RE: Supplying electronic articles via ILL

["Ivy Anderson" <Ivy.Anderson@ucop.edu>]

Colleagues,

Of course I meant to say *print ILL* makes the lending 
institution's job harder, not e-ILL -- responding to Liblicense 
posts too late in the evening.

- Ivy

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
On Behalf Of Ivy Anderson
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 5:07 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Supplying electronic articles via ILL

Sally,

With widespread green OA policies that allow self-archiving of 
author versions of articles, and with widespread 'scholarly 
sharing' provisions in licenses that explicitly permit 
scholar-to-scholar sharing, why does anyone still think that 
electronic ILL poses a serious threat to subscriptions?  As I 
said in my previous post, it's the CONTU provisions that are 
universally accepted among libraries (at least in the U.S.) that 
are the limiting factor. Electronic ILL makes the lending 
institution's job harder, but that is not a disincentive to the 
borrower.

Ivy Anderson
Director of Collections
California Digital Library
University of California, Office of the President
ivy.anderson@ucop.edu
http://cdlib.org

-----Original Message-----

I grant you that, if the scan is received in unprotected form, it
can still be redistributed (albeit not legally).  However, the
initial process does have the artificial 'technological' brake

Sally

Sally Morris
Partner, Morris Associates - Publishing Consultancy