RE: warranty of non-infringement and indemnification against claims

[TLeith@globe.com]

I have to say that I am a bit disturbed by this thread and fully 
agree with Karl's point of view.  The common ground is that a 
publisher who intends to allow perpetual access to libraries can 
do so for payment of a single fee (purchase) that includes 
perpetual royalty free access (license).  In this instance, the 
content would be stored locally by each purchasing library, but 
they cannot "own" it; it is not intellectual property of their 
creation.

Without a license aren't we creating a situation where a 
publisher cannot enforce its copyright and where that publisher 
could be further exposed to damages in the event where 
unauthorized alteration of the content results in a claim of 
libel or malpractice?  At minimum I would recommend bundling a 
Creative Commons license along with the "purchase".

We do have to take responsibility for the content we create just 
like we do with regard to our own children.

I acknowledge that negotiations can be difficult - just like 
children - but please do not that reason diminish the ability of 
other publishers, by way of precedent, to fully claim and enforce 
their own intellectual property rights.

Toby Leith
Content Licensing Manager
The Boston Globe
___________________________

>From <Toby.GREEN@oecd.org>
To <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Subject RE: warranty of non-infringement and indemnification 
against claims

Karl,

In the case of some publishers (including ourselves) libraries 
are purchasing online content (perpetual access), not leasing it. 
Therefore, are you suggesting that in cases like this the 
parallel with the print purchase is true and therefore a license 
is unnecessary? I would welcome such a situation. Negotiating 
licenses is time-consuming and costly for librarians and 
publishers - and I would love to see this cost removed from the 
equation. For us, the risk that a rogue librarian is going to 
broadcast our content openly is remote and represents no greater 
a threat than print pirates ever did. So, our default position 
has always been to sell online subscriptions without licenses.

Toby Green
OECD Publishing

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu On Behalf Of Karl Bridges
Sent: 12 November, 2008 11:32 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu; bill@multi-science.co.uk
Subject: 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