[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Double" Licenses
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: Re: "Double" Licenses
- From: Ann Okerson <ann.okerson@yale.edu>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:05:30 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <199901260205.VAA16554@gr.its.yale.edu>
- Reply-To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Steven, see a few comments interspersed below: On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Steven Melamut wrote: > The publishers contract is with the institution. If there is a subsequent > lawsuit resulting from that contract, the publisher will sue the > institution because that is where the money is. It is unlikely that > anyone will want to chase students and faculty. > > Creating a secondary license serves two other possible purposes: > > (1) Educating the end-user as to any restrictions that have been agreed to > by the institution. It is necessary for someone to make them aware that > there are restrictions upon use of the material. **No doubt that is part of the intention. But -- this objective can be achieved by posting a single screen of "what users may do." This description can be relatively brief; it can be linked from strategic places in the vendor's or publisher's web site. It need NOT presented as a mandatory click license to each reader. (The latest one I read was really very long and I question that our users would carefully read and understand every line.) > (2) Giving those restrictions an aura of legality that will deter most > abusers. The publisher does not want to go to court, they merely want the > terms of the contract to be respected. They certainly don't want to have > to track down every student or faculty member that has used the material. **Perhaps abusers would be deterred; I am skeptical but could be convinced that a nice long click contract would achieve this goal. BUT: If the publisher does not want ever to track down each reader, then why ask each one to agree to a license???! That question was implicit in my original posting. > Perhaps the publishers would agree to forgo these warnings if the > institution wants to explain the restrictions itself. It is in the > institutions best interests that users do not violate the license > agreements. **The institution's role is to educate the readers about their rights and responsibilities. Indeed, yes. It has been thus for some time! Ann Okerson/Collections Development Yale University Library
- References:
- Re: "Double" Licenses
- From: melas@ils.unc.edu (Steven Melamut)
- Re: "Double" Licenses
- Prev by Date: Re: "Double" Licenses
- Next by Date: Re: "Double" Licenses
- Prev by thread: Re: "Double" Licenses
- Next by thread: Re: "Double" Licenses
- Index(es):