Previous by Date Index by Date
Threaded Index
Next by Date

Previous by Thread Next by Thread

Fair Use: Response from Academic Press

Message from Ken Metzner, Academic Press
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 97 13:09:21 PST
From: "ken metzner" <>
Subject: Fair Use: Response from Academic Press

     I wonder if I may go back to some comments by Alfred Kraemer and 
     others about fair use and about one of the licensing agreements put 
     forward by Academic Press (AP). Here goes:
     1. AP's licensing policies are designed to maximize dissemination of 
     the good science reported in its journals by taking advantage of the 
     radically new and different distribution mechanisms offered by the 
     Internet. At the same time we obviously want to maintain a viable 
     2. What we have done, therefore, is to sit down and have some serious 
     discussions about how this can be achieved with groups of librarians 
     and scientists, the latter being our end-users. We wanted to find out 
     what our customers really want, what end results are really important 
     to them. We didn't merely want to find a way to adapt this or that 
     policy or procedure from the print era, but rather develop the new 
     policies and procedures that would be appropriate in the electronic 
     era to achieve a win-win situation for our customers and ourselves.
     3.  Let's get specific: For the two journals "J of Molecular Biol" and 
     "Genomics" only, AP is charging the same price whether a library 
     subscribes to the print or to e-access or both. Frankly, this is an 
     experiment. We do not know whether we will extend it into 1998 and 
     beyond. But please note that WE ARE NOT TAKING AWAY ANYTHING: Whatever 
     policies apply to print subscriptions of these journals remain, incl. 
     legitimate ILL practices. 
     What we have done is to add an enormous benefit at zero additional 
     cost: Namely, we have enabled libraries to provide their users, who are 
     our end-users too, with 24-hour desktop access to these journals and 
     the right to print and download for their own use, etc., etc.
     4. With the pricing in effect now for these two journals, there is no 
     reason we can see for a library that has a print subscription not to 
     get an e-license, or vice versa. (By the way, you do this best through 
     your regular subscription agent. All the agents have been informed 
     about what to do.) The print subscription can be used for ILL. 
     [Please note, however, that Section 108(g)(2) of the copyright law 
     prohibits libraries from engaging in "the systematic reproduction or 
     distribution of single or multiple copies..." and allows participation 
     in interlibrary arrangements that "do not have, as their purpose or 
     effect, that the [recipient library receives copies] in such aggregate 
     quantities as to substitute for purchase of such work."]
     5. It is true that AP's e-license does not include the right to use 
     the electronic files for ILL or for any systematic transmission 
     outside the defined set of Authorized Users (faculty, staff, 
     students). But the library does not need the e-files for that, since 
     it can use its print copies for legal ILL lending and copying.
     6. We have very good reasons for not permitting transmissions or 
     copying from the e-files outside the licensed group. Doing so would 
     give us a short-term win-lose situation (publisher loses), leading 
     rapidly to a lose-lose situation. Here are some of the reasons:
     - It is too easy to copy and retransmit e-files with a few clicks of 
     the mouse. There would not be any of the cost restraints and 
     inconveniences that limit ILL to some degree in the print world and 
     act as an encouragement to keep ILL in the print world within legal 
     - Once an electronic copy is transmitted, it can just as easily be 
     made available by the first recipient to multiple, perhaps even 
     hundreds of other users.
     - Since we believe that permitting activity analogous to ILL by 
     electronic means will lead to more widespread copying, permitting such 
     copying takes away the incentive for separate licenses to be sold to 
     the institutions that receive materials by ILL.
     - ILL fulfills a single need: To get a copy of a specific article. As 
     publishers we feel that a journal to which you can have access in full 
     at any time is an infinitely more valuable service. A journal is not 
     just a set of unrelated articles.
     - Since ILL in the print world is expressly limited to photocopying, 
     we do not think it applies AT ALL in the electronic world.
     7. With our comprehensive APPEAL licensing scheme for consortia, we 
     think we have developed a way for libraries to have their cake and 
     eat it too. [APPEAL = AP Print & Electronic Access License.] 
     Instead of trying to shoehorn ILL procedures and CONTU guidelines 
     into the new electronic context, which wasn't even thought of when 
     they were developed, AP instead encourages additional institutions 
     to join existing consortia, so that they can share licensed access 
     to a large collection of journals. With its low add-on fee for 
     institutions with few or no subscriptions to our journals, APPEAL 
     can be affordable to all. As more and more institutions are 
     licensed, as part of large or small consortia, the need for ILL 
     falls away completely.
     8. The APPEAL scheme provides a mechanism for a publisher to satisfy 
     marginal demand at marginal cost. In the print world, with one price 
     for all and each journal sold separately, there was no way to charge 
     less for a small college with minimal use of the journal. (Actually 
     most publishers do have at least two prices, one for libraries, one 
     for individuals.) In APPEAL we determine a price for each institution 
     based on its use of the whole collection of journals. The institution 
     gets journal A as part of the package, even if its use of A is 
     marginal. (A detailed summary of APPEAL and a list of current 
     licensees will shortly be posted at

     A. W. Kenneth Metzner (Ken), Director of Electronic Publishing Academic 
     Press, 525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego CA 92101-4495 
     tel 619-699-6830, fax 619-699-6715, email 
     URLs: http://www.apnet com, 
© 1996, 1997 Yale University Library
Please read our Disclaimer
E-mail us with feedback