[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: PsycArticles License

> I doubt that many undergrads anywhere would consider these functions to be
> "buried," and am quite astounded that this would occur to anyone as an
> argument for forbidding ILL.

Who's talking about forbidding ILL?  We're talking about whether it's
reasonable for publishers to specify that ILL requests can only be
fulfilled with print copies.

I'll certainly concede the point that publishers who put their content on
the Web are taking a risk that users will redistribute it by using "Send
Page"-type functions.  The problem is that the publishers we're talking
about no longer have an acceptable alternative to providing their content
via the Web -- it's something they simply have to do, or will have to do
sooner than later in order to survive, so they don't have any choice about
taking that particular risk.  They do, however, have an acceptable (to
them) alternative to providing their articles via ILL in electronic
formats: that is, to forbid electronic ILL and require that their
customers perform ILL functions in print.  Risk is inevitable; minimizing
risk is rational.

I suspect everyone except me is completely sick of this thread by now, so
I promise to stop contributing to it.  If anyone else wants to continue
the discussion, please contact me off-list.

Rick Anderson
Director of Resource Acquisition
The University Libraries
University of Nevada, Reno        "All Reviews in the world
1664 No. Virginia St.              begin with the intention
Reno, NV  89557                    of being virtuous.  None
PH  (775) 784-6500 x273            have been."
FX  (775) 784-1328                   -- Gustave Flaubert