[10674] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
No subject found in mail header
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Public-Access Computer Systems For)
Mon Sep 30 21:23:33 1996
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 14:51:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
In article <199609230211.VAA18482@psycfrnd.interaccess.com>, Joyce Latham
<jlatham@interaccess.com> writes:
> Mr. Donelan has moved here-to-fore private discussion out onto the list, I
> see.
>
> Comparing OCLC with an ISP is stretching it, and, you are assuming CPL has a
> FirstSearch agreement (based on the private exchange we were previously
> engaged in -- but, since it's been publisized ...). OCLC is providing a
> pre-packaged selection of specific resources; an ISP is not.
I wasn't assuming anything about CPL because I wasn't directing my comments
to you or CPL by my posting to PACS-L. I posted to PACS-L to get a wider
range of viewpoints than just yours.
> I think this is something libraries need to be aware of; providers requiring
> uncapped indemnification with no clear parameters are perhaps developing a
> practice that will eventually eliminate the non-commericial internet
> provider -- currently most often a public library. This may be soemthing
> that needs to be addressed with legislation, i.e., public conduits for
> access cannot be held liable for actions as performed by non-agents of that
> public conduit, i.e., the library cannot be held responsible for the actions
> of the patron, when that patron is not acting as an agent of that library.
Libaries accept responsibility for their borrowers whenever the library
obtains services for its borrowers. The ILL system is based on the
library accepting responsibilty their borrower will return ILL material
in substantially the same condition the lending library sent it, or the
library will compensate the lending library. Whether the library can
find or collect compensation from the borrower is irrelevant to whether
the library compensates the lending library. Don't libraries have the
same duty when letting their borrowers access material on the Internet?
Exempting the library from liability, but leaving the ISP liable, simply
means ISPs won't risk selling service to libraries. If you really want
to propose legislation, support something exempting the ISP from liablilty
for the actions of its subscribers. Imagine how expensive telephone service
would be, if the telephone company was liable everytime someone faxed a
Dilbert cartoon without paying copyright royalties.
Until then, if a library doesn't indemnify their ISP, don't be surprised
if the ISP terminates the library's Internet service the first time the
ISP gets sued because of activity at the library. If the library doesn't
want to worry about an abrupt termination of service, expect to pay the
ISPs legal bills to keep the library connected. It is a bit unreasonable
to expect an ISP to agree to continue providing service to a customer that
leads to the ISP being sued unless the customer indemnifies the ISP.
You might win the battle, and get the ISP to remove the indemnification
clause from their contract. But you will lose the war the moment the ISP
is faced with a legal bill because of the library's Internet service.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Affiliation given for identification not representation
