A serials pricing issue

GORDON AND BREACH AND HARWOOD ACADEMIC JOURNALS (Original message included below).

NETWORK SUBSCRIPTION RATE The issue raised regarding serial pricing on the "collibs" and "Copyright" list servers, is one of great seriousness. While one sympathises with the academic journal industry which is wilting (or dying), this proposal would have to hasten the process.

For the individual library, the issue may be partly one of cost, partly on whether one will make ones holdings available for resource sharing through ILL. A library has only 3 real options:

1. renew the subscription, paying the higher price;
2. renew the subscription, but refuse to pay the charge and assert that the only copying done from the journal is done in accordance with the copyright laws of Australia and that the "network subscription rate" does not apply;
3. renew the subscription at the normal subscription rate and agree to the restrictive usage suggested in their letter (which may make it unavailable for ILL and some in-house copying);
4. cancel the subscription.

It seems that what is being attempted (in the guise of a "network subscription rate") is the importation of the domestic law of another country into Australia. This is a very dubious proposition and may run foul of the Trade Practices Act.

Clearly, all Australian libraries must resist the assertion by publishers that legal copying by an Australia library under domestic law can be considered "illegal" or in some other way improper or excessive. A comparison with what may be legal in another country is either irrelevant or academic.

Of the options listed above, I believe it would be detrimental to all Australian libraries if the "network subscription rate" were to be paid (option 1) or the restrictive conditions agreed to (option 3), and should only be contemplated after legal advise had been obtained.

In my opinion, the only sensible way of dealing with this is to opt for the second option, while stating that if this is not acceptable, the title will be cancelled (option 4).

Libraries need to hold the line that they will abide by the laws as they apply at the time. This is, in my opinion, the only way that we can reasonably deal with the fundamental tension that copyright laws attempt to deal with - the need to balance the interests of the creators of intellectual property that they can get a return for their efforts, and the public interest considerations in making material available to users.

PHOTOCOPY LICENCE WAIVER This is not the only thrust that this Company is making to change aspects of the copyright scene. When I started to research this issue, I asked our acquisitions staff if the University of Tasmania Library subscribed to any of the company's journals.

I discovered that we had been offered a 10% reduction in the subscription price if we agreed to sign a "Photocopy Licence Waiver for Academic Institution Subscribers". The conditions of the "Waiver" are:

"The publisher of the Journal Offering has offered Subscriber a licence ("Photocopy Licence") which permits multiple photocopying of single articles for the internal study or research purposes of the Subscriber. Subscriber has elected not to accept the Photocopy Licence and instead whishes to obtain a ten per cent (10%) reduction in the list price of the Journal Offering.

By accepting the reduction in the price of the Journal Offering, Subscriber agrees not to photocopy or otherwise reproduce, or permit any photocopying or other reproduction of, any part of the Journal Offering".

This is rather more subtle approach. As I read the offer, if we refuse the waiver, we are being given a licence to continue to do what is already permitted under the Statutory Licence which the University has with the Copyright Agency Limited. If we accept the reduction, we would be agreeing to supervise access so as to prevent any copying, and to ensure that it was not available for normal ILL access.

For the record - we chose to pay the full price.

This publisher seems to be leading some sort of "push". I wonder where they think they are going?

Regards,

Peter.

--
Peter Cohen     	       	       	       	
Phone Aust. 002 202209
User Services Librarian, Morris Miller Library                    Int.  +61
02 202209
University of Tasmania Library
Fax   Aust. 002 202878
Email: Peter.Cohen[_at_]lib.utas.edu.au
Int.  +61 02 202878
These comments are my own and do not reflect the opinion of the University
Library.




>GORDON AND BREACH AND HARWOOD ACADEMIC JOURNALS

>

>The National Library of Australia has received a letter from Blackwell's

>Oxford regarding its 1995 subscription renewals to academic journals

>published by Gordon and Breach and Harwood.  The letter explains that

>Gordon and Breach have introduced a network subscription rate "for

>subscribers with extraordinary need to copy or redistribute exceeding the

>rights granted by copyright laws...".  This library has been put into a

>category which requires this payment.

>

>The methodology for calculating the rate is explained, and it seems that

>each journal will cost between 3 and 6 times its base rate (the more

>expensive journals are 3 times, the less are 6 times). This will vary

>also according to the type of library (academic/corporate/government).

>

>Blackwell's have sought our advice before proceeding with renewals.  The

>letter continues:  "We understand ... that if you are prepared to write

>to Gordon and Breach categorically stating that you will only "photocopy

>individual articles within fair use" ...  you need only pay the base

>rate."

>

>Blackwell's have enclosed a copy of a letter from International

>Publishers Distributor which sets out the various categories of libraries

>and possibilities of use.  The definition of fair use implied (but not

>stated explicitly) in that letter would seem to preclude any possibility

>of interlibrary lending without payment of the Network Rate.  The letter

>includes the statement:

>

>"Through payment of the above rates, the subscriber warrants that it will

>only use the publication in accordance with the usage-privileges

>associated with the paid-rate and that these usage-privileges are

>governed by Swiss law.  Publishers and subscriber agree that any conflict

>arising from use exceeding the uses allowed for the paid rate shall be

>handled by an arbitrator appointed by the Zurich Chamber of Commerce

>according to its rules of arbitration".

>

>This Library permits copying only in accordance with the Australian

>Copyright Act 1968. It would seem that in order to enjoy those rights

>given to us by law, we are being asked to pay from three to six times the

>base rate for the journal.

>

>It also seems that Gordon and Breach are seeking to use contractual

>licensing to impose what they allege to be Swiss standards of "fair use"

>on libraries in other jurisdictions.  Aside from the casual overlooking of

>the fact that the real fair use standards to be applied are those of the

>country in which copying takes place, this appears to signal a dangerous

>trend in the use of contracts to subvert the balance set by copyright law

>in the public interest.

>

>I would be interested to receive any comment on this.

>

>

>************************************************

>Margaret Henty

>Acting Director, Technical Services

>National Library of Australia

>Canberra ACT 2600

>ph (06)262 1157  fax (06)257 1703

>email: m.henty[_at_]nla.gov.au