From: Sarah Elizabeth Kennedy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:47:12 +0000

Great observations, Peter.

For what it's worth, in my role as a selector I would not perceive
your decision not to sign a license such as the one you have described
as a failure, especially if you were to explain your rationale in the
way you just did in this thread. If anything, I would hope that I
would come to your defense - and I issue that as a challenge to my
future self! My hope is that institutions like Cornell will continue
to be leaders in resisting these terms. In fact, this is a point of
pride for me in my interactions with faculty. It makes me pleased to
be able to say that, far from being helpless in license negotiations,
Cornell uses its influence and buying power to pave the way for ALL
libraries to resist unreasonable and/or unscrupulous licensing terms.
This, to me, is an aspect of collection development that makes the
Library so much more than a passive collector or repository of
information - it makes us a player in the stage of scholarly
production and consumption. We set a precedent that other institutions
- perhaps of lesser means or smaller size - can hopefully be empowered
to follow. A perfect example of this is our refusal to enter into
vendor contracts that require nondisclosure of pricing information or
other information that does not constitute a trade secret.

If I were to offer any suggestion in your interactions with selectors,
it would simply be to provide a full description of what you find
objectionable in the license and why. Perhaps describe it in terms of
impact to the end-user. I confess that I know so little about what
happens on the back end in negotiations that I rely heavily on you and
others in LTS to tell me straight up why you are saying "no" to a
product. It would then be my responsibility in my follow-up
interactions with the requester to do my best to relay our decision
not in terms of "Peter McCracken says 'no'," but instead "We as a
Library say no," because this license (a) is not in alignment with our
core values, (b) puts us in a very compromised position to remain
responsive in the marketplace, (c) sets a frankly dangerous precedent
that erodes our negotiating power over time, and (d) would make us
poor stewards of the funds we have been entrusted to manage. I might
also attempt to explain how the license might negatively impact the
end-user as they interact with the product, thus clarifying our
decision in terms of both core values as well as cold, hard
pragmatism.

These discussions are hard...It's very hard to say no, especially in
an environment in which the "relevancy" of the Library is routinely
challenged. Selectors feel that pressure every day. In the long run,
however, our ability to negotiate firmly and fairly on behalf of our
constituents is exactly what makes us relevant. I would rather say
"no" to an unreasonable or unscrupulous license and endure the
momentary barbs and arrows of the requester(s) than forfeit our values
and our position of trust in the research community.

And furthermore, these case studies are fascinating and we should be
discussing these in an open and transparent way. I think it's
important for the larger research community to understand the time,
effort, expertise, and resources it takes for this sort of collections
work to happen.

Thank you for your work, for raising these concerns, and for thinking
about these issues from multiple perspectives all down the line,
including that of the selector. We are fortunate to have you with us!


All best,

-Sarah

Sarah Elizabeth Kennedy
Collection Development and Digital Collections Librarian
180 Albert R. Mann Library
237 Mann Drive, Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
Office: (607) 255-9022