From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 10:14:31 -0400

I am not aware of any reason to use geographical bases over logical
domains for "site" licenses, but I wonder if a publisher would care to
explain the reasoning. It may simply be a matter of legacy practices
or the cost of switching business and technical systems over (there
are real costs here, especially hard to bear for small publishers).
But is there a substantive reason as well?

Note that switching to, say, FTE pricing doesn't mean lower costs to
libraries. That battle simply gets fought on another stage.

Joe Esposito

On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 7:17 AM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Winston Tabb <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 14:46:52 +0000
>
> I agree, and we have been pushing back.  Our argument is that people
> use collections, not sites.  This is just one more irritating and
> pernicious way in which we are being gouged.
>
> Winston Tabb
> The Johns Hopkins University
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Shumaker <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 08:19:00 -0400
>
> Maurine--
>
> I'm glad you raised this question. I'm also surprised that vendors are
> still raising this tired old model. It was outmoded 20 years ago. I
> was doing license negotiations with vendors on behalf of a corporation
> with dozens of "sites" ranging in headcount from a couple thousand
> down to a couple individuals ... and then there were teleworkers not
> tethered to any "site", and mobile workers. I would see vendor reps'
> eyes light up when they learned about the number of "sites" -- until I
> informed them that we would not do licenses based on site location.
>
> Content buyers need to push back hard against the site-based license
> model. Other models are available.
>
> --Dave Shumaker
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Sweeney, Maurine" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 20:59:27 +0000
>
> I’m curious how other libraries are dealing with ‘authorized sites’ as
> different institutions are partnering in new ways.  For example, we
> are an academic health sciences library for a university with
> educational, research and clinical components, including two hospitals
> staffed in part by University faculty.  We have acquired and built new
> clinics and in the near future will be partnering with another
> hospital system in a joint facility.  All of the new clinics share the
> same administrative structure and are part of the University.  All of
> the ‘sites’ use the same IP range.  It seems to me as though the
> ‘authorized sites’ concept is becoming an outmoded way of thinking
> about organizations but I am interested to hear what others have to
> say and how you handle it with your licenses.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Maurine