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]

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 22:04:43 -0500

A brief contract with little detail is very good unless and until something
goes wrong.

Joe Esposito