RE: Supplying electronic articles via ILL

["B.G. Sloan" <bgsloan2@yahoo.com>]

Sally Morris talks about "the fear that sending the articles
electronically (and, indeed, the recipient then distributing them
onward to all their friends/classmates) is just too easy." Sally
then says that "The modest inconvenience of the photocopier put
some kind of brake on easy, instant, unlimited redistribution."

There's something I don't understand about this argument.
Elizabeth Winter's original post said that "most of our licenses
require that we print off articles before scanning and sending."
The use of the word "scanning" sounds to me like the borrower
gets the requested article in electronic form under most
licenses.

Maybe I misunderstood Elizabeth's original post (or Sally's
point), but if most licenses allow the printed copy of the
article to be scanned and sent to the borrower as an electronic
file, how does this process "put some kind of brake on easy,
instant, unlimited redistribution"?

Bernie Sloan
Sora Associates
Bloomington, IN


From: Sally Morris (Morris Associates) <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>
Subject: RE: Supplying electronic articles via ILL
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Date: Friday, May 15, 2009, 10:12 PM

To my mind, the justification for what sounds like a somewhat
'dog in the manger' policy is the fear that sending the articles
electronically (and, indeed, the recipient then distributing them
onward to all their friends/classmates) is just too easy, and
risks seriously eroding subscription revenues by making it much
easier to do without, and to rely instead on 'ILL' copies from
other libraries. The modest inconvenience of the photocopier put
some kind of brake on easy, instant, unlimited redistribution.

Sally Morris
Partner, Morris Associates - Publishing Consultancy