[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
E-Notes from Swets Blackwell
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: E-Notes from Swets Blackwell
- From: Ann Okerson <ann.okerson@yale.edu>
- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:28:08 -0500 (EST)
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Of possible interest for liblicense-l readers. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 09:37:59 -0500 From: Marybeth Montgomery <MMontgomery@us.swetsblackwell.com> To: e-notes <e-notes@us.swetsblackwell.com> Subject: E-Notes from Swets Blackwell E-Notes from Swets Blackwell for Tuesday, April 1, 2003 __________________________________________________________________________ There has been confusion and questions recently about the passing of the deadline for publisher acceptance and extended grace periods. While many libraries have taken a wait and see approach, Swets Blackwell has contacted publishers and confirms many have announced that the 2003 subscription gracing agreed to as part of the RoweCom Prepaid Order Agreement will be extended to all RoweCom/divine prepaid customers, regardless of subscription agent the library chooses to work with. Bob Hershman, Operations Manager for the American Libraries Association states, "Victims of divine/RoweCom are victims regardless of their subscription agent. All victims will and should be treated fairly regardless of their subscription agent." Additionally, AMA Publishing released the following: "AMA Publishing is planning on providing service to all subscribers of AMA publications through the end of calendar year 2003 who paid RoweCom/Divine/Faxon for their 2003 subscriptions and where RoweCom/Divine/Faxon did not reimburse AMA. Including ALA and AMA Publishers, seven top STM publishers have stated gracing policies will be offered to all victims, regardless of agent. To avoid any further interruption of service, libraries are free to select the subscription agent that best fits their library needs while not compromising their prepayments and any possible publisher gracing. ---
- Prev by Date: Elsevier response to its financial statement
- Next by Date: Re: Confidentiality language and the netLibrary license
- Previous by thread: Elsevier response to its financial statement
- Next by thread: RE: Monopolies (was Elsevier profit)
- Index(es):