LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:34:19 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
From: "Shipley, Michele" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 16:10:50 -0400

I have a question about what other libraries consider to be acceptable
language in a license agreement covering perpetual access to
electronic journal backfiles purchased by the library. Miner Library
recently purchased electronic backfiles for several important journals
from a major vendor. This was a one-time purchase; Miner now “owns”
the backfiles. However the license agreement for the backfiles states
that the vendor may decide to stop providing access to the backfiles
with a 30 day notice. In the event the vendor stops providing access
to the backfiles they will provide an electronic copy to Miner or, if
they choose, make the backfiles available through Portico or CLOCKSS.
We are being told that this is the industry standard.

Has anyone else run into language like this and been able to negotiate
a better guarantee of perpetual access? Is this language really the
industry standard?

Thanks for your help. Michele

Michele Shipley, MLS
Assistant Director of Digital & Branch Libraries
Edward G. Miner Library
University of Rochester Medical Center
Rochester, NY 14642
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2