From: Peter McCracken <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:34:49 +0000 Greetings – I am fairly new to electronic resources licensing, though not to the library world. In my role as electronic resources librarian at Cornell University, I’ve been reviewing, negotiating, and (hopefully) signing licenses for content requested by selectors. I have a philosophical problem with one license, and I’d like to request some feedback from this group as a whole. Our Music library would like to subscribe to the online version of Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart (MGG) from NYC-based RILM. Their newest license agreement incorporates the MGG Online Terms, which include, in bold characters, the following notice: “We reserve the right to modify these Terms at any time. All changes will be effective immediately upon posting to MGG Online and, by accessing or using MGG Online after changes are posted, you agree to those changes unless, in the case of material changes only, you choose to exercise your right below to terminate your access if the material changes are not acceptable. Material changes will be conspicuously posted on MGG Online.” I don’t understand why one would agree to a license that can be unilaterally changed at any time. Apparently, I would need to be regularly checking the MGG site if I wanted to learn about material changes and take the opportunity to not accept them. Not surprisingly, if I did notice and object to material changes, my notification of termination “will not entitle you to a refund of any prepaid fees.” This is not the first such clause I’ve seen, and in a previous license negotiation, I got a similar clause removed. I find this more than a bit frustrating – why are we signing a license in the first place, if you can just change it? Are other libraries agreeing to these terms? If this is the most current version of this license, then I guess so. But I don’t understand why. And within my institution, I’m trying to determine how I manage my relationship with the selector, if I say that we will not subscribe because we will not agree to the publisher’s terms. On the one hand, I fail in my job of acquiring the resources the selector has identified; on the other hand, I believe that I fail in my responsibility for protecting the institution’s interests. Perhaps I’m being unreasonable; RILM will probably not change terms in an onerous manner without notice. But why participate in such an unbalanced agreement? Thoughts and guidance are certainly welcomed. Peter McCracken Electronic Resources Librarian Cornell University [log in to unmask] (607) 255-1892