From: Steve Oberg <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 03:23:36 +0000

I agree with others that criticism of Anne and what she is asking
about is baffling at best. My thought in response to her situation is
that the publisher's claim that all it's licenses have this language
and no one else has objected, doesn't prove anything. Except that
perhaps too many libraries are not paying careful attention to
licensing language before signing.

I also think it's naive of a publisher to require this compliance of
libraries, while recognizing the reasoning behind the requirement.

Steve

> On Dec 4, 2013, at 9:00 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 05:19:39 +0000
>
> Actually, the original poster got it right, and Joe and company are
> missing the main point.Ann gets it exactly right. No library or
> librarian can agree to something in a contract they cannot do.  Do not
> sign a contract with provisions you cannot fulfill. This is basic.
> That the publisher insists that "all content" be destroyed once the
> contract ends shows a majestic misunderstanding of the nature of
> academic and scholarly practice. The library is, the publisher
> demands, going to some how identify through some magic wand, every
> file, every piece of paper, every instance of the publisher's content
> and make sure it is destroyed at termination of the contract. That's
> absolutely ridiculous, and of course utter nonsense on the part of the
> "major" publisher. I suggest Anne be less reticent and tell us the
> name of the company that does not understand the rudiments of how
> academia operates to warn all off from the unreasonable demand.
>
> Regards
> Chuck Hamaker
>
>> -----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