From: Ivy Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 04:30:31 +0000

I think it needs to be recognized that this is primarily a public
library use case, with only limited applicability in an academic
context.  Nonetheless to respond to Alex's second question, for most
libraries, the first instance is infinitely better than the second
from a collection-building perspective because it allows the library
to add the book to its permanent collection and make it available over
the long term without re-purchasing it.  Increased demand can in
theory be satisfied through multiple copies where needed (again note
the public library context;  this form of restricted use is less
applicable in the academic sphere, and of course it's still
sub-optimal).  But in a context in which one must choose between a
finite number of checkouts (which also implies a single user at a
time, else what is the meaning of a 'checkout'?) and a single use in
perpetuity, the long-term value of the latter is obvious. Best sellers
may be best sellers today but many of them will still find readers
years from now. A limited checkout model also forces the library to
continually monitor and manage legacy content at the individual item
level at the expense of devoting energy and resources to acquiring new
content, which isn't in anyone's interest.  If the finite number of
checkouts model were much cheaper than the permanent ownership model
(and the permanent ownership model were comparable to current purchase
costs, i.e. permanent ownership isn't suddenly made prohibitive, but
rather time-limited use is cheap), there might be some useful economic
discrimination between the desire to own something and the more
limited need to service current demand.  And it would enable hybrid
models that allow a library to own one copy and lease additional uses
to satisfy short-term demand at a low incremental cost.  Perhaps this
already exists?

But just to repeat, the academic and public library contexts are very
different use cases here.

I also think equating this to the 'back of a cocktail napkin' is an
unfortunate and misguided image, rather what's interesting is the
simplicity of a transaction that assumes good faith among all the
parties.  SERU anyone?

http://www.niso.org/workrooms/seru

- Ivy

Ivy Anderson
Director of Collections
California Digital Library
University of California, Office of the President


-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Holzman <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 22:15:55 -0500

I don't see how the deal can be separated from the content.  If I'm
selling you garbage, I'm willing to do the deal on a napkin or
anything else so long as you put up the money.  That a garbage deal
can be made for garbage content (and I'm not saying that's what this
is, but speaking to what I think is an illogical separation of the
content of an agreement from the agreement itself) establishes no kind
of precedent for other material.

I also find it interesting that the agreement limits use of the ebook
to one reader at a time.  That seems terribly retro and flies entirely
in the face of what an ebook allows.  What is superior about a library
owning an ebook but only by agreeing to one reader at a time as
opposed to the oh-so-vilified idea of saying x number of uses equals
wearing out a print book and triggers a new purchase?  I suppose it's
a matter of having limited use of an e-book for "eternity" v. having
it for a finite number of checkouts, then buying a replacement copy or
deciding it's no longer required in the collection.  I'd be curious to
know why a librarian would assume the first option is better than the
second.

Alex Holzman
Director
Temple University Press


On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:31 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: "Renison, Neil" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 23:34:17 +0000
>
> Recent comments on the thread of eBooks without Contracts seem to
> overlook the purpose of this list and why most of us subscribe to it.
> I admit to wondering myself about the value of the collection, but I
> simply wouldn't know and it is irrelevant to the main point of the
> post.  I just wish people wouldn't clutter the list with matters off
> topic.
>
> What was of interest is the revolutionary idea that a deal could be
> "culminated through the legal equivalent of a sketch on a cocktail
> napkin, not a 330 page contract with multiple addenda."  Spending so
> much my time dealing with the insanity of licensing electronic
> resources, one can only be interested in any potential for a better
> way.  Perhaps this example isn't, but that is what the debate should
> be about.
>
> Neil Renison| Librarian, Acquisitions Services
>
> Information Resources
> Library & Information Services
> Eddie Koiki Mabo Library
> James Cook University, Angus Smith Drive, Douglas, QLD 4811
> E: [log in to unmask]
> W: http://www.jcu.edu.au/libcomp/