This week's readings focused on contemporary licensing best practices. To say there are two schools of thought on licensing best practices would not be entirely accurate, but I do want to touch on two issues that seem to reside on either end of theoretical licensing spectrum.
UCITA, or the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act, is legislation that would standardize all electronic resource licenses. In other words, regardless of if you are a business, a non-profit, a school, or a library, you would use a standard cookie-cutter license for getting access to the resources you needed. Sure, standardizing contracts might seem like a good idea because of the potential time, cost, and effort it would save because let's face it, who honestly enjoys having to juggle legal language and draft a contract that feels more like a round of tug-of-war. However, libraries are vehemently against UCITA because 1) libraries and businesses are different institutions with very different needs and users, and 2) the standard license would be based on a business exchange model, which they see as bringing security risks and higher costs to the library.
Although UCITA has only been passed in two states (Virginia and Maryland), already there are efforts to propose alternative solutions to licensing hassles (besides 38 amendments to it in 2002). One such effort, residing on the other end of the spectrum, is SERU, or Shared Electronic Resource Understanding. SERU is not a licensing standard or contract but rather a basis on which a non-license agreement contract can be established between two parties. Hahn (2007) writes that SERU is "an expression of community accord" and seeks to enhance the "trust-building cycle." Wait, "trust-building cycle"? "Expression of community"? Um, are we still talking about licensing here??
I’ll be honest; this week's readings had me scratching my head asking "Huh?" There is an evident dissonance in the way licensing is viewed. Hahn (2007) said in the statement about SERU that licensing is an "inherently antagonistic negotiating process" and that "It has become apparent that there is no single agreement a publisher can offer that all libraries can accept" (and vice versa). Yet Harris (2009) insists that negotiating licenses should be "what makes sense to both parties and…a compromise to satisfy both parties – a win-win situation" and assures readers that they are never forced into a contract but always have alternatives. So…which one is it? A fight until a victory determines the triumphant winner and a desolate loser, or an easy-going conversation about wants and needs resulting in a proactive solution that pleases both parties? Or is it either?
Which brings me back to UCITA and SERU. Just the fact that I think about them as opposites makes me think neither one is better in terms of the answers they suggest for licensing e-content, yet I don’t think a hybrid of the two would work either. Perhaps a good license is one that takes elements of agreement (like SERU) and follows standard outlines, not standardized content (like UCITA). As Harris (2009) writes in her chapter on Questions and Answers on Licensing, a perfect license is one that fulfills both parties' needs and wants, and that no two licenses are really going to be the exact same. Like snowflakes. Except I don't think 2nd grade classrooms take joy in cutting licenses out and pasting them as seasonal décor for the classroom.
But how funny would that be, right? :)
Image credit: Wikimedia Cartoon of Hall Caine Harry Furniss (1854-1925)
No comments:
Post a Comment