Adding to the previous discussion, I vote strongly in favor of
interlibrary loaning videos and other AV. And open access to the
collection in general.
We've had a very good experience in allowing the ILL of the video
Our patrons have benefited greatly, consistently borrowing 2-to-1
compared to the number of videos we lend.
We borrow/lend reciprocally, meaning we only borrow materials types that
we will lend to others, and vice versa. This means we only lend videos
to the libraries who lend to us. (Ditto for lending charges.)
I allow the lending of any title not booked for use during the semester.
(I kept a closer eye on requests during the first semester. When I saw a
title that should have booked, I'd call the professor and ask "Aren't
you using this video this semester? We must have lost your booking
request...") We just list ILL as yet another reason to book ahead.
I find the pathological inability (as Gary described the syndrome) to
book videos in advance puzzling. It's not like booking AV is a new
concept. Everyone remember the days of requesting the film, the film
projector, and perhaps a tech to set it up? So, I'm not terribly
sympathetic if a professor comes in until 10 minutes before class
because he assumes "his" video will be on the shelf. These professors
usually aren't spontaneous users -- many will put the video title in
their syllabus, but then never bother to send us the syllabus.
Don't worry about how much a video cost. ILL doesn't deny loans because
a book cost too much. ILL custom is that if something happens to a
borrowed item, the borrower pays.
Yes it is unfair to allow ILL to take videos when you don't allow
student check out. So let the students check out videos. Since I can
fine students and enforce payment, I have far more control over them
than I do the faculty.
Okay, I'll get off the soapbox now.
Media Services Librarian
Minnesota State University-Mankato
Videolib mailing list