Re: restrictive license clause

[JOHN COX <john.e.cox@btinternet.com>]

This is not new.  It is merely a prudent provision on the part of any
information provider to retain the right to withdraw material that may be
in breach of someone else's rights, or is offensive (in legal terms).  If
the "offending" material is included in an electronic resource, and then
the provider should be able to withdraw that material if it is sued.  If
the provider does not withdraw, a court will force withdrawal later on.
 
This provision is standard.  It can be found in all sorts of licenses.  
You can only bject to it if you believe that, once included, it should be
there forever.  It is worth remembering that if the "offending" material
is not withdrawn, the library can also be sued to ensure that it is
withdrawn.  So why do you want to persever in providing access to obscene
or unlawful content?
 
John Cox
John Cox Associates Ltd
Rookwood, Bradden
Towcester, Northants NN12 8ED 
United Kingdom
John.E.Cox@btinternet.com
www.johncoxassociates.com
 

Jill Carraway <jill@wfu.edu> wrote:

Below is a clause which has appeared recently in a few licenses for
electronic resources. I wonder if others object, as I do, to the last four
restrictions? Is this a growing trend? I ask that this item be removed
from the license. Are there other reactions to this statement that anyone
would like to share?

(Vendor's name) reserves the right to withdraw from the Product any item
or part of an item for which it no longer retains the right to publish, or
which it has reasonable grounds to believe infringes copyright or is
defamatory, obscene, unlawful or otherwise objectionable.

___