Re: Objectionable materials

["John Cox" <John.E.Cox@btinternet.com>]

I think that Peggy Johnson misunderstands the purpose of this provision.
She has ignored the fact that it says there must be reasonable grounds.

Courts do define obscenity.  They do it all the time, all over the world.
Publishing obscene material is a criminal offence in most jurisdictions;
unfortunately, the test applied by the courts varies from one country to
another, and the publisher has to cater for a global customer base and
readership.

If a publisher publishes material that is obscene, the material will be
seized, and executives of the publisher might well be jailed.  Librarians
might also be caught if they knowingly continued to make such content
available to their patrons.  It is important that publishers protect
themselves - AND THEIR CUSTOMERS - from such problems by removing material
that is, on reasonable grounds, considered obscene.  This will always be
on legal advice.  That seems to me to be eminently sensible.

I stand by the wording of this clause, which is in fact the same text as
is used in the UK PA/JISC model license that was agreed between publishers
and librarians in the UK in 1999.

John Cox

John Cox Associates
Rookwood, Bradden
TOWCESTER, Northants NN12 8ED
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1327 861193
Fax: +44 (0) 1327 861184
E-mail: John.E.Cox@btinternet.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Ann Okerson <ann.okerson@yale.edu>
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Date: 1 June 2001 4:37 am
Subject: Objectionable materials


>This message forwarded to liblicense-l by Peggy Johnson, University
>of Minnesota.
>
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Recently, we have received two contracts that draw heavily from the model
>license at http://www.licensingmodels.com/academic.htm. This is a positive
>move except for one clause that makes us very uncomfortable. This (from the
>above site) is:
>
>7.3 The Publisher reserves the right at any time to withdraw from the
>Licensed Materials any item or part of an item for which it no longer
>retains the right to publish, or which it has reasonable grounds to believe
>infringes copyright or is defamatory, obscene, unlawful or otherwise
>objectionable. The Publisher shall give written notice to the Licensee of
>such withdrawal. If the withdrawal [represents more than ten per cent (10%)
>of the book, journal or other publication in which it appeared, the
>Publisher shall refund to the Licensee that part of the Fee that is in
>proportion to the amount of material withdrawn and the remaining un-expired
>portion of the Subscription Period][results in the Licensed Materials being
>no longer useful to the Licensee, the Licensee may within thirty days of
>such notice treat such changes as a breach of this License under clause
>10.1.2 and 10.4].
>
>I do not want a publisher deciding for my institution what is obscene. It
>seems to me that obscenity is different from copyright infringement or
>other areas that are more clearly legal or illegal. The courts can't even
>define obscenity.
>
>So -- how are other dealing with this?
>
>Peggy Johnson, Assistant University Librarian
>Editor, Technicalities
>University of Minnesota Libraries   voice:    612-624-2312
>499 Wilson Library                              fax:     612-626-9353
>309  19th Ave. So.                      m-john@tc.umn.edu
>Minneapolis MN 55455            http://www.lib.umn.edu