A more practical option might be for publishers to place on
their
websites the terms and conditions for digital use of their
print
publications. The main problem, after all (certainly with
regard
to Google and other library digitisation projects) is not
for the
books they are selling now - in many cases, an e-version
will be
(or could be) available, which would doubtless be cheaper
than
customers doing the digitisation individually. Even knowing
that
it's available (which might rule out - at least in some
jurisdictions - library or other digitisation) could be an
enormous help!
If such 'license' terms were available in a standard encoded
form
which libraries could easily access or even incorporate in
their
OPAC, that would be even better
The problem would be that such terms and conditions would
not,
presumably, be legally binding (since retrospective) on
customers...
Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
Email: sally.morris alpsp.org
Website: www.alpsp.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph J. Esposito" <espositojgmail.com>
To: <liblicense-llists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: Column on licenses
> Some clarifications and comments.
>
> No publisher I know of, including OECD, Springer, or
Elsevier,
> has the kind of license I envisioned. Our (Shatzkin's
and my)
> proposal was not for ebooks, which are likely always to
be sold
> with licenses (more below), but as an option for
someone who
> purchased hardcopy. I hasten to add that we are NOT
saying
> that hardcopy should be licensed. We are proposing
that anyone
> who purchases a hardcopy automatically gets an OPTION
for an
> electronic license, whose terms would be set by the
publisher.
> We also propose that those terms be progressive, but
not every
> publisher will agree to this. If such licenses were in
place,
> there would be no lawsuits against Google, provided
that the
> terms of the licenses covered sufficient territory.
>
> It should be noted that not all, indeed few, publishers
have
> the luxury of OECD in walking away from their hardcopy
> businesses. Books for the research community are the
exception;
> the rule can be found in Borders and Barnes &
Noble. The
> riches--in hardcopy--of the modern American bookstore,
not to
> mention what can be found at Amazon and its online
competitors,
> are by my estimate about 8 times greater than what was
> available 20 years ago (from an average of 12,000
titles in a
> retail store to 100,000). There is little demand for
making
> these titles available electronically, though I for one
believe
> that that is just about to change.
>
> As for the horror of licenses, I suppose we all have to
choose
> our monsters. I would prefer a multiplicity of licenses
to one
> lawsuit. In the absence of licenses, we have
litigation. And
> this promises to get uglier. Google, for instance, has
> subpoenaed Microsoft, Yahoo, and Amazon as part of its
defense
> against the publishers' (and the Authors Guild's)
lawsuits.
> Why? Will the publishers turn around and sue the
University of
> Wisconsin? Where does it end? There may be some
members of
> this list who do not know what it means to be dragged
through
> civil litigation--the waste, the falsehoods, the
routine abuse
> of the people who get swept into it.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Toby.GREENoecd.org>
> To: <liblicense-llists.yale.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:11 PM
> Subject: RE: Column on licenses
>
>> Joe,
>>
>> Thanks for alerting us to your piece in Publishers'
Weekly. You
>> say that you know of no publisher with a clear
policy on how
>> libraries can use e-books. I find this a
challenging statement
>> because I would be surprised if Springer and
Elsevier did't have
>> one. However, I do know this - we have one. We post
some Terms
>> and Conditions for using our e-library on our
website (you can
>> find the link at the bottom of every page.) We
issued this in
>> 2004 and so far, we're finding no problems at all
with it and
>> neither do our growing number of customers.
>>
>> I agree with Kevin Smith about the horror that
would entail if
>> every publisher issued a formal license with their
books. This is
>> why we do our utmost NOT to sign licenses with our
customers,
>> relying instead on our Terms and Conditions, trust
and existing
>> copyright laws to prevent widespread abuse (we
realise that some
>> level of abuse will occur whatever we do!). Some
customers,
>> usually, I have to say, in the US, insist on having
a license. We
>> think this is an administratively expensive way to
work together.
>> After all, we never signed licenses when we sold
printed books to
>> librarians - so what's different now? Sure, it's
easier and
>> cheaper for someone to do illegal copying of
copyright material
>> from an e-book - but signing a license won't change
that!
>>
>> Your conclusion, as ever, is spot-on. Many book
publishers do
>> need to get beyond worrying about their print
business and start
>> experimenting with new marketing channels (but
don't always
>> expect miracles, all our books are on Google's
Books service and
>> we're getting great visibility but precious few
sales so far). We
>> stopped worrying about our print business in 1998
and haven't
>> looked back - two-thirds of our books revenues this
year will
>> come from 'e'. (Traditionalists reading this might
be comforted
>> to know that every book we publish is also
available in print as
>> well.) If anyone wants to know how we did this,
I'll be telling
>> our story at an ALPSP seminar on November 6th in
bond, UK, and
>> at an SSP seminar on November 14th in Washington,
DC - maybe
>> you'd like to come along yourself?
>>
>> Toby Green
>> Head of Dissemination and Marketing
>> OECD Publishing
>> http://www.oecd.org/Book
shop
>> http://www.SourceOECD.org - our award-winning e-library
>> http://www.oecd.org/OE
CDdirect - our new title alerting service
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> [mailto:owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu] On Behalf
Of Kevin L Smith
>> Sent: 18 October, 2006 12:32 AM
>> To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
>> Subject: Re: Column on licenses
>>
>> I think the principle problem that your suggestion
would create,
>> from a library point of view, is an unwieldy
proliferation of
>> licenses. It is already the case that libraries
are hard pressed
>> to keep track of the various terms in licenses for
electronic
>> databases; licenses for monographs would increase
this difficulty
>> exponentially.
>>
>> That sad truth is that copyright acts as a kind of
default set of
>> rules that librarians more or less know and that
prevent most of
>> us from putting current monographic literature
online, absent the
>> intervention of Google and its deep pockets. I
don't think
>> publishers' licenses for monographs would really
change that
>> situation, since the variety of terms and the lack
of expert
>> staff to manage the resultant morass would prevent
libraries from
>> actually exploiting those licenses that might offer
the
>> opportunity.
>>
>> If the goal is to make current monographic
literature easier to
>> provide in digital form, how about a compulsory
licensing scheme?
>> It would have the advantage of a known set of terms
that would be
>> manageable, and would allow libraries to chose
those disciplines
>> in which they want to invest resources toward
online access.
>>
>> Kevin L. Smith, J.D.
>> Scholarly Communications Officer
>> Perkins Library, Duke University
>> Durham, NC 27708
>> kevin.l.smithduke.edu
>>
>>
>> "Joseph J. Esposito" <espositojgmail.com>
>> Sent by: owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu
>> 10/16/2006 09:15 PM
>> Subject: Column on licenses
>>
>> I recently published a column with my partner Mike
Shatzkin in
>> Publishers Weekly. The topic is the need for
publishers to craft
>> end-user licenses with every product they ship,
including
>> hardcopy books, as a means to make litigation
unnecessary. Here
>> is the link:
>>
>> http://publishersweekly.com/art
icle/CA6378889.html?display=community&industry
>> =Soapbox&verticalid=792
>>
>> If that link gets broken, go to http://publishersweekly.c
om and
>> search for the "Soapbox" feature.
>>
>> I would appreciate hearing online or off from
members of the
>> library community as to how to improve the position
Mike and I
>> are taking in this column. We talk to publishers
all the time;
>> once in a while they actually listen to us.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Joe Esposito
|