From: Robin Bradford <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:21:00 -0500

Addressing only Alex's question about the "eternity" lending model vs.
"finite number of checkouts" model:

If you're talking about the Harpercollins model where you have 26
checkouts before the license expires and you have to buy another copy,
here is a fact that no one ever talks about: that model is STILL one
copy/one user.  So it is exactly like the "eternity" model, except only
for 26 uses!   For instance:

Divergent by Veronica Roth.

Our library has "licensed" 208 Checkouts.
79 of those checkouts have been used, we have 129 remaining.
We have 96 people on the hold list.   Well, why should we have a hold
list if we have more checkouts available than people waiting?
Because 208 "checkouts" REALLY only equals 8 copies.  (8 x 26)

I hate having people wait for books in a digital collection, which many
people see more as an "on demand" collection.  To satisfy the hold list,
I'd have to buy over 2400 uses!

SO, there really is NO functional difference between these two models.
It's just that, at the end of the 26 uses, you have to buy more
copies/uses.  As for which model is better, I'm going with neither.

**back to lurkdom**


Robin Bradford
Collection Development Librarian
The Indianapolis Public Library
Library Services Center
Indianapolis, IN 46208
www.indypl.org

-----Original Message-----
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/