RE: Supplying electronic articles via ILL

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

I gotta agree with Ivy Anderson's take on this . . . 
disincentives to electronic ILL make the lending institution's 
job harder, but that is certainly not a disincentive to the 
borrower asking for an article.

Bernie Sloan


--- On Thu, 5/21/09, Ivy Anderson <Ivy.Anderson@ucop.edu> wrote:
> From: Ivy Anderson <Ivy.Anderson@ucop.edu>
> Subject: RE: Supplying electronic articles via ILL
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2009, 8:06 PM
> 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
>
> Ivy Anderson