Re: concepts of perpetuity

[Karl Kocher <kakocher@ucdavis.edu>]

Sally Morris expresses what I expect is the general concern of 
libraries: continued availability like that provided by ownership 
of a physical copy, but with the enhanced accessibility of the 
electronic medium and with the recognition that a copy on an 
archival medium with restricted accessibility is not really the 
same access that was paid for.

Another reason to prefer the term "continuing access" is 
fundamental to the notion of copyright itself.  After some time 
the material should pass into the public domain.  Ideally a 
publisher would project the costs to maintain access for that 
term and determine the present value of that effort in order to 
include it in the asking price, so the subscriber does not pay 
again and again for the same thing, if not ad infinitum, to an 
outrageously enormous sum.  On the other hand, if, after the 
expiration of copyright, owners can no longer control the 
distribution of the material and exclusively profit from it, it 
would be unreasonable to expect them to bear the cost of 
providing access to it in perpetuity.  Longterm preservation is 
really a concern of and should be a cost to society as a whole in 
some sense or, more accurately, that portion of society that 
concludes preservation is worth the effort.

One would assume that in making the agreement Licensors have 
determined the present value of future costs to their 
satisfaction and undertaken obligations in full knowledge of the 
consequences.  When a publisher adds charges after having agreed 
to impose no further charges, any ordinary person would feel that 
an agreement has been breached.  Under the present legal regime, 
one would assume that the Licensee would have to consider the 
license terminated or resort to law to enforce the terms?

Karl Kocher
University of California, Davis


----- "Sally Morris (Morris Associates)"
<sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> 'Perpetual' is a promise no one can make (least of all about 
> journal access ;-))
>
> I prefer to call it 'continuing access'.  I believe that what 
> actually concerns libraries is medium-term, post-cancellation 
> (or post-disaster) access, rather than true long-term 
> preservation. And even long-term preservation could not 
> truthfully be called 'perpetual'
>
> Sorry, pedant speaking!
>
> Sally Morris
> Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy)
> South House, The Street
> Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
> Email:  sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Cohen
> Sent: 25 August 2008 03:27
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: re: concepts of perpetuity
>
> Harking back to the issue of "perpetual access" (below), Ann
> Okerson is to be congratulated on raising an issue that is most
> intriguing, if not electrifying.
>
> How do licenses and contracts deal with issues of "perpetuity"--
> relating to services intended to last without end?
>
> This concept would seem to span a number of interests. Can a
> library consider perpetual access as an asset? Can perpetual
> access be claimed as a "right," to the extent that access to an
> electronic resource is now "owned" by the institution?
>
> It would be most helpful if readers can comment on how various
> licenses treat the promise of perpetuity perpetual access, while
> providing necessary financial safeguards for the provider.
>
> One is almost reminded of marriage vows, also involving perpetual
> obligations, intended to last forever and ever. It may be
> possible, but the devil is in the details.
>
> Bill Cohen, /Publisher
> The Haworth Press www.HaworthPress.com
> [Taylor & Francis Group]