From: Eugenia Beh <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:56:53 -0600

I don't know if this will help, but when Texas A&M ran into a
publisher who had similar wording (and who wouldn't remove the
clause), we were able to come to the following compromise:

The Client will make a reasonable effort to communicate the
termination of the subscription to its users and request that they
destroy all copies (hard and electronic) of any Licensed Product or
any such report, data or other information in their possession.

"[R]easonable efforts" can be anything from sending out an email
blast, or adding a statement in a university-wide newsletter along the
lines of:

“Texas A&M no longer subscribe to [product] as per the terms and
conditions of our agreement it would be greatly appreciated if all
students would remove any saved PDF’s from their hard drives and cease
using them for any purposes from this point forward”.

I don't know if The Economist will be willing to consider this
language but it may be worth a try.

Hope this helps,
Eugenia


On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:46 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: "Gibson, Sally" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:30:54 +0000
>
> I also reached a dead end when trying to revise those statements in
> the Economist license.  We have not had online access to the Economist
> since it was dropped from the EBSCO database.  I have had no
> complaints.  The title was used when we had online access and I know
> that convenience is a driving force for article choices.  Our students
> are either taking advantage of what is available on the Economist
> website for free or they are choosing another source.  Since the
> Economist is not willing to revise their license agreement so that it
> is more library friendly, I have decided to spend my money on
> something else.
>
>
> Sally
>
> Sally Gibson
> Head of Technical Services
> Reinert Alumni Library
> Creighton University
> [log in to unmask]