Re: principles and deal breakers

[Carol Fleishauer <fleish@MIT.EDU>]

I have reviewed all of the IFLA principles that Ann outlined below against
our NERL draft principles.  I am encouraged to find that most of them are
covered, as I take this as a sign that the list of issues is becoming
definable and agreed upon.  In some cases, however, the IFLA principles
are farther away from the checklist purpose that I think we agreed to many
months ago.  I will note those below.  And looking at this list did remind
me of an important issue that I agreed to add previously, but neglected
to: geographically remote sites.  For that alone, it was worth running
this comparison.  See references to NERL priniciple numbers, or comments
in caps below.

>At 06:55 PM 8/4/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>I apologize for not contributing more to Carol's important work and recent
>messages; time has prevented it so far.  What I thought I would do is
>itemize the principles that the IFLA mini-task force on licensing is
>proposing, stripped of surrounds.  Perhaps you will find some things here
>that we need to include in the NERL list -- perhaps not.  I know that when
>I was trying to write the first draft list (which this is, and it's
>therefore far from the end of things -- and it's not for sending around as
>an IFLA document by any means!), I turned to various principles including
>Carol's work.
>
>I'll put a ** in front of the ones that I believe are deal-breakers...
>
>Ann
>__________
>
>FIRST DRAFT:
>
>I.	LICENSES & THE LAW
>
>**1.  Licenses (contracts) for information shall not exclude or negatively
impact for the users of the information any statutory rights that may be
granted by copyright laws. NERL NO. 2
>
>**2.  The choice of governing law shall be workable for both parties.
>WHILE I DON'T THINK, ANYONE WOULD DISAGREE WITH THE PRINCIPLE, WE WERE
UNABLE TO AGREE ON A SPECIFIC CHECKLIST WAY TO EVALUATE THIS, I.E. WE COULD
NOT AGREE THAT CERTAIN STATES WERE PREFERABLE

>II.	LICENSES & VALUES
>
>**3.  The license agreement shall be clear and comprehensive, recognizing
>the needs of the concerned parties.  (Important terms shall be defined so
>as to be clearly understood.)  WE DIDN'T INCLUDE THIS, BUT IT SEEMS TO GO
WITHOUT SAYING
>
>**4.  A license shall provide for remedy periods and other modes of
>resolution before either cancellation or litigation are contemplated.
>NERL NO. 11
>**5.  An effective license shall balance the rights and responsibilities
>of both parties.  NOT A CHECKLIST TYPE ITEM - HOW WOULD YOU EVALUATE THAT?
>
>III.	LICENSE ACCESS & USE
>
>**6.  The license shall provide access for all of the users affiliated
>with a library, institution or consortium, regardless of whether they are
>on the licensee's premises or away from them.  IN MY 8/2 SUGGESTED REVISION
FOR  NERL NO. 2.
>
>7.  The license shall provide access to unregistered or unaffiliated or
>walk-in users when on the licensee's premises. NERL NO. 3
>
>8.  The license shall provide access for geographically remote sites if
>they are part of the licensee's organization.  WE NEED TO INCLUDE THIS; THE
WORDING IS A BIT DIFFICULT, AS MOST OF US HAVE DISCOVERED FROM REVIEWING
LICENSES.  WHAT DOES "PART OF THE lICENSEE'S ORGANIZATION" MEAN?
>
>**9.  The license shall permit users to read, download, or print materials
>for their own personal and educational purposes and to share with fellow
>students or partners in projects, without restrictions.  However,
>commercial and large-scale reproduction shall not be a feature of the
>library license.  NERL NO. 2
>
>IV.	LICENSES & END USERS 
>
>**10.  Though libraries shall work with users to educate them about proper
>use and the terms of electronic resource licenses and with providers to
>halt infringing activities if they become known, the library shall not
>incur legal liability for the actions of individual users. NERL NO. 4
>
>11.  While the license may present the first-time reader with a list of
>terms and conditions, it is not appropriate to ask the reader to agree to
>a contract where the institution/library has already signed its own
>agreement. NERL NO. 7, WITH A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FOCUS
>
>**12.  The users' privacy shall be protected and respected in the license
>and in any intervention made by information providers or intermediaries.
>NERL NO. 13
>13.  The networked information provider shall offer usage data so that the
>library may assess the effectiveness of use of the resource.
>NERL NO. 12
>V.  LICENSES & PERPETUAL ACCESS
>
>14.  A license shall address provisions for long-term access and archiving
>of the resources under consideration and shall assign responsibilities for
>these. NERL NO. 1
>
>15.  A license shall include provision for reasonable access beyond the
>time of the actual contract period, should the contract not be renewed by
>the subscriber.  WE HAVE NOT INCLUDED THIS AND I MUST SAY I DON'T
UNDERSTAND THE POINT
>
>VI.	LICENSES & PRICES
>EARLY ON, WHEN I TRIED TO INTRODUCE SOMETHING ABOUT PRICING, THERE WAS
INPUT TO THE EFFECT THAT IT DID NOT BELONG IN THE NERL PRINCIPLES.  THIS
TAKES ON MORE THE NATURE OF A POLITICAL STATEMENT THAN A LICENSE REVIEW
CHECKLIST.     
>16.  Prices can inhibit uptake of electronic information.  Prices should,
>therefore, be established so as to encourage use rather than discourage
>it.  I.e.,
>
>	- Electronic information should be priced lower than its print
>equivalent if there is one.
>	- Incentives should be offered, such as consortial pricing,
>improved pricing for longer-term contracts.
>
>**17.  Prices shall be fully disclosed with no hidden charges.
>
>18.  The licenser shall not expect the library to bear a substantial part
>of the development cost of a resource.
>
>19.  Where possible, an unbundled (from print) price shall be offered for
>electronic versions; a bundled price may be offered as well where this
>incents the licensee.  There shall be no penalty for canceling print in
>order to take up the electronic version of a resource.
>
>**20.  Non-disclosure of license terms is inappropriate in an educational
>or governmental setting.  Many government laws forbid non-disclosure.
>NERL NO. 14
>VII.	LICENSES & RESOURCE SHARING
>
>21.  Interlibrary loan or equivalent provisions have been vexing in
>licenses.  However,  an increasing number of providers are permitting
>either the same kind of ILL that is allowed in national copyright laws, or
>a modified version of it.   Experimenting in this arena should be
>encouraged. NERL NO. 5
>
>22.  Distance Independent Learning poses a challenge to providers and
>libraries; the parties should be encouraged to work out suitable
>compromises in this arena and share the results with others.
>IN MY 8/2 SUGGESTED REVISION FOR NERL NO. 2
>
>---end------
>
>
cjf	3-5962