From: Alex Holzman <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 22:15:55 -0500

I don't see how the deal can be separated from the content.  If I'm
selling you garbage, I'm willing to do the deal on a napkin or
anything else so long as you put up the money.  That a garbage deal
can be made for garbage content (and I'm not saying that's what this
is, but speaking to what I think is an illogical separation of the
content of an agreement from the agreement itself) establishes no kind
of precedent for other material.

I also find it interesting that the agreement limits use of the ebook
to one reader at a time.  That seems terribly retro and flies entirely
in the face of what an ebook allows.  What is superior about a library
owning an ebook but only by agreeing to one reader at a time as
opposed to the oh-so-vilified idea of saying x number of uses equals
wearing out a print book and triggers a new purchase?  I suppose it's
a matter of having limited use of an e-book for "eternity" v. having
it for a finite number of checkouts, then buying a replacement copy or
deciding it's no longer required in the collection.  I'd be curious to
know why a librarian would assume the first option is better than the
second.

Alex Holzman
Director
Temple University Press


On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:31 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: "Renison, Neil" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 23:34:17 +0000
>
> Recent comments on the thread of eBooks without Contracts seem to
> overlook the purpose of this list and why most of us subscribe to it.
> I admit to wondering myself about the value of the collection, but I
> simply wouldn't know and it is irrelevant to the main point of the
> post.  I just wish people wouldn't clutter the list with matters off
> topic.
>
> What was of interest is the revolutionary idea that a deal could be
> "culminated through the legal equivalent of a sketch on a cocktail
> napkin, not a 330 page contract with multiple addenda."  Spending so
> much my time dealing with the insanity of licensing electronic
> resources, one can only be interested in any potential for a better
> way.  Perhaps this example isn't, but that is what the debate should
> be about.
>
> Neil Renison| Librarian, Acquisitions Services
>
> Information Resources
> Library & Information Services
> Eddie Koiki Mabo Library
> James Cook University, Angus Smith Drive, Douglas, QLD 4811
> E: [log in to unmask]
> W: http://www.jcu.edu.au/libcomp/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Goodman <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 21:32:31 -0500
>
> These are apparently self-published titles. As they may be essentially
> worthless in the first place, I can not see how a public library
> paying to buy them or to buy access to them is spending money wisely
> no matter how favorable the terms. This  is not  a positive  precedent
> for anything.   David Goodman
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 4:51 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > From: Ann Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 16:22:10 -0500
> >
> > Of possible interest, Peter Brantley's blog posting about a public
> > library's of purchase 10,000 books with a simple statement of
> > understanding:
> >
> > http://blogs.publishersweekly.com/blogs/PWxyz/2013/01/06/digital-lendi
> > ng-in-agreement/
> >
> > ####