Re: warranty of non-infringement and indemnification against claims

[<bill@multi-science.co.uk>]

Karl, the fact that the potential damage to a publisher is 
greater in an e-world remains merely a difference of degree, not 
of kind, and so does not warrant a completely different approach, 
namely licences. As an aside, it seems to me libraries are 
putting themseleves in a risky position if they cease to own 
content, but just hire it. In terms of practicalities, what is 
the point of licences? While we do sometimes licence content, 
when libraries are particularly keen on the idea, I cannot see 
them being enforceable: were the University of Arizona to 
infringe licence terms, am I really likely to go from England to 
Phoenix and start a court action? Wouldn't I more likely just 
decide that I'll never bother to have anything to do with them 
again? And do libraries really know what the terms are, of all 
the many licences they hold? And if they actually realise the 
publsher is playing games, won't they just not renew?  In short, 
how do licences change existing behaviour? I can see that in a 
multi-journal, multi-university context, there is scope for a 
very simple document stating what the order covers and who can 
use it, but thats about as far as it need go. Long and complex 
licences seem pointlesss.

Bill Hughes Multi-Science Publishing


----- Original Message -----
From: <Toby.GREEN@oecd.org>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 9:35 PM
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