RE: concepts of perpetuity

["Sally Morris \(Morris Associates\)" <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>]

I don't think either Nawin or Karl has quite taken my point.  I 
was simply trying to say that 'perpetual' (i.e. 'for ever') is 
not a promise anyone can realistically make!

As far as medium-term access is concerned, I'd actually go 
further than Nawin.  I believe quite strongly that when 
publishers sell or transfer a journal, they have a continuing 
obligation to those customers who paid, in good faith, for a 
licence which included 'continuing access'.  They should ensure 
that there is an arrangement in place for either the new 
publisher or the old one to honour those obligations

The ALPSP guidelines on 'When a society journal changes 
publisher' (http://www.alpsp.org/ForceDownload.asp?id=101 - for 
some reason now only available, I believe, to ALPSP members) make 
this clear.  The TRANSFER group is also working on (somewhat more 
prescriptive) guidelines

Sally Morris
Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy)
South House, The Street
Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
Email:  sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk

____

I agree with Sally that no publisher can make a promise of 
perpetual access to journals.  It is untenable in a business 
where journals often change publishers/ownership.  And how does 
one account for deferred liabilities associated with serving a 
"perpetual" term?  On the other hand, providing for 
post-cancellation access as long as the journal in question 
continues to be owned (or published) by the publisher making the 
offer, is something institutional subscribers should expect to 
receive as part of a subscription.  Although, in my view, it is a 
short-sighted practice, some publishers are asking for 
maintenance fees to manage and service post-cancellation access.

Nawin Gupta
nawin.gupta@comcast.net
www.nawingupta.com

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sally Morris (Morris
Associates)
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 5:24 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: concepts of perpetuity

'Perpetual' is a promise no one can make (least of all about
journal access ;-))

I prefer to call it 'continuing access'.  I believe that what
actually concerns libraries is medium-term, post-cancellation (or
post-disaster) access, rather than true long-term preservation.
And even long-term preservation could not truthfully be called
'perpetual'

Sorry, pedant speaking!

Sally Morris
Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy)
South House, The Street
Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
Email:  sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk

-----Original Message-----

From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Cohen
Sent: 25 August 2008 03:27
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: re: concepts of perpetuity

Harking back to the issue of "perpetual access" (below), Ann
Okerson is to be congratulated on raising an issue that is most
intriguing, if not electrifying.

How do licenses and contracts deal with issues of "perpetuity"--
relating to services intended to last without end?

This concept would seem to span a number of interests. Can a
library consider perpetual access as an asset? Can perpetual
access be claimed as a "right," to the extent that access to an
electronic resource is now "owned" by the institution?

It would be most helpful if readers can comment on how various
licenses treat the promise of perpetuity perpetual access, while
providing necessary financial safeguards for the provider.

One is almost reminded of marriage vows, also involving perpetual
obligations, intended to last forever and ever. It may be
possible, but the devil is in the details.

Bill Cohen, /Publisher
The Haworth Press www.HaworthPress.com
[Taylor & Francis Group]