From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 08:41:48 +0400 Hi All > I agree that the clause is a silly one and that reasonable endeavours or > suchlike is the most a vendor might expect but have many librarians been > sued or is this another joke by Dr. Masters? The binary forming of this question is problematic: the possibility that no librarian (or institution) has yet been fined or sued should not mean that this can be taken as a joke. Here are a few safe assumptions: - Lawyers do not put jokes into contracts. - If the word "reasonable" has not been put into the clause, then it is not by error. It has been done for a purpose. - Even if you do wish to take the "reasonable endeavours" route of defence, user names and passwords like "tester," "testuser," "testpass," etc, will not be easy to defend. - If, after the clause has been pointed out by the institution, the representative still insists that it stays, then it is definitely there for a reason. More, the fact that you pointed that clause out to the representative is a strong argument that you were aware of that condition, and understood it and its implications; ignorance of the law is rarely a defence, but, in that instance, you've made any defence well-nigh impossible. Rather, two other questions should be considered: Q: Are there documented instances where user access codes (usernames and passwords, including ones like "testpass", etc) have been made publicly accessible (e.g. on the Internet)? A: Yes, hundreds. Q: Do libraries and institutions expose themselves to legal action because of this? A: Read your contracts, and have your lawyers read them also. Regards Ken Dr. Ken Masters Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics Medical Education Unit College of Medicine & Health Sciences Sultan Qaboos University Sultanate of Oman On 15 November 2012 00:01, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:54:35 +0000 > > I agree that the clause is a silly one and that reasonable endeavours or > suchlike is the most a vendor might expect but have many librarians been > sued or is this another joke by Dr. Masters? > > Anthony > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ken Masters <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:40:52 +0400 > > Hi All > > It's quite easy, actually. There is no particular action, because it > includes EVERYTHING. > > Given that the terms of use will include prevention of allowing outsiders > access, it simply means (for example) that the client (you) has the > responsibility of ensuring that not a single one of your staff and students > ever shares a user name and password with anyone else, never has their > computers hacked with spyware, stolen, accessed through wifi snoopers, etc., > that your entire university database of usernames and passwords is > absolutely secure, and that, if any breach occurs that allows an outsider to > access the journal, then you'll find yourself paying a fine or in court. I > mean, those are surely not unreasonable demands (if you're working for Fort > Knox or the CIA, that is). > > When you query that at the time of signing, you'll probably be told not to > worry too much about it, as those are just "fairly standard and legal > clauses" that "everyone signs." The rep will probably even crack a silly > joke about "you know how stuffy the lawyers are." When the breach occurs, > however, you'll find out just how quickly that defence vapourises, and just > how expert those lawyers actually are. > > Regards > > Ken > > Dr. Ken Masters > Asst. Professor: Medical Informatics > Medical Education Unit > College of Medicine & Health Sciences > Sultan Qaboos University > Sultanate of Oman