ILL language

["Karl A. Kocher" <kakocher@ucdavis.edu>]

You may also have encountered the following language and I wonder if it
has raised similar questions.

... Licensee may supply single copies of articles included in the Licensed
Materials to another library solely for the noncommercial use of such
library's patron for the purposes of research or private study, provided
that Licensee exercises due care to insure that no copies of such article
may be retained by the recipient library.

"Ensure" rather than "insure" might be intended.  Beyond that, is the
language making reference to American Geophysical Union vs. Texaco, which
is often referenced when the question of ILL to commercial firms is
mentioned.  Is the use of the language intended to apply to the lender a
higher standard than Section 108 in Title 17?  How enforceable would such
language actually be?  Even if the lending library required the physical
return of the loaned article, how could it insure/ensure that no copy is
retained?

Apologies if this has been queried before and a search of the archives
failed to turn it up.

___