[Web4lib] Google limit of 1,000 results

[Jeremy Dunck]

On 7/8/05, John Hubbard <hubbardj at uwm.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> The laughter may be more in realization of how naive Google is stating
> this mission as a simple requirement. Publishers have fought tooth and
> nail, from the Betamax lawsuit to more recent developments such as
> linking lawsuits, DMCA invocations, SLAPP, etc. against Fair Use.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see how bravely Google will stand up to this
> pressure.
> 
> http://www.lisnews.com/article.pl?sid=05/06/21/1028225
> and the related links show that they haven't done well so far.

Thanks for the link.
"...and how libraries are handing over the reigns to corporations..." 
And why is that?  Lack of funding?  I've always wondered why libraries
stick so fervently to the idea that everything must be free to
patrons.  I recognize the need for access, even (especially?) to the
poor, but perhaps a tiered feature set would drive revenue?

Also, so far, libraries seem to be sticking to local services (that
is, online services to their existing patrons), and I've wondered why
there's not a corsortium for library services specifically for the web
(or is there)?

I read that one library is starting to allow existing patrons to
"check out" ebooks online.  Why stop there?  Why should the set number
of copies a library holds be available to the world?

Perhaps a more direct answer to this line of questions would be: how
is it, in this age of copyright maximalism, that libraries still exist
and serve patrons?  What sorts of (faustian?) bargains must libraries
enter into with publishers to offer holdings?  I was floored the other
day to learn that my academic library's audio books are on a rotating
loan with the book provider.  The library doesn't even hold what's on
its shelves?!

Thanks for not laughing at my ignorance.  I'd like to understand.