LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 15.5

Help for BIBLIST Archives


BIBLIST Archives

BIBLIST Archives


View:

Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font

Options:

Join or Leave BIBLIST
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Subject:

Elsevier Accepts Modified Agreement

From:

Frans Lettenstrom <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

BIBLIST - Topics in Nordic research library user services <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 26 Jul 1997 12:00:39 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)


Till fjärrlåneintresserade:

Elsevier tar tillbaka möjligheten att göra fjärrlån från elektroniska tidskrifter.

Vi får hoppas att de och andra fulltextleverantörer tillåter det i framtiden med tanke på eventuella fulltextlicenser för delar av biblioteksväsendet. Den moderna tekniken bör ju inte minska tillgängligheten för bibliotek utanför avtalen.

Frans Lettenström
BIBSAM

---------------------

>Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 18:03:52 -0400 (EDT)
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>Sender: [log in to unmask]
>From: Karen Hunter <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Elsevier Accepts Modified Agreement
>X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
>
>On July 2nd, Uta Grothkopf and Ellen Bouton posted a note to libicense-l
>reporting that Elsevier had agreed to modify its New Astronomy license to
>permit ILL from this electronic file "in accordance with current copyright
>law and CONTU guidelines".
>
>They went on to say that they "hoped that other publishers follow the
>positive example Elsevier has given".
>
>Those of you who know me know that this area of ILL is one I and Elsevier
>take very seriously. It is with some regret, therefore, that I have to
>say that, while it is true that a modified ESO Library license for New
>Astronomy was signed with the wording shown, it was inadvertently signed
>by a publishing staff member and it never passed through our Legal
>Department. In short, we made an error and there has, in fact, been no
>policy change. We do not permit ILL from our electronic files.
>
>Let me use this occasion to expand a bit on our position. The CONTU
>guidelines were explicitly written for photocopying. That is the context
>in which they were negotiated between publishers and librarians and that
>is the only context in which they should continue to be applied.
>
>CONTU was at a time when there were few if any reliable commercial
>document delivery services available as an alternative to ILL. You needed
>to get a copy from another library because that was effectively the only
>option.
>
>Now, with commercial services, the only reason a library seeks a
>photocopied Elsevier article via ILL is that it does not want to
>compensate Elsevier for that article. It is not because the article is in
>any other way hard to obtain.
>
>Somehow CONTU has taken on a broader aura. Many see it as some blanket
>entitlement to five free copies of anything. It is not. It is a
>negotiated agreement pertaining to photo- copies and photocopies only.
>
>As others have said on this list recently, the digital environ- ment is
>quite different. During the recent CONFU discussions (for those not
>knowing this acronym, it is the Conference on Fair Use), I tried to
>introduce new options to consider for new ILL guidelines. It was judged
>to be too early - or too dangerous - to get into substantive discussions,
>which I still think is a pity.
>
>What I suggested as options could be, e.g., (1) that the licensee of
>electronic files agree to some limit on the number of ILL copies supplied
>or (2) that current material (e.g. perhaps this year and the preceding
>1-2 years' publications) not be available for ILL copying. Either of
>these measures might give the rights owners the protections they need and
>provide more balance.
>
>As to (1), the CONTU guidelines put all responsibility for counting on the
>borrowing library. That means the supplying library - the licensee of the
>electronic files and the only one with whom the rights holder has a
>contractual agreement - can wash its hands and say "not my problem",
>effectively supplying everyone who wants copies with no questions asked.
>Most publishers are not willing to license under those conditions.
>
>As to (2), this would probably be harder to get accepted on both sides.
>Some publishers would feel a 2-3 year period for ILL electronic exemption
>is too small. Many libraries would consider it unacceptable for the
>opposite reason. But it might be worth discussing.
>
>Yet another alternative is to use the electronic files for ILL but with an
>agreed-upon payment to the rights holder. There are some interesting
>discussions along these lines going on in Europe.
>
>I hope to be returning to this topic in a couple of months and propose
>some type of meeting or other method to move the discussion forward (at
>least for Elsevier licenses). In the meantime, and as to this case, we
>made a mistake in signing the ESO modified license and have not changed
>our policy.
>
>Karen Hunter
>Senior Vice President
>[log in to unmask]
>


Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main BIBLIST Page

Permalink



SEGATE.SUNET.SE

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager