution of all public information, and as technology and technologists rise to meet the challenge with elegance and facility, the Big Two (three, if you count Volters Kluwer) are marketing themselves out of existence despite a veritable intellectual gold mine in hand, the main things that make their products special: secondary titles, digests and indexes and compilations of all sorts.

The free public information movement will surely supplant the Big Two/Three’s ability to publish primary materials. But they can’t supplant their ability to publish the secondary materials that help us make sense of it all.

If the Big Two/Three go out of business because of poor business practices, bad judgement and lack of vision, God help us. I’m serious. If scholarship fails, (which is what secondary materials are, after all) then culture fails. When culture fails, so do civilizations.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think that our legal system is mighty important for maintaining order, and even if I think that it can stand with a tweak or two here of there; it’s worth saving and maintaining.

Somehow, the news that Lexis and West (and CCH) were loosing money sent a chill up my spine....

This Week In Tech

Love him or hate him, Brewster Kahle, found of the Internet Archive, is the guest on the fabulous podcast, TWIT, This Week In Tech. Leo Laporte, Denise Howell (This Week in Law), and John C Dvorak interview Brewster about his projects. It's a fascinating interview.

If you haven't heard of it before, the podcast is an amazing source of information about what's happening in the technology world, and it's very entertaining. The best thing about the podcast is that Laport and Dvorak are techno-celebrities in their own rights with access to all of the industries leaders. They've had Larry Lessig, Steve Wozniak, Dave Winer and many others on the show from time to time.

The show is recorded live on Sunday afternoons, you can actually watch via a live feed at http://twitlive.tv/, and the podcast, available direct from the twit site, iTunes, or any podcast aggregator, is usually up by midday on Mondays. Its a very worthwhile hour for any one interested in current events and developments in the world of tech.

Breaking Through to the Other Side

For years now, much of library conversations have been about books vs. online sources. I've always rejected the notion that we need to make choices between the two formats. There's no war going on, and I think that the "death of the book" pundits always understate the value of print, at the expense of some fundamental values that libraries possess, vis a vis collecting, sorting and storing information for researchers and scholars.

Well, it occurred to me this morning that the whole debate is nonsense. Fights over format are purely economic and commercial. What our job is, as librarians, is to understand and organize the bibliography of law - regardless of format. Whoopty-doo, some firm or developer is developing a really cool website or search engine. Does that mean that books are dead or dying? Who cares?! It merely means that we have yet another neat tool for research, and the law has found yet another neat place to dwell.

And so it goes.

Where Were the Lawyers When....?

People are up in arms about the big air tanker contract going to Airbus (a foreign company). Where were the protesters when foreign nationals took over the publication of US laws? Good grief, West, Lexis, CCH, Aspen, Matthew-Bender, RIA, Lawyer's Co-Op are all now owned by Canadian, British or Dutch companies. That's got to amount to nearly 90% of all commercial legal materials. And now they're squeezing us for every penny we own, and most of that revenue is flowing outside the US. Isn't that something to be protested?

There were protestations, to be sure. But compared to the uproar about the air tankers, narry a peep!

Time for New Classification System?

The character of legal information is changing in the fact that the breadth of what qualifies as legal information is changing. Just as librarians have struggled in the past with incorporating new formats into existing collections and classification schemes, we need now to be creative in figuring out how to capture, preserve and classify new mercurial formats such as podcasts, blogs and twitters.... The adjective "mercurial" only describes a fraction of the challenge....

Internet and Legislative History

Legislative history is, essentially, whatever sources you can find that help reveal the intent of the legislative body in it's conduct, usually passing legislation. But the principle also applies to actions of the executive branch, and, therefore, includes hearings, speeches, correspondence, reports (commissioned or otherwise), and whatever else a resourceful researcher can uncover or discover.

Today, blogs, webpages and email will qualify as sources of legislative history. And there's a lot of it. I think that this turns the whole idea of understanding teaching of legal research on it's head: it's not about the sources or knowing what they are, it's understanding how information gets from one place to another. Where do legislative ideas come from? Where do they go? How do they get there?