From: "Pennington, Buddy D." <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 13:44:30 +0000
Well, you are missing four things here:
1. We are not talking about a book, we are talking about journal
articles in an aggregator database.
2. Libraries agree to a license from said database vendor (EBSCO). HBR
inserting terms that further restrict usage of content within said
database, in my mind, represents a "trojan horse" that many libraries
are not aware of when they sign the EBSCO license. One wonders if
other publishers have similar limitations for their content within
EBSCO databases. If so, EBSCO should disclose specifics within its
license (I signed a license agreement with EBSCO, not with HBR).
3. HBR is not adding its content to EBSCO databases for free. They are
being compensated by EBSCO.
4. Trying to restrict "persistent linking" is just plain obnoxious. In
no wave, shape, or form, am I making a copy of any content when I send
a URL to a group of students or include that URL in a bibliography or
course pack.
My main point is that HBR appears to be double dipping here. EBSCO has
already paid them to get their content into the EBSCOhost databases.
HBR seems to be making a play to make individual libraries pay (again)
to make this content available to users in ways that are allowed by
the EBSCO license. That would seem, IMHO, wrong and/or greedy.
Buddy Pennington
On Jan 6, 2012, at 7:44 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Richard Gottlieb <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 14:37:20 -0500
>
> What am I missing here?
>
> If the library purchases a printed copy of Catcher In The Rye, and an
> instructor would like to have his class all read it, you are saying
> that the library, either can make the full text available
> electronically (without purchasing a multi-user e-book), or
> print/Xerox/duplicate forty copies for a course pack?
>
> Without benefit to the publisher or the author (or author's estate)?
>
> And it is somehow wrong or greedy for HBR to require permission and
> perhaps compensation?
>
> Richard Gottlieb
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 5:20 PM
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Harvard Business Review, or, "Ceci n'est pas un abonnement"
>
>> From: Mark Muehlhaeusler <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 09:53:19 -0500
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> You may be aware of the ongoing attempt, by Harvard Business Review,
>> to limit the use of their articles in teaching. Their terms of use, as
>> posted at the end of each publisher's PDF state:
>>
>> "Academic licensees may not use this content in electronic reserves,
>> electronic course packs, persistent linking from syllabi or by any
>> oher means of incorporating the content into course resources. [...]
>> Harvard Business Publishing will be pleased to grant permission to
>> make this content available through such means. For rates and
>> permission, contact [log in to unmask]"
>>
>> ... the reason being, that HBR would like to generate a profit twice
>> (or more) for the same content, by re-selling these materials through
>> XanEdu (God forbid that students may actually use the library to read
>> a journal!). Please see HBR's response below.
>>
>> In other words, our subscriptions are not intended to be subscriptions
>> in the full sense of the word. I believe that this practice raises
>> serious issues, as it trikes at the core of the Academic library's
>> mission, to support both research and teaching.
>>
>> I would like to hear from the subscribers to this list how HBR is
>> handled at their institutions, and indeed if any of you have engaged
>> and confronted HBR on this issue.
>>
>> With my best wishes for the new year,
>>
>> Mark Muehlhaeusler
>>
>> Director, Copyright and Rights Management
>> Georgetown University Library
|
