Home » Forum » Services

Wi-FI

Why can't we have free wi-fi at the British Library?

‹ News from the BL - Collection Moves Programme The elctronics specialist!Shop now for the best computer accessories,cameras,camcorders,weather station,all kind of batteries an ›

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Lynne Brindley argued in the

Lynne Brindley argued in the Observer newspaper (10 Feb 2008) that investment in the country's cultutal resources is key to economic growth:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/feb/10/9

Is Wi-Fi an essential? The

Is Wi-Fi an essential? The charges are of the size that businessmen might expect to pay -- or have their company pay! -- but I never use it, I must admit, since I never carry a laptop down to the BL.

It's probably more important to students, I realise.

The BL has to make money somehow. Charging for inessentials is one way to do this.

I took advantage of access

I took advantage of access to WiFi via the Cloud at the BL, until it was replaced by the current supplier. The new company supplies WiFi access for a large number of public bodies, and perhaps offers them a better deal, but the fact that it doesn't allow roaming and charges such steep rates (and wasn't working on at least two occasions when I tried it) make it a very poor deal for non-corporate researchers like me. I imagine free WiFi might add to the growing overcrowding problem in the public areas, but how about some sort of reasonable pay as you go price for those with reader tickets? £4/hour is just too high for regular visitors who want to check things on Wikipedia/JSTOR/whatever while working.

With regard to WiFi, I find

With regard to WiFi, I find the situation in England "less than optimal", for the following reasons---all having to do with the outrageous charges. The BL charges (through the Cloud Network, last time I was there). In the US, libraries generally have free wifi (really free; no charge). Starbucks in the US has free wifi; in England they charge. In the London hotels in which I have stayed recently any wifi was costly, in room or in lobby. A quick (or lengthly) trip to the nearby internet cafe is mandatory. Most hotel chains in the US have free wifi (or internet hookup). I guess WiFi and internet are "cash cows" in England. Alas!!!!! (Some of this is, I realize, a bit off BL "topic")

More on Wifi. Why, I wonder,

More on Wifi.

Why, I wonder, is the situation different in the US vs the UK? Is the funding position different? Or is it a matter of different attitudes?

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk

The situation in the UK is

The situation in the UK is different for one major reason.

Local telephone calls are free in the US via a landline. Here the various companies charge. Its not just BT but all of them.

Thats why venues offering the net over here charge too.

And Motel chains in the US also charge for net access...its just that some offer it as an 'extra' whilst others include it in the overall tariff.

Copying and digital

Copying and digital cameras
Does anyone think it likely that the BL will change its copying policies to permit the use of readers' own digital cameras?
There are a number of advantages such as less damage to books being put on photocopying machines and for readers, especially, the ease of making copies and reduced expense are big pluses. Obviously decent copies or copies for reproduction would need to remain with the BL's copy service. The National Archives at Kew, National Art Library and other national museums/libraries allow digital cameras without any problem...

Hi - I am Sara Mihajlovic,

Hi - I am Sara Mihajlovic, the Service Improvement Manager at the BL.

We ran two pilots allowing readers to use their cameras in both the Humanities and Rare Books & Music reading rooms earlier this year.

We're currently looking at replacing our photocopiers with digital scanners, which will provide readers with electronic output that can be saved to USB sticks, and also hard copies if preferred. This option satisfies copyright requirements, which are varied and detailed, and also - as the scanner equipment is more collection friendly than photocopiers - it will hopefully mean more of the collection can be copied. This option will also provide readers with a greener option, and also the electronic format desired.

If you would like to discuss this with me, I am more than happy to either meet at the BL, or I can be contacted on:

sara.mihajlovic@bl.uk

May I ask what was the

May I ask what was the outcome of these pilot projects? My interest is manuscripts, but rare books would have similar issues, I think.

Installing digital photocopiers is an interesting idea, as an additional facility, but rather frustrating if intended as a way to stop people using digital cameras.

About the copies from the digital photocopiers -- will copies be retained by the BL? After all, why not build up an archive of these things? And make them available online?

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk

The pilot was very

The pilot was very successful - with a greater uptake in Rare Books & Music than in Humanities, which was to be expected as we were able to open up more of the collection by allowing use of cameras.

The digital scanners would work in a different way to photocopiers - they would have specific book cradles which are more collection friendly, which will hopefully allow more collection items to be copied e.g. larger items. The scanners also help overcome specific challenges that we faced if introducing digital cameras as permanent service: all scans would have a BL watermarks throughout, thus conforming to copyright laws.

We will be piloting the scanners in Humanities and Rare Books & Music early in the next year - your feedback would be appreciated.

Regarding Manuscripts; due to the nature of the materials involved, we are still discussing what options we could introduce into the reading room, as there are different collection care guidelines we need to ensure we adhere to.

As regards your comments about archiving the images, I will certainly feed that into the Steering Group.

Thanks, Sara Mihajlovic

Thank you for this response!

Thank you for this response!

Manuscripts: I think that manuscripts would have precisely the same enthusiastic uptake as rare-books. All the 'common' manuscripts that I've seen won't involve any special issues; genuinely fragile material (papyrus codices, for example), of course, is another matter entirely.

I have a few questions, which I think might be of general interest.

I worry that the intention with bringing in scanners is to prevent digital cameras in order to charge for copies and therefore create a revenue stream. Is this correct?

The BL charges are not very popular, you know. (It's a bad sign that the staff have special rates, so plainly they don't think the reader charges reasonable either!) To use regulation to force people to pay for something that everyone knows can be done for free... yuk! But I suppose it depends on price; at a penny a shot, no-one would mind. What sort of price is being mooted?

Watermarks and copyright: sorry, but I don't quite understand how copyright comes into it, where watermarks are concerned. If a scan is taken of a page printed in (e.g.) 1690, is there really a legal requirement to embed a watermark?

In general, do you know whether a copyright *is* actually created by the act of taking a photograph of an out-of-copyright page? I have heard suggestions that since no new creative work is produced, that in fact it is not. Has this been tested in court? (I'm sure that the BL knows all this stuff exhaustively, as the national library, and the answers may have wider relevance).

I must admit that talk of watermarks makes me nervous, because I've seen it done really really badly by the BL in the past. When the library started selling very low resolution digital images, it heavily disfigured them with a 'watermark' right across the image. I don't suppose any were sold. But common-sense should have prevented the idea getting off the ground. I'd hate to see the same happening here. Will the images be disfigured, or will the watermark be invisible?

Is the intention to prevent circulation of images, by this watermark? Will the BL establish a legal/technical department to patrol the web and ensure that members of the public are not able to see any material unless the BL has been paid not to object?

All the best,

Roger Pearse
roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk

Hi- We have yet to discuss

Hi-

We have yet to discuss the Manuscripts reading room in detail, the issues are not solely around the manuscript itself, but the ink which can be sensitive to light, heat, humidity and handling. I can update you on this further, as we discuss in the Steering Group.

Prices are yet to be established, again I will update you as soon as I know. The reason we are looking at scanners instead of digital cameras is largely to ensure we satisfy copyright law. The project is still evolving, and it may be that we have different digital solutions for different reading rooms as our end result. Our collection is so varied, that there are different copyright laws and different preservation guidelines for various sections. We will review the success of the digital scanners, and also evaluate which digital solution works best where.

We do have a copyright/legal dept. and I will certainly ask your questions, and respond here as soon as I get some information.

Our aim is to ensure readers have a good, working, reference copy of materials, and therefore the watermark will be very faint. Reader feedback post introduction of the scanners will help us determine the best way of doing this.

The watermark is to ensure that the copies are not used for commercial gain, and therefore not breaking copyright laws.

I'll get back to you asap with copyright information,

Best,

Sara Mihajlovic

I have lobbied for this for

I have lobbied for this for some time, encountering fantastic and sometimes hilarious levels of opposition. Indeed in some cases the reaction has been horror and near abuse! None could imagine the possibilities -- that a million hands might easy record the whole collection in a short time.

I did go to my MP and asked for help, although to no avail. The BL would rather not photograph its collection, than allow readers to do so, I infer, and if that means that it is lost in some terrorist attack, so be it.

I have a charming letter in which someone solemnly tells me how dangerous this photography must be!

But I think the origin of this is a real appreciation of the risks and rewards associated in the film days with this sort of thing. In the era of film, you really needed flash, and you really needed a book-cradle, because you couldn't see the result until it was developed. Neither proceeding was (or is) very desirable when done by readers! And, when you had made your negatives, you had no real means to benefit anyone by circulating them. So the risk wasn't proportional to the return. But none of these are problems in the digital camera era. If your photo isn't right, you see it at once, and just snap it again. As for circulation, what else is the internet for?

I also met with Scott McKendrick in manuscripts who told me that some staff were lobbying for this to change. It will come, certainly, although we may have to wait for the fuddy-duddies to die. Indeed I would guess that some staff are already doing it; unless all mobile phones are banned from the library, I don't see how it could be prevented.

I believe that the Bodleian also now allows a certain amount of reader digital photography. US libraries do.

The key is that digital photography is a whole new ball-game.

roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk

Did I read somewhere that

Did I read somewhere that there may be free wifi at BL when St Pancras station re-opens next month? Anyway a lot of council libraries have free wifi now eg Waltham Forest, Haringey, Southwark, soon to be joined by purveyors of burgers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/oct/06/internet

Has the wifi access changed?

Has the wifi access changed? It is now called 'Regenerate it' - is this different to the Cloud? Wood Green library also uses 'Regenerate it', but there wifi is free.

WiFi-BL- 1Week - £13.50 Valid for 7 days from the day it was purchased
WiFi-BL- 1Month – £22.50 Valid for 1 month from the day it was purchased
WiFi-BL- 3Months – £48.00 Valid for 3 months from the day it was purchased
WiFi-BL- 6Months - £86.00 Valid for 6 months from the day it was purchased
WiFi-BL-30Min – £2.70 Multiple sessions, expires after 30 days from date of purchase
WiFi-BL-60Min – £4.00 Multiple sessions, expires after 30 days from date of purchase
WiFi-BL-1Day – £5.40 Valid for the day it was purchased only

It is probably impossible to

It is probably impossible to say anything new on this topic but it is worth repeating that it is outrageous that the new system is even more restrictive than the old one. With Cloud you could at least use another provider but now, to protect the monopoly, other providers are blocked. Like many people I pay for my own broadband at home with BT Broadband and get 250 wifi minutes a month "free". I can use these at Starbuck's etc but not the BL. What is the justification for this policy? Why is it so aggressively restrictive? The cost of providing it free would be minimal and the New York Public Library manages to offer it. Or does anyone have any technical suggestions for outwitting this block?
bibliophilicblogger.blogspot.com

Name and shame? BL upper

Name and shame?

BL upper management is acutely aware of any adverse publicity: I wonder if a London (Evening Standard? Time Out?) or national newspaper/magazine could be persuaded do a survey of publicly-funded institutions to name and shame the most expensive for the use WiFi? If the BL were to appear in the list, as I assume they would, they might do something about it, or at least think twice about renewing the current contract with Cloud.