RE: "Double" Licenses

["Sloan, Bernie" <bernies@uillinois.edu>]

I've often wondered about this, too. In a sense, there also seem to be
"triple" licenses. Here's an example:

1. In Illinois, the Illinois State Library contracts with OCLC for a
   number of FirstSearch databases that are available to all Illinois
   libraries.

2. At my institution (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), we have
   local scripting that passes us through to FirstSearch.

3. When we get to FirstSearch, we select a database. When we get into
   that database, we see text like this: "Welcome to Periodical Abstracts!

    By doing a search, you agree to the OCLC Terms and Conditions and 
    the Periodical Abstracts Terms and Conditions."

So, the State Library has negotiated a license for Illinois libraries. And
then the user implicitly agrees to OCLC terms and conditions, and the
database vendors terms and conditions, simply by doing a search. Seems to
me that's three licenses: one between the State Library and OCLC, on
behalf of Illinois libraries, one between OCLC and the user, and one
between the database vendor and the user.

Bernie Sloan
Senior Library Information Systems Consultant
University of Illinois Office for Planning & Budgeting
338 Henry Administration Building
506 S. Wright Street
Urbana, IL  61801
Phone: (217) 333-4895  
Fax: (217) 333-6355
Email: bernies@uillinois.edu

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ann Okerson [SMTP:ann.okerson@yale.edu]
> Sent:	Wednesday, January 20, 1999 7:17 AM
> To:	liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject:	"Double" Licenses
> 
> 
> Already this year I've seen two electronic information "deals" that
> require two levels of license.  That is, the institution (library)
> negotiates and signs a license with the provider AND then once the reader
> goes to the site to retrieve the information, he or she is asked to
> "click" to agree to a set of terms and conditions.  I.e., two license
> agreements are in play: one with the institution and one with each
> individual reader. Perhaps this has been happening to us all along, and
> I've only noticed this because of reading two such licenses within a few
> days.  The "click" is NOT the same as "dear reader, here you are and
> here are our working rules" -- rather, it is an attempt to create a
> legal agreement between the provider and the individual.
> 
> In each case, the terms are reasonable enough, but I question that the
> readers fully understand the kinds of liabilities that they are accepting
> by clicking.  And, as we have heard/discussed ad nauseum, "click" licenses
> are also problematic in that there is no possibility for the reader to
> query or negotiate with a form on the web.
> 
> In any case, it seems to me that the information provider's deal needs to
> be either with the INSTITUTION, who negotiates and accepts all the
> overarching responsibility for compliance with the license, OR with the
> READER, leaving the institution out of the relationship.  There is an
> incompatibility between asking for both.
> 
> Comments please from you publishers, librarians, and lawyers out there?
> 
> Ann Okerson
> Associate University Librarian
> Yale University
> Ann.Okerson@yale.edu