From: Greg Fleming <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2022 20:39:05 +0000 I recall the printed Dun & Bradstreet Million Dollar Directory stated that it was property of D&B and the user was just leasing it. One place I worked dutifully sent the old volumes back when the new edition arrived. My current library has 35 years worth on the shelf, presumably still owned by D&B according to them. Greg From: "Smith, Kevin L" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 15:16:20 +0000 There have been efforts to do this before, with various levels of success. There is an old case (1908, I think) from the US Supreme Court that said that a publisher could not impose pricing conditions based on a unilateral statement printed in the book (“The retail price of this book shall not be less than $1.00” or words to that effect). Basically, because no contract was formed, this unilateral statement was not sufficient to overcome the doctrine of first sale, or exhaustion. But there have been efforts to sell printed works in shrinkwrap licenses that would impose conditions on lending or resale. The state Bar Association in Maryland sold its directory this way a few years ago, although I do not know if they are still trying to do so. Those licenses are probably effective as long as there is some affirmative act of acceptance that supports the formation of a contract. With that background, I agree that we should not buy materials under these conditions. Kevin L. Smith Dean of Libraries, University of Kansas Director, University Press of Kansas *Subject:* Re: Print license? From: Susan Lafferty <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 00:28:11 +0000 Thank Karin Methinks it would be a sad day if we moved to this sort of licensing for print. Are we willing to refuse to purchase/licence/obtain such items. I’d be inclined to suggest they go whistle.. – we can’t really afford to cave in to this sort of precedent.. *Susan Lafferty* Director of Libraries Australian Catholic University [image: ACU Logo] Level 8, 33 Berry Street North Sydney, NSW 2060 *T:* +61 2 9465 9131 *M:* 0412 673 097 *E:**[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>* *W:* www.acu.edu.au <https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.acu.edu.au%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cklsmith12%40KU.EDU%7Ced3d79aea0714cdbc4c908d9fa55ce57%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C637816068715205367%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0&sdata=U2kfxOVKaiQ%2Bow2BFOLZ0qyxJXkwueQ%2BD20eEvo72b4%3D&reserved=0> I acknowledge the Traditional Owners of Country throughout Australia and their continuing connection to land, sea and community. I honour our Elders past, present and emerging. Australian Catholic University - CRICOS 00004G. From: Karin Wikoff <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:27:49 +0000 Yes, Susan, the Chronicle is putting specific limitations on the use of the print items. I have been wanting to write in about this issue as well. Yes, indeed, the Chronicle is rolling back First Sale privileges for PRINT items. We asked specifically, and here is what we were told: "The Chronicle’s published content may not be reproduced, forwarded (even for internal use), hosted online, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. If you are purchasing copies in bulk, you are permitted to distribute the authorized number of purchased copies, but all other restrictions apply." (emphasis added) It's a little unclear here what they mean, when in one line you have to agree not to allow photocopying, yet in another it says except for certain noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. Well -- do they or do they not allow First Sale uses? If you don't actually OWN the book as an object, but are just licensing it -- what does that mean in practical terms? We asked about ILL -- not allowed. So now we have to keep track of a new category of physical books in our collection which we are legally disallowed to lend? We asked about weeding at some time in the future. We would not be allowed to sell it (such as to Better World Books), and here is the direct answer if we wanted to donate it: "If your institution decides to donate, you’re welcome to but need to let us know what party it's going to and we'll confirm receipt of the request to transfer." It looks to me like they are saying that if library licenses a physical copy of a report, you could not lend it on ILL, and your borrowers might not be allowed to photocopy pages (as if we could stop them). If it became outdated and you wanted to weed it, you could not sell it, and if you wanted to donate it, you would have to request permission to transfer the license and specify to whom you wanted to donate the physical copy. It is bad enough that some publishers strip away copyright privileges for electronic format books; to try to strip them away from PRINT items is totally outrageous. AND -- pay more for an institutional copy on top of that. Correct me if I am wrong, copyright experts, but copyright is meant to protect the intellectual content, not the physical book -- right? How can we best band together to push back on this? Karin Karin Wikoff Interim College Librarian Ithaca College Library Email: [log in to unmask] she/her/hers [SNIP]