Anthony makes a really interesting point. The real problem
it
seems to me -- and this is a much wider issue -- is that, at
least in the United States, people have litigation as their
only
solution. There really is an absence of any substantial
alternative system for resolving disputes. So we end up
with a
situation where people are so afraid of the court system
(and the
possibility of punitive actions) that they agree with their
lawyers -- even when the advice they're getting is silly or
not
in their interest.
Take file sharing. We have hundreds and hundreds of
lawsuits
filed against people --many, on the face of it, somewhat
silly --
say, an elderly 80 year old grandmother being sued for
thousands
of dollars because her eight year old grandson downloaded a
song.
There could be a system of mediation and education that
could
solve the problem much more effectively. One wonders,
perhaps, if
it's also time to consider a national "Use tax"
for digital
materials. Everyone pays an extra 1 or 2 percent in income
tax
-- which goes to the producers of materials -- and, in
return, we
have a reduction or elimination in these restrictive licence
agreements, lawsuits, etc.
(and, by the way, I really like our university legal team.
We
have a really cooperative relationship with them -- so this
is
not attorney bashing.)
Anthony Watkinson wrote:
> I think that Karl raises a very sensible question. Why
do
> publishers try to get this clause accepted?
>
> I think I have the answer. The reason is that they
listen to
> their lawyers. Lawyers always (in my experience) go for
the
> clauses that are "best" for the organisation
that employs them.
> Smaller publishers in particular do not feel able to
fight back
> and substitute something more likely to be accepted.
>
> I know very well that many librarians have real
problems with
> university attornies. A good example is the curious
insistence
> that an international publisher should be bound by
state law
> and a reluctance to accept the neutral accomodation
that the
> place of jurisdiction is missed out altogether.
>
> Anthony
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Karl Bridges" <Karl.Bridges uvm.edu>
> To: <liblicense-llists.yale.edu>;
"Jill Taylor-Roe"
> <Jill.Taylor-Roenewcastle.ac.uk>
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 8:15 PM
> Subject: RE: Query Re Library Responsibility for
Library Patrons' Use
>
>> I think a rough analogy to this is photocopiers.
In most libraries
>> there is a posting of the appropriate legal wording
regarding
>> copyright and that's that. If someone violates
that it's their
>> responsibility not the library's. (and I realize
that some schools
>> do require everything to go through a copy centre
and really enforce
>> this more). In any event, I think people (and
publishers) are
>> generally reasonable in accepting that there are
limits on what we
>> can do in regards to user behaviour. People do what
they want. It's
>> curious to me why publishers would even try to get
such language in a
>> contract when it seems that most libraries
immediately get it changed
>> or removed. I'd be interested in seeing a posting
from a publisher
>> who has this clause who could explain their
reasoning.
>>
>> Quoting Jill Taylor-Roe <Jill.Taylor-Roenewcastle.ac.uk>:
>>
>>> I would echo Rick's response on this one - If
there are any
>>> licence clauses I feel uncomfortable about
signing up to, I
>>> usually run them past a very helpful contact in
our Law School,
>>> and if he thinks the terms are excessive, he
will often suggest
>>> an alternative wording which we then pursue
with the
>>> publisher/vendor. We are usually able to reach
an
>>> accommodation that suits both parties. We are
particularly wary
>>> about indemnity clauses which imply that we
accept
>>> responsibility for things we clearly have no
control over.
>>>
>>> regards.
>>> Jill Taylor-Roe
|
