RE: Sage titles

[Carole Richter <Carole.J.Richter.8@nd.edu>]

Dear Vivienne,

Thanks for responding, although I hope I would have sounded a bit more
diplomatic had I gone to you directly, as you rightly suggest I should
have.

Here are my concerns: access to the electronic version is no longer 'free'
if access requires a 3rd party platform that includes a substantial fee.
OCLC access for our Sage titles would cost at least $8,000 per year, not
including access fees for the base package which is also necessary.  
Ebsco would be free if they were our serials vendor for Sage titles, but
they aren't. Rowecom...it's true that we need to investigate what that
would entail. Because Faxon is our primary serials vendor, it is possible
that Rowecom would be an option for us. But I would most prefer to see
either direct access provided by Sage, or as a good alternative, through a
service such as Catchword which manages e-journal access efficiently and
without additional charge to libraries. We are placed in an awkward
position when faculty learn from Sage that they 'should' have free access
to electronic versions of their journals, but when the logistics are not
in fact free.

Licensing issues--I am not the best person to discuss the finer points of
licensing agreements, but I'll address a couple of things that seem to me
to be of concern:

* 1.1 Sentence 1 is fine. Re the statement "In addition, the Licensee
shall take reasonable necessary measures to safeguard the intellectual
property and proprietary rights of Sage and any others involved in the
creation of the Sage Journals Online Material including the property and
moral rights of all authors of the Sage Journals Online Material."--I
don't recall seeing anthing quite like it before, but I think the wording
is so broad and vague that it should be excluded completely.

Re "The Licensee shall ensure that the Notes for Authorized Users below
are made available to all Authorized Users of the Sage Journals Online
Material. All rights in the Sage Journals Online Material which are not
specifically granted to the Licensee under this Licence are expressly
reserved to Sage." I don't object to this, but we would need to know
exactly what you expect here. Can you post this clearly at the title level
for each journal? If not, is a statement on a 'connect page' enough?  1.2
Re "Physical visitors using public access terminals within the Library at
the Site, who must be made aware of the obligations of Authorized Users
shown below..."Again, is a connect page with the information posted
adequate awareness?

1.3 and 1.4 RE "The Licensee may not otherwise store or permit Authorized
Users to store the Sage Journals Online Material on any medium, transfer,
reproduce, modify, publish or otherwise exploit the Sage Journals Online
Material except in so far as is reasonable to exercise the rights granted
under this Licence. Neither the Licensee nor the Authorized Users may use
any part or parts of the Sage Journals Online Material in coursepacks or
other collections for teaching purposes..." and also the statement re
"Licensee may not engage in any form of competitive activity by delivering
to any other institution copies of articles from Sage journals" ---these
statements appear to forbid basic fair use ILL activity, although perhaps
I am mistaken? It is unclear just how restrictive these phrases are
intended to be. We would be much relieved to see somthing indicating that
at least print copies of the electronic article could be transmitted under
fair use guidelines, and that password authorized access to articles
placed on electronic reserve would be permitted.  Because electronic
access is based on print subscription, it may be that you are assuming
these rights are permitted from the print environment and aren't needed in
the electronic format. We are moving in the direction of considering not
binding or storing print versions of journals we receive in electronic
format (at least in some instances), and that would make it difficult to
provide these ordinary services from the print copies.

Thank you for listening...I look forward to hearing back from you. I do
apologize sincerely for not bringing the concerns that I felt to you
directly.  I could certainly agree that the term abyssmal is overstating
the case considerably.  Sincerely, Carole (somewhat mortified but still
hoping for easier access) Richter


At 05:31 PM 2/23/2000 -0000, you wrote:
>Dear List members 
>
>
>On the issue of our contiguous site license, our over-riding concern is to
>facilitate ease of electronic access for our institutional subscribers. So
>we welcome dialogue with the library communities as an essential part of
>this, but you've got to tell us direct not leave us guessing!  Anyone with
>suggestions, queries, difficulties or feedback on the terms of the SAGE
>site-license or questions about multi-site licenses should please feel free
>to contact SAGE's Site Licensing Liaison, Vivienne Dunlop
>vivienne.dunlop@sagepub.co.uk at Sage London. Further information on
>subscriptions and hosting intermediaries is all available on our website
>http://www.sagepub.co.uk
>
>Vivienne Dunlop
>Site Licensing Liaison
>Contracts & Rights Manager
>Sage Publications 
>vivienne.dunlop@sagepub.co.uk
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Carole Richter
>To: nerl-l@lists.yale.edu
>Sent: 22/02/00 22:02
>Subject: Re: Sage titles
>
>Yep...that's another issue also...the license is abyssmal. And because
>they are providing access 'free' with print, there is just no leverage
>to try to get them to provide better access or licensing terms. Maybe
>this needs to be pursued on liblicense? I don't actually remember if
>there's been much Sage discussion there. C.