[926] in Public-Access_Computer_Systems_Forum
AMA License Agreement
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Bingham)
Wed Aug 5 19:33:48 1992
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 18:25:36 CDT
Reply-To: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
From: Jim Bingham <LBU05%UKANVM.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L <PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu>
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Concerning the American Medical Assn's new license for the Directory of
Physicians, I need to emphatically disagree with Pat Erwin's assertion that
"the Library copy is no big deal, because we have had similar agreements
for some tools in the past." I have worked in medical libraries for 15
years and am unaware of any comparable license requirement for a printed
resource. We could discuss indefinitely whether there is any fundamental
difference between a printed resource and, e.g., a CD-ROM database (it's
all the same info, etc.). But I react to the license in the context of
the recent statement from the Association of American Publishers challenging
the CONTU copyright guidelines. The bottom line of the AMA license is that
it prohibits a library from acting like one: from lending to its local
clients, from providing interlibrary loan support, from permitting clients
to photocopy consistent with "fair use." Under the license agreement the
Directory no longer belongs to the library and the library cannot use it
as it sees fit within the framework of existing law.
Both the AAP statement and the AMA license threaten the resource-sharing
relationships that we have developed over the decades...at exactly the time
when we are relying increasingly on those relationships due to our shrinking
ability to afford primary source materials. The AMA license is at once a
shot over the collective bow of libraries and a testing of the legal waters
...as well as a testing of the resolve and cohesiveness of the library
community. Anyone interested in the future of libraries should consider very
carefully what the impact of a general adoption of the license model by
publishers would be on their operations: no circulation, no interlibrary loan,
no photocopying, no ownership. Other than that, business as usual.
We have discontinued our standing order for the Directory of Physicians.
We are also working with campus administration to prepare some kind of
institutional response to this alarming development. And we are interested
in supporting any response from ALA, MLA, or other concerned professional
organization.
