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:
Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:49:36 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (42 lines)
From: Galadriel Chilton <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:48:27 +0000

** Apologies for Cross Postings **

Hi Colleagues,

As Kevin Smith notes in his December 20 column "Is the CCC having an
'Instagram' moment?"
(http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2012/12/20/is-the-ccc-having-an-instagram-moment/).

The click through license agreement appearing for each CCC transaction
is problematic especially for state/public institutions.

Specifically per Smith:

"Institutions indemnify CCC and agree to defend them against claims
arising from any use outside the scope of the license.  Institutions
agree to the application of New York law and the jurisdiction of New
York courts.  Most distressing, each institution that uses the CCC
agrees that that organization, which has been active in financing the
legal case against Georgia State University, has the right to access
and audit university records, which is not only a possible violation
of our obligations under FERPA, but also seems like giving a potential
adversary free pre-litigation discovery rights."

I would appreciate hearing how other institutions have addressed this problem.

Thank you!

All the best,

Galadriel

--------------------------------------------------------
Galadriel Chilton
Electronic Resources Management Librarian
Homer Babbidge Library
University of Connecticut
Storrs, CT 06269
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2