From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:04:11 +0000

Joe

You misunderstand me and perhaps both of us. In my case I was providing
history, Because of the work of people like Sally and of course Ann Okerson
there has been a great deal of convergence in the drafting of clauses and
the clauses which contracts contain. At least that is my impression. Others
may correct. There are companies (alas) where the corporate lawyers or (even
worse) the legal people they bring in from outside do ignore the consensus
that has developed in various areas. There is no need to invent new
restrictions or permissions. It just adds to cost. Following models save
money. It is pity some people do not seem to realise this.

Anthony

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:41:20 -0500

Oh, gosh, Anthony and Sally, what romantics you are! You want the good old
days when you could work in simpler ways, when you might actually know the
name of the person who acquired what you published. But it's a different
world today, with large aggregations of publications being sold to large
aggregations of libraries.  It's terribly impersonal, with no prospect of
turning back the wheels of time outside the pages of a science fiction
novel.  We all hate these obnoxious contracts, and perhaps the lawyers who
draft them as well, but in a time of such ferment about trading terms and
intellectual property, the contract is that momentary stay against confusion
that we require to go about our business.  No one likes these things, but we
need them.

Joe Esposito


On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 6:04 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:56:43 +0000
>
> I want to back-up Sally on this. I was the publishing director of
> probably the first company to try to sell online versions of journals
> and I tried to avoid a licence by a pop-up for users which just told
> them what they could do with the article accessed. I consulted Ann
> herself. She told me any statement like this was a licence. Sally
> worked very hard in the UK to construct a model licence (PALS)which
> would be agreed by both the PA (and the ALPSP?) and JISC. It was
> agreed. Then JISC dropped out of the deal and did their own thing (as I
recall).
>
> Anthony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:11:59 +0000
>
> We all used to be perfectly content to sell/buy, respectively, print
> books and journals without any 'terms and conditions'.  Yes, I know
> that what people can in principle do with e-publications is
> immeasurably scarier to publishers, but haven't we all added greatly
> to the cost of e-publications by involving expensive legal people on
> both sides to write and then negotiate these contracts?
>
> It's not just publishers who are to blame; some years ago, I
> understand that BMJ tried to do without an agreement for its online
> version, only to yield to customer pressure to reintroduce it!
>
> I'm sure you are all familiar with the various attempts there have
> been to simplify/standardise journal agreements - but how much success
> have they actually had?
>
> Sally
>
>
> Sally Morris
> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
> Email:  [log in to unmask]