Re: libraries and licensing of personal database subscriptions

[Neil Renison <neil.renison@jcu.edu.au>]

One approach to this question is to decide first the role of the
particular library that is going to make this decision.

In some situations, perhaps well financed special libraries accustomed to
supplying whatever is needed at whatever the cost, it might be appropriate
to take out a subscription for just one person.  It would be analogous
with using library funds to buy a manual or volumes of tables that would
sit on one person's desk, but not be available to others (in effect just
using the library as a purchasing agency). The library which would do the
latter should probably consider taking out a one person subscription,
depending of course on the benefit to the organisation of that service.

But that is not the academic library world I inhabit.  Our role is already
fairly clearly understood by our community and set out in policy.  We will
only use the library materials allocation to purchase information
resources or access (electronic and physical) that is shared.  Or is at
least is potentially accessible to more than person (given that we may
have a few journals with an avid readership numbering close to one.)  Of
course University money is used to purchase information resources for
individuals or closed groups, but they are expected to find the funds from
their School or Research Accounts, not the library.  And they do where the
need is great.

The perils of deviating from this policy are both practical and
fundamental.  At a practical level, we have had occasion to return CD-ROMS
ordered in ignorance of security devices or licenses limiting use to one
person.  How would we catalogue, what would be the point of the library
holding on to it, could we justify the expense and so on?

At a more fundamental level, publishers whose licenses do not accommodate
library needs don't just make life harder, they threaten (perhaps in
ignorance) our role in our own institutions.  Agreeing to purchase a
subscription limiting access to just one person weakens one of the
fundamental reasons for the existence of libraries, which is to obtain and
share among our community, access to information resources.  This has
proven to be very efficient and cost effective practice and should remain
so.  By refusing to use library funds for personal subscriptions, another
solution to the researcher's problem will need to be found and probably
will be found.  The library might help here, finding an alternative
solution is in our interests anyway.

If in a brave new world all publishing went digital and all publications
were only available by personal subscription, I expect that would see the
end of the library (except as a storehouse).  What would be the point of
it all?

Fortunately that's not going to happen, libraries spend too much money 
to be ignored.

Neil Renison


Liblicense-L Listowner wrote:

> Imagine this situation:
>
> 1.  Publisher XXX allows only individual/personal licenses to its
> specialized database (these are not journal articles); no institutional
> site licenses are permitted.
>
> 2.  Individual (a biomed researcher) wants a subscription aka license but
> doesn't wish to license and pay for it -- believes the institution (aka
> library) should do so.
>
> Question to readers of this list:  What's the appropriate action for the
> library to take?  Buy and manage personal licenses (as an appropriate role
> for said library); or not (publisher does not want library as customer;
> sets precedents that cannot be sustained for other researchers and
> resources).
>
> Your thoughts would be welcomed.  Ann Okerson/Yale Library
> ann.okerson@yale.edu