RE: Simplifying licenses

[Marilyn Geller <geller@faxon.com>]

We would like to take this opportunity to respond to Rick Anderson's
recent questions concerning our licensing service.

Rick expressed "surprise that your UC doesn't see a material difference
between contracting with Faxon to acquire materials and contracting with
Faxon to define the terms of IUPUI's contracts with third parties."

By the terms of our service agreement with IUPUI, we do not "define" the
terms of IUPUI's contracts with third parties. IUPUI has used the academic
single site generic license to define the terms under which they will
accept publisher content.  Using our power of attorney, we at Faxon will
negotiate with publishers and sign on IUPUI's behalf. In cases where the
publisher will not accept these terms precisely as stated, IUPUI has given
us a list of clauses that must be in the contract, a list of clauses that
are highly desirable, and a list of clauses that are desirable. With these
lists of clauses and levels of priority, we enter into these negotiations
knowing exactly where changes to the IUPUI license may or may not be
discussed.  If the publisher's requirements and IUPUI's requirements
conflict, we will not sign the license. To do so would violate our
agreement with IUPUI. But if the publisher's requirements and IUPUI's vary
only by one or more clauses that are "desirable" (just for example) we
will sign the license and expedite the implementation process, eliminating
much backing and forthing, (and, not incidentally, delay in opening up
access to users, which, at least in theory, is what we are all supposed to
be about).

If the publisher requirements and IUPUI requirements are in irreconcilable
conflict, we will report back to our client that we cannot come to terms
with that particular publisher.

The objective of the service is not for us to create the business terms
between IUPUI and its content providers. The objective is to negotiate
IUPUI's business terms as given to us, thereby reducing the labor and time
intensity of the licensing process for our client. What makes this service
scalable is the acceptance of and use of the generic license that
eliminates the need to hunt through variant legalese and allows us to
focus on key issues.  The end result is that licensing ejournals becomes
no more difficult than buying print journals.

We are negotiating with other clients to participate in this service and
will announce agreements as they are completed.

Marilyn Geller, MSLS
Strategic Program Manager
Faxon RoweCom Academic Services
15 Southwest Park
Westwood, MA 02090

Phone: 800 766-0039 x 596
Email: geller@faxon.com

David R. Fritsch
Director, Library Strategic Initiatives
Faxon, RoweCom Academic and Medical Services
1295 King George Boulevard
Ann Arbor MI 48108

734/677-3530 (voice)
734/677-0955 (fax)
734/260-9864 (cell)
fritsch@faxon.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu]On Behalf Of Rick Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 5:17 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Simplifying licenses

> Our view is that this arrangement is not materially
> different than our current arrangement with Faxon to
> acquire print materials.

I think you're probably right about the long-term efficiencies of the
arrangement you describe, but I have to confess surprise that your UC
doesn't see a material difference between contracting with Faxon to
acquire materials and contracting with Faxon to define the terms of
IUPUI's contracts with third parties.

Are other public institutions participating in this program?

--------
Rick Anderson
Head Acquisitions Librarian
Jackson Library
UNC Greensboro
(336) 334-5281
rick_anderson@uncg.edu