Re: Licence restrictions

["Ninan Chacko" <ninan@cmcvellore.ac.in>]

And I thought only we had problems.

I cannot but agree with the sentiments. It is not easy to balance the need
for more journals and the need to invest in patients. When we tried to get
online access, we went through some of these problems.

I also find that the BMJ group has been very good at helping users. I wish
other publishers would have a second-look at some of their restrictive
practices.

1. The majority charge more for the third-world, even allowing for
postage. So much for their agreement with the WHO.
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7304/0

2. One journal says online access is not available to Institutional
subscribers but only to their society members.

3. Some publishers are not open about their licensing costs and policies
and say everything is negotiable.

4. When the WHO signed an agreement regarding online access for the third
world, again BMJ Publishing led the way. All the others have made their
own interpretations of the agreement. Basically it meant that as India and
Pakistan are major subscribers to journals they have been excluded.
http://www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/class.htm#Low_income

5. With Institution subscriptions some do not provide even IP based
access, and one has to give out the passwords to everyone, as it is a
waste to prevent those who have computers from using the access at their
convenience.

6. Some will deliver in India only through a vendor. The journal is listed
as subscribed by the vendor, who will not release the subscription number,
and the publisher will ask us to contact the vendor.

I guess we have to back the free journal movement to get publishers to
fall in line with the times, at least to improve the service to the paying
customers. The tobacco companies did not do anything till they were forced
to. http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org/


Ninan
************************************************
Dr Ninan Chacko MS, MCh, FRCS (Urol)
Prof of Urology
Convenor Computer Committee
Christian Medical College & Hospital
Vellore, 632004, Tamil Nadu, India
************************************************

----- Original Message -----
From: "M Ros Doig" <M.R.Doig@derby.ac.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 5:31 AM
Subject: Licence restrictions

> How is it in the teaching and learning climate in which we find ourselves
> these days when we need to give our patrons flexible access to all kinds
> of electronic learning materials that some publishers haven't the wit to
> understand this? Not only that from a British point of view there seems to
> be a rigid interpetation of the word site? We are a multi-site university
> but on a single computer network. Our IP addresses cannot be broken down
> by site.  The courses we teach are site specific and do not duplicate each
> other. All but one of our 5 sites are also within the local city limits.
>
> A well-known US university publisher gives free Internet access to its
> e-journals on a site specific basis, no remote access and certainly not
> through other vendors/agents. Curiously this same publisher makes certain
> journal articles available through an aggregator but not online versions
> as such. After months of neogotiation with this publisher and explanations
> from me which availed little we were offered a multi-site license which
> then added the proviso that we had to commit to no cancellations for three
> years. We simply cannot make that commitment at my institution as we
> operate on budgets that in real terms are shrinking.
>
> To my way of thinking the Internet is ready made for flexible access -
> from wherever patrons need it. The narrow thinking of this publisher
> leaves me disheartened to say the least. And if it's a question of
> protecting their clients interests as was suggested then it's time the
> clients moved into the 21st century!! Just sounding-off!!
>
> Ros Doig
> Serials & Inter-lending Librarian
> University of Derby
> Learning Centre
> Kedleston Road
> Derby
> DE22 1GB