From: Sarah Elizabeth Kennedy <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:47:12 +0000 Great observations, Peter. For what it's worth, in my role as a selector I would not perceive your decision not to sign a license such as the one you have described as a failure, especially if you were to explain your rationale in the way you just did in this thread. If anything, I would hope that I would come to your defense - and I issue that as a challenge to my future self! My hope is that institutions like Cornell will continue to be leaders in resisting these terms. In fact, this is a point of pride for me in my interactions with faculty. It makes me pleased to be able to say that, far from being helpless in license negotiations, Cornell uses its influence and buying power to pave the way for ALL libraries to resist unreasonable and/or unscrupulous licensing terms. This, to me, is an aspect of collection development that makes the Library so much more than a passive collector or repository of information - it makes us a player in the stage of scholarly production and consumption. We set a precedent that other institutions - perhaps of lesser means or smaller size - can hopefully be empowered to follow. A perfect example of this is our refusal to enter into vendor contracts that require nondisclosure of pricing information or other information that does not constitute a trade secret. If I were to offer any suggestion in your interactions with selectors, it would simply be to provide a full description of what you find objectionable in the license and why. Perhaps describe it in terms of impact to the end-user. I confess that I know so little about what happens on the back end in negotiations that I rely heavily on you and others in LTS to tell me straight up why you are saying "no" to a product. It would then be my responsibility in my follow-up interactions with the requester to do my best to relay our decision not in terms of "Peter McCracken says 'no'," but instead "We as a Library say no," because this license (a) is not in alignment with our core values, (b) puts us in a very compromised position to remain responsive in the marketplace, (c) sets a frankly dangerous precedent that erodes our negotiating power over time, and (d) would make us poor stewards of the funds we have been entrusted to manage. I might also attempt to explain how the license might negatively impact the end-user as they interact with the product, thus clarifying our decision in terms of both core values as well as cold, hard pragmatism. These discussions are hard...It's very hard to say no, especially in an environment in which the "relevancy" of the Library is routinely challenged. Selectors feel that pressure every day. In the long run, however, our ability to negotiate firmly and fairly on behalf of our constituents is exactly what makes us relevant. I would rather say "no" to an unreasonable or unscrupulous license and endure the momentary barbs and arrows of the requester(s) than forfeit our values and our position of trust in the research community. And furthermore, these case studies are fascinating and we should be discussing these in an open and transparent way. I think it's important for the larger research community to understand the time, effort, expertise, and resources it takes for this sort of collections work to happen. Thank you for your work, for raising these concerns, and for thinking about these issues from multiple perspectives all down the line, including that of the selector. We are fortunate to have you with us! All best, -Sarah Sarah Elizabeth Kennedy Collection Development and Digital Collections Librarian 180 Albert R. Mann Library 237 Mann Drive, Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 Office: (607) 255-9022