Re: Nature confidentiality update/call for responses (apologies -- it's crossposted, and a bit long) Andrew Waller 03 Oct 2006 15:54 UTC
Regarding the every librarian has "understood and supported the reasoning behind it" line, I hear this fairly often when I'm negotiating a license. I don't think it's some sort of ploy to make me feel like I'm an exception in the library world; I think it's a legit expression on the part of some publishers and vendors. However, I believe that sometimes "understood" and "supported" are assumed to be the same thing; I may /understand/ a licensing stand but that does not necessarily mean I /support /it (or agree with it). Andrew -- Andrew Waller Serials Librarian Collections Services University of Calgary Library waller@ucalgary.ca (403) 220-8133 voice (403) 284-2109 fax Rick Anderson wrote: >For any who are interested: > >I've heard from a member of Nature's management, who informs me that my >sales rep was mistaken when he told me that the pricing confidentiality >language would be removed from the negotiated version of our license. >She reiterated that "there is no more movement on our lawyers' part." I >again pointed out that Nature employs its lawyers, not the other way >around, and suggested that Nature needs to decide for itself whether >confidentiality provisions are worth the trouble, and then either defend >that decision to its customers or tell its lawyers to get rid of the >confidentiality language in the license. I offered again to speak to >any member of the legal staff who might be willing to talk with me. > >She responded that really, confidentiality is needed for business >reasons. She feels that to give in to one library's demands and allow >it to inform others of that concession would cause the entire community >to demand the same concessions, and since not all libraries can be given >the same terms, this would lead to an unworkable situation. I told her >that publishers conduct individual negotiations all the time without >demanding secrecy, and that approach doesn't seem to be driving any of >them out of business; I also suggested that all librarians understand >that every library can't have the exact same terms. We don't ask that >we all get the same terms, but insist only that we be allowed to >negotiate terms based on our own situations, and not be required to keep >the results of those negotiations secret from our colleagues and from >the public whose money we're spending. > >Now, here's the reason I'm imposing this message on the list: she also >mentioned that every time she has explained Nature's confidentiality >provision to a librarian, the librarian has "understood and supported >the reasoning behind it." It seems to me that those of us who object to >the confidentiality provisions need to make that fact better known to >Nature. (And, of course, those of us who do support Nature's stance >should feel free to say so as well.) Without harrassing or bombarding >anyone, I think this might be a good time to let your sales rep know if >you feel that Nature's confidentiality provisions are unacceptable, and >to ask him or her to pass that information along to upper management. > >One more note: Nature _has_ offered to add "subject to local law" >language at the beginning of the confidentiality clause. My problem >with that solution is that I'm not deeply familiar enough with state law >in Nevada to know whether there are loopholes that might allow us to >keep some license and pricing terms confidential, and I'm not willing to >put my library in a situation that would force staff to conduct a search >in the Nevada Revised Statute whenever someone asks a question about the >results of our negotiations with Nature, just to see whether or not we >can answer the question. > >OK, I'm done for now. Thanks for your collective patience; I hope these >messages have been more useful than annoying. > >---- >Rick Anderson >Dir. of Resource Acquisition >University of Nevada, Reno Libraries >(775) 784-6500 x273 >rickand@unr.edu