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]