From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 21:25:09 -0500

No quarrel here.  I was not responding to Ann's original post but one
that followed it.

Joe


On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:01 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 09:10:59 -0500
>
> Joe, I think the major flaw here is that in Anne's original post, the
> point is that they have NOT agreed to sign. Instead, they are
> negotiating the terms with the publisher precisely because they want
> to be in compliance. From a consortium perspective I would share
> Anne's concerns about compliance with tracking usage in the way I
> understand the publisher to be asking here. I've been following Anne's
> issue both here and on the ICOLC list, and what struck me is that the
> responses seems to address one of two different aspects. The first is,
> does it make sense for the publisher to want to this data? I think we
> can all see the business case for it. The second is can we, as
> licensee, comply with that requirement? This is what I understood as
> Anne's concern.  I think your claim of incompetence here is misplaced.
> It may be that the resources available to one licensee make compliance
> a non-issue. If the license is being signed by a single institution
> that has control over the infrastructure and relationships within the
> organization, perhaps compliance is not only possible, but simple. In
> my case (and I would imagine most multi-institutional consortia),
> where I license on behalf of 120+ libraries in 4 countries, and NELLCO
> has a staff of 2, I would be negligent in agreeing to such a
> requirement as I lack the resources to comply. It's not really a
> matter of an incompetence that needs fixing. My alternatives would be
> 1) negotiate the requirement out or 2) walk away.
>
> Cheers,
> Tracy
>
> Tracy L. Thompson, Executive Director
> New England Law Library Consortium (NELLCO)
> Albany Law School
> Albany, NY 12208
> www.nellco.org
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> At 02:26 PM 12/3/2013, you wrote:
>
> 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