[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: warranty of non-infringement and indemnification against claims

This is exactly the point. You aren't buying the content. You are 
buying the right to use the content.  It's exactly the same 
difference between buying a car and leasing it. In the latter 
case you have a license/lease to ensure that you are not going to 
damage what is actually THEIR property -- damage which you 
concede is much easier in an electronic environment. There is a 
world of difference between the damage caused by a rogue library 
illegally photocopying a single article and a library that causes 
your entire content to be copied 10,000 times over the Internet 
and destroys the entire market for your product.

Karl Bridges
University of Vermont

Quoting bill@multi-science.co.uk:

> The whole 'need' for licences is questionable, especially in the
> context of a sale of a single title to a single institution.
> Selling a print journal to the University of XYZ has never
> required a licence; why should selling the same content in a
> different form make one necessary? The fact that the electronic
> form makes bizarre behaviour easier - for example one university
> in one country can easily ping content to all others in that
> country; or the publisher can restrict access in the event of
> non-renewal - is neither here nor there. Illegal replication and
> distribution by universities has happened in the past, and there
> already are ways of dealing with it. The idea that publishers can
> restrict e-access in the event of non-renewal is wonderfully
> bizarre. The analogy, in the print sesrials world, is that, in
> the event of non-renewal, the publishers storm into the library
> and sieze all the back issues of the Journal of ABC. If the
> library has bought the content, not rented or hired it, the
> publisher obviously has no further claims over it. It doesn't
> need a licence to establish that. If the publisher thinks he has
> further claims on sold property, let's see him have his day in
> court. It would not at all surprise me if the perceived need for
> licences amounts to nothing much more than a means for grinding
> more money out of libraries.
> Bill Hughes Multi-Science
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Toby.GREEN@oecd.org>
> To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 10:40 PM
> Subject: Re: warranty of non-infringement and indemnification against claims
>> Can someone explain why warranties are needed for e-editions and
>> not for print?
>> Toby Green
>> OECD Publishing