[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Developing impossible situation, Re: Authority to signlicenses

Another thing that annoys me about this licensing issue is the emphasis
that the vendors/publishers place on renewal notification with so much of
the responsibility placed on the customer to inform of intent to cancel
within a given time period of the renewal date.  Included in this section
is usually an acknowledgement that the vendor needs to provide a renewal
notice with prices at some reasonable interval before the customer's
drop-dead date. However, I have found that the vendor/ publisher that
actually provides these notices in a timely manner without prompting
(sometimes more than once) is few and far between.  When working with a
consortium where the discussion involves so many people, this can become
even more critical.  This is another example of the licensing terms being
forgotten once the sale is made.

Discussions about renewal has as to take place long before the actual
deadline in order to reach consensus.  We try to have all our renewals on
a calendar year basis so that we aren't having to make these decisions
several months before we actually know our budget for the fiscal year
(July 1 renewals are a killer for this).  Getting the vendors to
understand that July 1 renewals, for us at least, run the great risk of
our having to cancel just because we can't make a fiscal committment if we
aren't sure we have the funding.  When the intent-to-cancel deadline is
60-90 days before July 1, our legislature is still debating the whole
state budget, with the library materials component still being buried in
the details and unknown to anyone at that time.  If we were pushed to
comply with the license, we'd be forced to decide to cancel just to be

  --Michele Newberry

On Sat, 27 Feb 1999 14:09:47 EST Donna Packer said:
>I am curious to know whether libraries find publishers notify them of
>changes in licensing terms since the contract for a particular product was
>signed. At least one major vendor in my experience simply shrugged when I
>pointed out that the terms on the contract we signed were no longer
>applicable, and they had sent us no notice of new (and, for us, more
>favorable) options.
>This led me to generalize that publishers have started this licensing
>business, with its expensive administrative overhead for both sides, but
>don't want to go to the expense of following through with change
>notifications for individual products and individual customers. Perhaps
>I'm wrong, and this was an isolated instance.
>				- Donna Packer