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