In the small college library where I work, licensing electronic resources is not a popular topic. Our electronic resources librarian turns a shade paler whenever the process is mentioned, and all the other librarians avoid the topic entirely. Perhaps it is because I am only a part time employee there, but what our contracts look like and how we negotiate for our current resources has never been discussed within my ear shot. It is the topic untouched, disliked and feared.
Perhaps this experience is why I find words of trusting vendors and enjoying licensing once you know how to do it properly ringing a bit false. Harris, in her work Licensing Digital Content , especially in her chapter "Un-intimidating Negotiations" states that content owners really want the same thing that libraries do: they want their material to be used and appreciated. Because of this, they should be treated with understanding and trust, not with aggression.
If this is the case, if vendors and librarians should trust each other and negotiation is not scary (Harris says it is even fun), why does my library dread this process so much? Though Harris speaks soothingly and stresses that license providers are not to be feared, I found that the actual process of licensing detailed in her book, as well as information about current vendor behavior brought up by Russell in her book Complete Copyright and in an article written by Hadro for Library Journal entitled "Researchers aim to help libraries negotiate better on complex deals", belie this calming attitude. For example, Harris, in her discussion of clauses to include in an effective license, emphasizes over and over again that everything a library would want to do with content must be specified, in detail, in writing. Do you want to make sure fair use still actually exists for this content and that the publishers will not forbid it? You need to make sure you say this in the license. Do you want to make sure you can have patrons print a copy for themselves? You need to specify this in the license. She also mentions at least ten times that one has to make sure that license providers actually have permission to license the desired content. This gave me the impression that many libraries have been scammed by companies, which makes me even more wary of the process and distrustful of vendors.
When I read all of this, while I was glad to have it placed in front of me in an easy to follow fashion for when I have to negotiate licenses, it did not put me at ease or help me trust license holders. Indeed, it had the opposite effect. It made me feel that licensing is a process full of horrible spiky floor traps that, if you do not vigilantly watch for them, will kill your patrons ability to use content and leave you vulnerable to being sued for large amounts of money. The thought of the perils of forgetting just one thing and then making my whole library (and especially the patrons who need the content!) suffer, terrified me. Even her words meant to make negotiating un-intimidating, especially her suggestion to bargain away things wanted to guarantee getting rights needed, made me uncomfortable. This whole process strongly reminded me of buying a car, and how much I hate that entire interaction, with its cajoling, its jockeying, its bluffing . Perhaps I am just not suited for this work, but I would worry about my ability to be canny enough, to read between the lines, and fight for what the library needed without becoming antagonistic (which tends to be the eventual outcome when I do something like buy a car). It seems like an incredibly difficult, emotionally draining process full of constant vigilance, and I can understand why the librarians at my college hate it.
Russel and Library Journal do not help me feel any better about the process, or trust vendors. Russell discussed UTICA, a law on the books only in two states, Maryland and Virginia, and facing fierce opposition from libraries, lawyers, and software dealers. This law discusses licenses for software and online products that are non-negotiable, and must be agreed to before using the content. While this takes away the fear of the negotiation process, some of the things companies and vendors are trying to push through with this, like not allowing public criticism of their work and content, show that these companies are not operating with libraries or the public in mind. Instead, they will do whatever they can do protect their piece of the pie. If this is at least what some vendors want to see as law, it makes me less likely to look kindly on online vendors as a whole. Hadro's article in Library Journal, which discusses scholars winning an open records case against two major e-content publishers, Elsiver and Springer, also makes me believe that these big companies at least are not on the libraries side and would be difficult entities with which to negotiate. Elsiver and Springer said that they would not release their contracts with the University of Texas because the contracts are secret and would hurt them. While the article only tells their official reason, that the contracts acted as "trade secrets", I would assume that the actual reason they do not want other libraries to know about the content of the contracts is that they do not want these other libraries to realize what rights and deals they might be missing. With this kind of secrecy and distrust about libraries getting rights among content owners, how can libraries be trusting in turn?
So, with all of this clear reason to not like licensing and not trust publishers, why does Harris insist in saying that trust exists? For Harris, I think it is a small lie used in an attempt to get more librarians willing to negotiate licenses and stand up for their needs, instead of accepting whatever license a company gives them to avoid the stress and drain of the negotiation process. By saying one can trust publishers and actually reach a win-win solution, people might be more willing to give any type of conversation a go. Even if they do not get everything, they might end up with more than if they just accepted a license at face value. I think that this is a worthy goal, but as I have mentioned before, paying attention to any of her cautions will make one doubt her words, which is unfortunate. Licensing is so difficult and technical though that I do not believe anyone could make it sound fun or even positive. Harris makes a good effort, and her reasoning for the tone is good, but I do not know how many librarians afraid of licensing this will actually convince.
No comments:
Post a Comment