From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:12:06 -0500

Let me be sure I understand this.  An institution concludes that it
will be incompetent to comply with the terms of a license that it
agrees to sign.  Rather than examine the area of anticipated
incompetence in order to fix it, it insists that the terms of
compliance be removed.  The institution is now therefore in
compliance.  Everyone is happy.  Do I have that right?

Will our esteemed moderator permit me to retell the fable of the
disobedient dog?

The owner of a beloved dog was upset that the dog was disobedient.
The dog's master would put it out in the yard, where it would bark and
bark, annoying all the neighbors.  The master shouted, "Don't bark!
Don't bark!"--but to no avail.

Then the owner had an idea.  He called the dog to his side and said,
"Go out in the yard and bark to your heart's content."  The dog
dutifully went outside, barked and barked, until the neighbors howled
in a raging response.

The master called the dog in and gave it a treat.  The dog had
complied with the master's wishes in every way.  Everyone is happy.

Joe Esposito


On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 9:23 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Danny Kingsley <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 01:45:12 +0000
>
> Perhaps I should elucidate what I mean by a slippery slope.
>
> A few years ago when I was working for the Australian Broadcasting
> Corporation as a journalist for the Science Online website we
> inadvertently broke embargo on a story from Nature (media outlets
> receive the journal under embargo a couple of days early to allow time
> to interview people and go live with stories at the time of
> publication of the journal).
>
> Nature immediately demanded the article be removed from the site (fair
> enough) and also said they would black the entire ABC – all states,
> all media platforms - for three months. It was only through intense
> negotiation and some serious undertakings on Science Online's behalf
> that we were able to avert the blackout on embargoed versions.
>
> When we tie the payment for licensing to published research to the
> conditions around what can be deposited into our own institution's
> repository then we are opening up the library to a potentially
> difficult situation. Managing the copyright of articles deposited into
> a repository is complex and time consuming*, as I know from many
> year's direct experience. If your institution inadvertently made a
> publication available in contravention to the CTA or other
> arrangement, what is the consequence to the license to the corpus of
> research from that publisher?
>
> I can't imagine the academic community would look kindly upon a
> situation where they were not able to access research in the library
> because of an administrative error. It is worth checking what the
> cross ramifications are between the two aspects of the license
> agreement in terms of how they impact on each other.
>
> Danny
>
> *It does not help that the rules are also constantly changing – see
> 'Walking in quicksand – keeping up with copyright agreements' -
> http://aoasg.org.au/2013/05/23/walking-in-quicksand-keeping-up-with-copyright-agreements/
>
> Dr Danny Kingsley
> Executive Officer
> Australian Open Access Support Group
> e: [log in to unmask]
> w: wwww.aoasg.org.au
>
> *******
>
> From: ANTHONY WATKINSON <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:16:43 +0000
>
> I have been a librarian and more recently a publisher and am now an
> academic researcher. I have never negotiated the sort of agreement
> being discussed. However I can say that publishers both for their own
> part and on behalf of the academics they serve do very much want to
> know the total usage of articles. In particular there is a huge demand
> from editors and editorial boards of journals. Maybe some helpful
> suggestions about how compressive downloads stats can be achieved
> might be offered instead of comments about slippery slopes and
> suchlike
>
> Anthony
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Danny Kingsley <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:38:38 +0000
>
> Hi Anne,
>
> I preface my comment with the caveat that I am not a librarian, nor
> have I ever been involved in the negotiation of licenses. But I have
> been involved in open access for a fair time.
>
> This type of conflation of what a library pays for in terms of
> licensing to published content with what locally generated outputs a
> university can (or not) place into the institutional repository, and
> subsequent information about those deposits, is the beginning of a
> very slippery slope. You are correct to be concerned about this
> clause.
>
> If this publisher has had this clause in all of those licenses to date
> then perhaps it might be worth asking what compliance levels they have
> enjoyed from the many amenable libraries and consortia? It might be
> worth also asking for the names of a couple of the more compliant
> libraries and/or consortia to allow you to consult with them on how
> they have managed to overcome the issues that you perceive to exist
> with compliance. I'm sure in this (apparent) new age of sharing and
> openness your publisher would be more than happy to assist with that
> information.
>
> Danny
>
> Dr Danny Kingsley
> ------------------------------------------
> Executive Officer
> Australian Open Access Support Group (AOASG)
> Menzies Library, Building 2
> The Australian National University
> Canberra ACT 0200 Australia
> E: [log in to unmask]
> W: http://aoasg.org.au
> T: @openaccess_oz
>
>
> -----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