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/