From: Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 13:06:08 +0000

It doesn't seem an unreasonable statement to me - a book, which is
fixed, obviously can't keep up with future changes in URLs until or
unless people use DOIs and their equivalents, which can be redirected
as things change

Sally

Sally Morris
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
Email:  [log in to unmask]


________________________________

From: ANTHONY WATKINSON <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 15:19:53 +0000

I know CUP have a lawyer in house but I suspect that they use external
expert lawyers for advice on developments. Lawyers are paid to think
of any problems that might occur. They are inventive and can
reasonably think of new problems/dangers which might arrive as the
legislative framework changes

Anthomy

________________________________

From: Jim O'Donnell <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 14:58:20 -0500

From a new scholarly book (2011) from Cambridge University Press, at
the foot of the copyright page:

"Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence
or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites
referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any
content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate."

(1) Do they imply they *do* guarantee persistence and accuracy of
their own websites that may be referenced?

(2) Does this not belabor the obvious?  Where in the Press hierarchy
did this idea come from and to whom did it seem a good idea?

Jim O'Donnell
Georgetown U.