From: "Elizabeth E. Kirk" <[log in to unmask]>

Where to start?

How about the obvious... No one is talking about course packs here
(except the excerpted language from the Harvard Business School Press
(HBSP) terms), as librarians are quite aware that these are a whole
different legal animal from reserves, which are supplemental, not
required, readings. When an article is linked from a database to a
reserves reading site, each view of that article is counted at the
same royalty rate as any other download from that journal through the
database. Many publishers feel that their royalty rate is very low and
no doubt this is true, but it's hard to believe that Harvard Business
Review doesn't enjoy pretty good returns from Ebsco, since it is a top
selling point for the more expensive versions of Business Source. So
HBSP is making money every time *anyone* in *any* environment clicks
to view full text through the database.

Does HBSP have a right to ask for more money? Of course it does.
What's irritating is that this publisher is part of an institution
whose library suffers from the same economics stresses that the rest
of us do. Despite the traditional fiction that nobody at Harvard ever
worries about money, they certainly are concerned to get the most
cost-effective services for their students and faculty, just as
everyone else is.  One assumes that the Press doesn't talk to the B
School's own librarians before making these decisions. Not to mention
the complexity of remembering what journals you can't link to as
opposed to those you can (how many thousand in full-text with durable
URLs in Business Source Complete alone?).

And No, Richard, we don't make forty copies of Catcher in the Rye if a
professor requires students to read it. If it's required, it's a
textbook, and they have to buy it. If it's a supplemental reading, we
put the copies we legally own on reserve and students read those. If
we digitize parts of it, we pay royalties and the view is restricted
to students in the class.

Elizabeth E. Kirk
Associate Librarian for Information Resources
Dartmouth College Library
Hanover, NH, USA
[log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
Date:  January 06, 2012 7:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Harvard Business Review, or, "Ceci n'est pas un abonnement"
From: Richard Gottlieb <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 14:37:20 -0500

What am I missing here?

If the library purchases a printed copy of Catcher In The Rye, and an
instructor would like to have his class all read it, you are saying
that the library, either can make the full text available
electronically (without purchasing a multi-user e-book), or
print/Xerox/duplicate forty copies for a course pack?

Without benefit to the publisher or the author (or author's estate)?

And it is somehow wrong or greedy for HBR to require permission and
perhaps compensation?

Richard Gottlieb

--------------------------------------------------
From: "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 5:20 PM
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Harvard Business Review, or, "Ceci n'est pas un abonnement"

> From: Mark Muehlhaeusler <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 09:53:19 -0500
>
> Dear all,
>
> You may be aware of the ongoing attempt, by Harvard Business Review,
> to limit the use of their articles in teaching. Their terms of use, as
> posted at the end of each publisher's PDF state:
>
> "Academic licensees may not use this content in electronic reserves,
> electronic course packs, persistent linking from syllabi or by any
> oher means of incorporating the content into course resources. [...]
> Harvard Business Publishing will be pleased to grant permission to
> make this content available through such means. For rates and
> permission, contact [log in to unmask]"
>
> ... the reason being, that HBR would like to generate a profit twice
> (or more) for the same content, by re-selling these materials through
> XanEdu (God forbid that students may actually use the library to read
> a journal!). Please see HBR's response below.
>
> In other words, our subscriptions are not intended to be subscriptions
> in the full sense of the word. I believe that this practice raises
> serious issues, as it trikes at the core of the Academic library's
> mission, to support both research and teaching.
>
> I would like to hear from the subscribers to this list how HBR is
> handled at their institutions, and indeed if any of you have engaged
> and confronted HBR on this issue.
>
> With my best wishes for the new year,
>
> Mark Muehlhaeusler
>
> Director, Copyright and Rights Management
> Georgetown University Library