[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
"Double" Licenses and user "needs"
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: "Double" Licenses and user "needs"
- From: Peter Graham <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:03:34 EST
- Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
anthony.watkinson wrote: > [...]I am very keen on the instructional and not strictly legal element in > contracts or licenses. I know that many end users have difficulty > remembering what they can or cannot do. They do want guidance. [....] In the same vein as my previous message, let me try to get at some underlying assumptions here that I don't see we should accept. The first is on the need for repeated, frequent notice. In the video environment, whether cable or network, we do not see notices -- clickable or not -- on broadcast programming. Yet there is a considerable body of intellectual property law protecting broadcast material which is considered to have some noticeable value. (I think one could make the case that program creators license their material to cable distributors who no doubt consider their viewers as "end users".) Note also the very brief copyright warning on many videotapes, which has not changed in essence for a decade or two from being a vaguely uninformative FBI warning and which everyone is aware is commonly fast-forwarded through. The fact that this similar environment gets treated differently makes me dubious of the essential need constantly to provide pseudo-legal information to users in an academic environment who are intent on dealing with subject content and not prepared for such distractions. And of course such "notices" do not exist in the print environment, beyond copyright notices appropriately placed on t.p. versos and at bottom of first pages of journal articles, where they serve adequate notice and do not impede use or thought processes. To suggest the analogy of users acknowledging intellectual property rights at every use of an article or book is immediately to dismiss the idea as absurd. The second notion needing question is the idea that end users want guidance. They may, but not at the immediate point of use, any more than a driver wants legal guidance flashing up on the windshield as he/she turns the ignition key. Community education can be carried out by many means, and point of use is seldom the best. It's worth noting that the "need" of users for guidance is a need created by the added complexity of the license regime over the copyright regime. Users may not have been familiar with copyright details, but most people know such an idea exists. I submit that most people still think copyright is what controls their use of library-licensed materials. A click-through screen is unlikely to persuade them differently. Notice that I am very aware of the different regimes here: copyright vs. licensing. I am not arguing that a licensing regime can legally act the same as a copyright regime and still give the property owner the protection they want. I am arguing at a deeper level: the contract regime in a scholarly communication environment is inhibiting, intrusive and corrosive. I am trying to be sure that we don't slip into discussions of expedience ("how best to provide the click-through license") when in fact we should be finding ways to assure the responsible free flow of information as it has successfully existed to this time. -- Peter Graham Syracuse University Library firstname.lastname@example.org Syracuse, NY 13244-2010 315/443-2573 fax 315/443-2060