[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Click-through Licenses
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Subject: Re: Click-through Licenses
- From: Ann Okerson <aokerson@pantheon.yale.edu>
- Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 22:44:14 -0500 (EST)
- Reply-To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Andrew Wohrley of Auburn University writes the following: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >From WOHRLAJ@groupwise1.duc.auburn.edu Thu Feb 4 15:30:56 1999 Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 14:32:31 -0600 From: "Andrew Wohrley" <WOHRLAJ@groupwise1.duc.auburn.edu> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu Mr. Heide, I may have missed most of the responses to your message, but I feel I need to modify your question and then answer it. First of all you limited your question to matters related to libraries "in the copyright sense." It is my impression as an engineering librarian that the goals of the publishing industry are: 1.) The most restrictive possible interpretation of copyright law. 2.) The imposition of "eternal copyright". These goals drive the publishing industry to view everything as a copyright issue. It probably is not technically accurate to state that a problem that we have with a British University publisher of a database is a fair use problem, it is more of a traditional use problem, but we have encountered a publisher that will not modify terms so that: 1.) Walk-in patrons not connected with the University can use the product. 2.) We do not have to run to the UK to adjudicate any contract dispute--something that our state law will not permit us anyway. We have been told that said British university publisher will never and has never accepted the modifications that we need. Therefore, we will not do business with this publisher. Maybe another entity on campus can, but we in the library won't. Since I am talking about copyright and publishers another item that concerns me a great deal is the determination of almost all publishers to shirk their duty to provide electronic access in perpetuity. I have talked to publishing represtatives several times on this, and each time I ask them I get a shrug, like, "why would you want that?" There is nothing that publishers and libraries are doing right now that will haunt us more in the future than our failure to provide for electronic storage and retrieval of information for perpetuity. You asked an interesting question and I hope that I haven't taken up too much of your time. Andrew Wohrley Auburn University Libraries Engineering Librarian ______________________________ >>> "T.P. Heide" <tph21@cus.cam.ac.uk> 02/03 8:09 PM >>> Dear All, A mention was made of the attempt to curtail fair uses and other exceptions and limitations found under copyright law. Do you have any specific examples of standard terms that you consider particularly overreaching in the copyright sense? yours, Thom ******************************** * Thomas Heide * * Marie Curie Research Fellow * * Intellectual Property Unit * * Cambridge University * * Faculty of Law * * Tel:+44 1223 33 00 81(Office)* * +44 1223 52 67 05(Home) * * Fax:+44 1223 33 00 55 * * E-mail: tph21@cus.cam.ac.uk * ********************************
- Prev by Date: RE: Double Licenses
- Next by Date: Re: Triple Licenses
- Prev by thread: Re: Click-through Licenses
- Index(es):