Re: Query Re Library Responsibility for Library Patrons' Use

["Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btopenworld.com>]

I think that Karl raises a very sensible question. Why do 
publishers try to get this clause accepted?

I think I have the answer. The reason is that they listen to 
their lawyers. Lawyers always (in my experience) go for the 
clauses that are "best" for the organisation that employs them. 
Smaller publishers in particular do not feel able to fight back 
and substitute something more likely to be accepted.

I know very well that many librarians have real problems with 
university attornies. A good example is the curious insistence 
that an international publisher should be bound by state law and 
a reluctance to accept the neutral accomodation that the place of 
jurisdiction is missed out altogether.

Anthony

----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Bridges" <Karl.Bridges@uvm.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>; "Jill Taylor-Roe"
<Jill.Taylor-Roe@newcastle.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 8:15 PM
Subject: RE: Query Re Library Responsibility for Library Patrons' Use

> I think a rough analogy to this is photocopiers.  In most 
> libraries there is a posting of the appropriate legal wording 
> regarding copyright and that's that.  If someone violates that 
> it's their responsibility not the library's.  (and I realize 
> that some schools do require everything to go through a copy 
> centre and really enforce this more).  In any event, I think 
> people (and publishers) are generally reasonable in accepting 
> that there are limits on what we can do in regards to user 
> behaviour. People do what they want. It's curious to me why 
> publishers would even try to get such language in a contract 
> when it seems that most libraries immediately get it changed or 
> removed.  I'd be interested in seeing a posting from a 
> publisher who has this clause who could explain their 
> reasoning.
>
> Quoting Jill Taylor-Roe <Jill.Taylor-Roe@newcastle.ac.uk>:
>
> > I would echo Rick's response on this one - If there are any
> > licence clauses I feel uncomfortable about signing up to, I
> > usually run them past a very helpful contact in our Law School,
> > and if he thinks the terms are excessive, he will often suggest
> > an alternative wording which we then pursue with the
> > publisher/vendor.  We are usually able to reach an
> > accommodation that suits both parties. We are particularly wary
> > about indemnity clauses which imply that we accept
> > responsibility for things we clearly have no control over.
> >
> > regards.
> > Jill Taylor-Roe
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Rick Anderson
> > Sent: Sat 24/02/2007 15:55
> > To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> > Subject: RE: Query Re Library Responsibility for Library Patrons' Use
> >
> > > Have any of you encountered this statement or a similar one?
> > > How did you handle it? Thanks for your help.
> > I've encountered it several times, and it's always been a walking
> > point for us -- there's no way we would agree to license terms
> > that hold the library institutionally responsible for end-user
> > behavior.  The library will accept responsibility for what it's
> > capable of doing: informing end-users about the terms, doing what
> > it can to prevent a breach of license terms, and acting quickly
> > to cure a breach if it occurs.  But to accept institutional
> > responsibility for what patrons do would be insanity.
> >
> > In my experience, it's very rare that a publisher fails to see
> > reason on this issue when it's clearly (and firmly) explained. In
> > ten years of license negotiation, I think I've walked away from
> > one deal over this issue.
> >
> > ---
> > Rick Anderson
> > Dir. of Resource Acquisition
> > University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
> > rickand@unr.ed