From: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:10:59 -0500

Joe, I think the major flaw here is that in Anne's original post, the
point is that they have NOT agreed to sign. Instead, they are
negotiating the terms with the publisher precisely because they want
to be in compliance. From a consortium perspective I would share
Anne's concerns about compliance with tracking usage in the way I
understand the publisher to be asking here. I've been following Anne's
issue both here and on the ICOLC list, and what struck me is that the
responses seems to address one of two different aspects. The first is,
does it make sense for the publisher to want to this data? I think we
can all see the business case for it. The second is can we, as
licensee, comply with that requirement? This is what I understood as
Anne's concern.  I think your claim of incompetence here is misplaced.
It may be that the resources available to one licensee make compliance
a non-issue. If the license is being signed by a single institution
that has control over the infrastructure and relationships within the
organization, perhaps compliance is not only possible, but simple. In
my case (and I would imagine most multi-institutional consortia),
where I license on behalf of 120+ libraries in 4 countries, and NELLCO
has a staff of 2, I would be negligent in agreeing to such a
requirement as I lack the resources to comply. It's not really a
matter of an incompetence that needs fixing. My alternatives would be
1) negotiate the requirement out or 2) walk away.

Cheers,
Tracy

Tracy L. Thompson, Executive Director
New England Law Library Consortium (NELLCO)
Albany Law School
Albany, NY 12208
www.nellco.org
[log in to unmask]


At 02:26 PM 12/3/2013, you wrote:

From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:12:06 -0500

Let me be sure I understand this. An institution concludes that it
will be incompetent to comply with the terms of a license that it
agrees to sign. Rather than examine the area of anticipated
incompetence in order to fix it, it insists that the terms of
compliance be removed.  The institution is now therefore in
compliance.  Everyone is happy.  Do I have that right?

Will our esteemed moderator permit me to retell the fable of the
disobedient dog?

The owner of a beloved dog was upset that the dog was disobedient.
The dog's master would put it out in the yard, where it would bark and
bark, annoying all the neighbors.  The master shouted, "Don't bark!
Don't bark!"--but to no avail.

Then the owner had an idea.  He called the dog to his side and said,
"Go out in the yard and bark to your heart's content."  The dog
dutifully went outside, barked and barked, until the neighbors howled
in a raging response.

The master called the dog in and gave it a treat.  The dog had
complied with the master's wishes in every way.  Everyone is happy.

Joe Esposito


-Original Message-----

> From: Anne McKee <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:48:53 -0700
>
> Happy week of Thanksgiving!
>
> I know this is a short week for many, but I've been negotiating with a
> major publisher for over 2 months with their license.  We had a
> conference call today about the remaining issues-one being the usage
> statistics this publisher wants our members to send them for articles
> that individual authors have added to their institution's IR.
>
> "The Licensee will make reasonable efforts to provide XXXX annually
> with statistics about the number of articles deposited each year by
> Authorized Users (or the Library's library staff on their behalf)
> under this provision, together with usage data about the number of
> accesses to and downloads of such articles, consistent with applicable
> privacy and confidentiality laws. "
>
> This license also is insisting on a 12 month embargo and has COUNTER
> compliance required
>
> I have strenuously objected to this over and over saying this would be
> an onerous (and almost impossible) compulsory mandate for our members.
> I've sent this out to our membership this am and I've already
> received 7 responses saying that this would prove almost impossible to
> do-particularly if they want the article level.
>
> Said publisher has expressed surprise stating that ALL their licenses
> have had this language for the past year and neither consortia nor
> libraries have objected to this.
>
> Anne E. McKee, M.L.S.
> Program Officer for Resource Sharing
> Greater Western Library Alliance (GWLA)
> [log in to unmask]
> www.GWLA.org