[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: restrictive license clause
- To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: RE: restrictive license clause
- From: "Sloan, Bernie" <bernies@uillinois.edu>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 17:23:59 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
David Goodman noted: "The simplest way of doing this is to contract for physical possession of the medium. During my career I have seen the balance change several times between local storage, and centralized storage with remote access. Now that the capacity of media is increasing so rapidly, it may be time to reconsider local storage. It should even be possible for such a facility to be incorporated within the next generation of library systems." David also suggested: "The even better way to deal with this-- and an obvious extension-- is Open Access, which provides the capability for the preservation of the archive in multiple repositories in multiple countries. This inherently prevents central manipulation of the record, beginning the moment it is published." Or, perhaps, in addition to OA, some sort of archiving along the lines of LOCKSS? Bernie Sloan -----Original Message----- From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David Goodman Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 6:48 PM To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu; liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu Subject: RE: restrictive license clause I consider this a serious problem, and one discussed frequently, but with no easy solution No one can really expect a commercial publisher to continue distributing material whose copyright it does not own, or that a court has ordered removed.. (True, they have been rather quick to remove any material that might _possibly_ give rise to such problems. Thus the final clause of the provision " or otherwise objectionable" is unjustified. ) Nor can we expect a publisher to provide material to only some libraries on the basis of variations in this clause. Thus, I'd first protest to them as you are doing, and then finally sign such a clause as I have many times. However, it is essential to the integrity of the scholarly record that no material that has been published ever be actually removed. If an libelous article is removed, how can the law case removing it be understood? How can the development of law in cases of libel be written? If a fraudulent article is removed, how will the citations of it be comprehensible? How will we know which of the articles that cite it can still be trusted? With print journal articles at least this was effectually guaranteed by the physical impossibility of removing the articles worldwide. If electronic journals are to become the archival medium, the only effective guarantee would be one where the publisher no longer controls the distribution. The simplest way of doing this is to contract for physical possession of the medium. During my career I have seen the balance change several times between local storage, and centralized storage with remote access. Now that the capacity of media is increasing so rapidly, it may be time to reconsider local storage. It should even be possible for such a facility to be incorporated within the next generation of library systems. The even better way to deal with this-- and an obvious extension-- is Open Access, which provides the capability for the preservation of the archive in multiple repositories in multiple countries. This inherently prevents central manipulation of the record, beginning the moment it is published. Dr. David Goodman Associate Professor Palmer School of Library and Information Science Long Island University dgoodman@liu.edu -----Original Message----- From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Jill Carraway Sent: Tue 6/14/2005 5:56 PM To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu Subject: restrictive license clause 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. -- Jill Carraway Head of Collection Development Z. Smith Reynolds Library e-mail: jill@wfu.edu Wake Forest University voice: 336-758-5095 Winston-Salem, NC 27109-7777 fax: 336-758-4652
- Prev by Date: Routledge Focus Group Breakfast at ALA
- Next by Date: Managing Electronic Resources - new seminar announcement
- Previous by thread: Re: restrictive license clause
- Next by thread: RE: restrictive license clause
- Index(es):