I don't know if this will help, but when Texas A&M ran into a publisher who
had similar wording (and who wouldn't remove the clause), we were able to
come to the following compromise:

The Client will make a *reasonable* effort to communicate the termination
of the subscription to its users and request that they destroy all copies
(hard and electronic) of any Licensed Product or any such report, data or
other information in their possession.
"[R]easonable efforts" can be anything from sending out an email blast, or
adding a statement in a university-wide newsletter along the lines of:

“Texas A&M no longer subscribe to [product] as per the terms and conditions
of our agreement it would be greatly appreciated if all students would
remove any saved PDF’s from their hard drives and cease using them for any
purposes from this point forward”.


I don't know if The Economist will be willing to consider this language but
it may be worth a try.

Hope this helps,
Eugenia


On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 1:46 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: "Gibson, Sally" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:30:54 +0000
>
> I also reached a dead end when trying to revise those statements in
> the Economist license.  We have not had online access to the Economist
> since it was dropped from the EBSCO database.  I have had no
> complaints.  The title was used when we had online access and I know
> that convenience is a driving force for article choices.  Our students
> are either taking advantage of what is available on the Economist
> website for free or they are choosing another source.  Since the
> Economist is not willing to revise their license agreement so that it
> is more library friendly, I have decided to spend my money on
> something else.
>
>
> Sally
>
> Sally Gibson
> Head of Technical Services
> Reinert Alumni Library
> Creighton University
> [log in to unmask]
>