Previous by Date Index by Date
Threaded Index 		Next by Date
Previous by Thread Next by Thread


Results of Straw Poll on ILL 

To Liblicense-l readers:

On July 13th, after an animated thread on this list re. ILL and whether
librarians should accept licenses that do NOT permit it, we conducted a
straw poll that 137 of you (just under 10% of the list's readers)
responded to.  The responses to the ILL question appear below, with a
breakdown by category of respondent (we've broken US out from non-US to
see if there are any clearly US-centric views among librarians, but this
proves not to be the case.). 

As you will see, 5 librarians out of 123 think that ILL is not an
effective concept to carry into the electronic environment; 118 believe
some provision needs to be made for electronic "ILL."  That's over 95%. 

More interesting are the reasons librarians advocate for this strongly
held view.  A number of respondents characterize this accommodation of
electronic ILL as possibly an interim need (without speculating just how
long an interim period might be) until the time when easy and affordable
by-the-piece delivery from publishers might be an effective substitute.

We'll make the full text of the replies (without attached names) available
on the Liblicense Web site later this week and will let you know the
precise URL at that time.

Thanks for participating.  This was a most instructive small exercise
and your willingness to respond made it so.

We have quantified to some extent a strong feeling on the part of
librarians about ILL in e-contracts -- and Bernie Sloan's challenge
to this list comes to the fore:  what can we, those who care about
electronic licensing, do to move forward on this difficult matter?

Ann Okerson
Ann.Okerson@yale.edu
________________________

RESULTS OF STRAW POLL ON ILL in ELECTRONIC LICENSES, 7/13/97
LIBLICENSE-L


QUESTION:  If I were advising parties to an agreement between electronic
copyright holders and users, I would recommend the following position:

CHECK ONLY ONE - a check or x or yes indicates you agree with that
statement.

1.	ILL is not a concept that finds an analog in the electronic
environment;  it should not be permitted in electronic information
contracts.

2.	ILL (libraries sending a copy of an article to another library for
its users) should be permitted in electronic contracts subject either to
the CONTU suggestion of five or some other agreed-upon limit.

3.	Not sure or undecided.


Respondents: 		Reply1	Reply2	Reply 3
______________________________________________________

Librarians, US 		3	87	6
-----------------------------------------------------
Librarians, other	2	19
-----------------------------------------------------

Copyright Holder	6	3	1
----------------------------------------------------

Attorney			1
----------------------------------------------------

Vendor				2
---------------------------------------------------

Scholar/Reader			2
---------------------------------------------------

Other (including Lib.Adm.. Independent information broker, Staff- Head of
Document Delivery Services, Research Officer for Charity devoted to
ensuring health  science literature is available in developing countries)

				4	1
---------------------------------------------------

Totals			11	118	8


GRAND TOTAL:				137
--------------------------------------------------


http://www.library.yale.edu/liblicense
© 1996, 1997 Yale University Library
 Please read our Disclaimer
E-mail us with feedback