Re: [Videolib] Streaming Videos from the Collection

Steven Harris (SteHar@library.lib.usu.edu)
Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:18:43 -0600

--=__PartB99E8003.0__=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In the "My 2 Cents" department:
=20
I am totally in favor of the "reach them where they are" kind of library =
marketing and outreach. I also believe that film producers and distributor=
s would be well served by putting some of their material out there in the =
online market (streaming or downloadable). =20
=20
Two big BUTS however (LOL):=20
=20
1. We have lots of analog materials in our library collections that still =
have value, and will continue to have value for the foreseeable future. =
There are lots of things film and books do that their digital analogs =
don't currently accomplish. All our library users (old and young) =
understand this. Even if Google manages to digitize Michigan, Stanford, =
Oxford, Toronto, etc., we ain't going to pitch our print collections. =
People can't use Google books in the same way they use print books. =
(Pluses and minuses for both--I should say.) =20
=20
2. I think it is possible to OVERestimate the "online-ness" of young =
people. Many, many young people do many, many things that are not =
networked and online. We have several student workers in our library, who =
are otherwise "hip" and "with it" (Facebook and all that), very smart, and =
good library workers to boot, but they have never heard of some online =
things like del.icio.us or digg. There is not some universal level of =
connectedness. Every individual is different. We can't design all of our =
services around the notion that "everybody is online." =20
=20
=20
Random bits:
=20
*I have a friend who calls "film" something you watch in a theater. =
Anything on a television or computer screen, he calls a "program," even if =
it is the same content you might see in a theater. It's not film anymore =
when it's on a monitor.
=20
*I am in favor of deploying Web 2.0 kinds of services and interfaces. I =
think those are all about giving people meaningful ways of interacting =
with information (and with each other). Lots of Web 2.0 services, =
however, have a foot in the tangible (not online) world. Amazon lets =
users interact with the site and each other, and offers up their data for =
use on other web sites, but they still sell THINGS! Libraries ought to =
employ the same kind of dynamic.
=20
=20
=20
=20
Steven R. Harris
Collection Development Librarian
Utah State University
(435) 797-3861
http://cc.usu.edu/~srharris/

--=__PartB99E8003.0__=
Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Description: HTML

In the "My 2 Cents" department:
 
I am totally in favor of the "reach them where they are" kind of = library marketing and outreach.  I also believe that film producers = and distributors would be well served by putting some of their material = out there in the online market (streaming or downloadable). 
 
Two big BUTS however (LOL):
 
1. We have lots of analog materials in our library collections that = still have value, and will continue to have value for the foreseeable = future.  There are lots of things film and books do that their = digital analogs don't currently accomplish.  All our library users = (old and young) understand this.  Even if Google manages to = digitize Michigan, Stanford, Oxford, Toronto, etc., we ain't going to = pitch our print collections.  People can't use Google books = in the same way they use print books.  (Pluses and minuses for = both--I should say.) 
 
2. I think it is possible to OVERestimate the "online-ness" of young = people.  Many, many young people do many, many things that are not = networked and online.  We have several student workers in our = library, who are otherwise "hip" and "with it" (Facebook and all that), = very smart, and good library workers to boot, but they have never = heard of some online things like del.icio.us or digg.  There is not = some universal level of connectedness.  Every individual is different.=   We can't design all of our services around the notion that = "everybody is online."    
 
 
Random bits:
 
*I have a friend who calls "film" something you watch in a theater.&nb= sp; Anything on a television or computer screen, he calls a "program," = even if it is the same content you might see in a theater.  It's not = film anymore when it's on a monitor.
 
*I am in favor of deploying Web 2.0 kinds of services and interfaces.&= nbsp; I think those are all about giving people meaningful ways of = interacting with information (and with each other).  Lots of Web 2.0 = services, however, have a foot in the tangible (not online) world.&nbs= p; Amazon lets users interact with the site and each other, and o= ffers up their data for use on other web sites, but they still sell = THINGS!  Libraries ought to employ the same kind of dynamic.
 
 
 
 
Steven R. Harris
Collection Development Librarian
Utah State University
(435) 797-3861
http://cc.usu.edu/~srharris/<= /A>
--=__PartB99E8003.0__=-- VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and distributors.