[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Additional detail on MIT and Hoovers
- To: "'Electronic Content Licensing Discussion'" <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>, <owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: Additional detail on MIT and Hoovers
- From: "Ellen Finnie Duranceau" <efinnie@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:33:59 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
The Liblicense list has picked up the MIT Libraries' blog story about Hoovers, so I thought I would offer a little more detail about the language we could not agree to: We have been subscribers to Hoover's Pro Premium Online, a database of company information. Their terms now require licensees to take financial responsibility for fraudulent use - even suspected fraudulent use -- by individual users. We were not willing to agree to the terms, and found ourselves with access suddenly unavailable to our patrons. This new requirement may be going unnoticed because of Hoovers renewal process, in which an email asks for initials and a binding "I agree" click to terms that are linked from the renewal email at: http://www.hoovers.com/global/corp/index.xhtml?pageid=10545 The language we took exception to here at MIT is [emphasis added]: "Hoover's, Inc., reserves the right to monitor your use of the Service to ensure compliance with this Agreement and prevent fraudulent use. You acknowledge that such monitoring of use may include determining whether or not the Service is accessed under the account from multiple IP addresses, as well as noting excessive downloads or a disproportionate number of users. Systematic access or extraction of content from the Service, including, but not limited to, the use of "bots" or "spiders," is prohibited. If such monitoring indicates you are not in compliance with this Agreement or if fraudulent activity is suspected, Hoover's, Inc. reserves the right to take such action as it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, assessing additional charges for users or downloaded records in excess of the number authorized, or suspension or termination of the account." [By the way: the number of records authorized for download is not disclosed in the contract.] I would be interested in any comments or relevant experiences with this kind of language either from Hoovers or other companies. Ellen Duranceau Scholarly Publishing and Licensing Consultant MIT Libraries
- Prev by Date: Re: Quality and mandated open access
- Next by Date: Standardized Pricing Models - Periodicals
- Previous by thread: pricing models webinar
- Next by thread: RE: Additional detail on MIT and Hoovers
- Index(es):