READI

(Rights for Electronic Access to and Delivery of Information)

---

USE RESTRICTIONS

Definition

This element is closely linked to "Buyer Uses." It outlines those activities related to databases that buyers (either as institutions or end-users) are not permitted to perform.

Discussion

In an earlier discussion concerning buyer uses, certain restrictions were already embedded in the language. For example, buyers were permitted to "reproduce" material, but not "redistribute" it (along with numerous other restrictions). In this section, the discussion concerns "amount" as distinct from "use."

Some vendors report that it was of no consequence to them how much was downloaded by institutions or individuals, inasmuch as fees paid fully compensated the information seller, whether or not the buyer used small or large amounts of information. Other vendors, on the other hand, were less generous, believing that downloading large segments of their databases might damage their economic interests. Similarly, certain buyer institutions supported these requirements, believing that it was their role to restrict large-scale downloading since it would also tax institutional network resources.

A discussion of agreements revealed that there is a wide number of variations in language developed to cover "Use Restrictions," from narrowly constructed to broadly permissive. For example this "Use Restriction" clause from a sample agreement is quite narrow:

     Those authorized include currently enrolled students, current 
     teaching faculty, and library staff who assist students or 
     faculty in curriculum applications.  Alumni, donors, or friends 
     of the university are not authorized users.  Use is restricted 
     to students in connection with a course at a campus and/or 
     facility in course teaching or course preparation.  Violations 
     of these restrictions may result in discontinuance.

Many institutional participants in our research appeared unwilling to sign versions of this fairly restrictive clause, believing that it was essentially not within their power to monitor all end-users and that infractions could be investigated on a case-by-case basis.

An alternative example of broadly permissive language is this paragraph:

     Buyer shall take reasonable measures to insure that its users 
     do not duplicate, resell, or redistribute information obtained 
     under this agreement.

Here, sellers rely on the buyer's "reasonable (best) efforts" to limit downloading or curtail other abuses.

The amount of material was also an issue with respect to the redistribution of articles in online "coursepacks"--whether for commercial gain or on the part of professors using online coursepacks for their own classroom use without charging the students (see corresponding discussion in the section, "Buyer Uses"). Often, agreements may restrict the creation and distribution of network coursepacks unless permission is granted by the copyright holder.

Some institutions on their own (as well as in agreement language) prevent end-users from systematic, large-scale downloading by imposing a printing (or viewing) limit of one screen at a time (as well as limiting the length of each search session). Other institutions employ monitoring devices to survey use to prevent large-scale downloading.

Another type of restriction has to do with institutional record keeping. Certain sellers of networked information may not wish to have their proprietary data, use statistics, or other records that reveal other aspects of their databases intermingled with information collected from (or about) other databases in use at the same institution. Some vendors consider these pieces of information proprietary and prohibit disclosure or combining of such information.

Benefits

There are obvious benefits to sellers of networked information to articulate clearly the restrictions they place on the database. Buyers, too, may find it to their benefit to broadcast (to their end-users) the restrictions placed on the extent to which databases may be downloaded in order to limit stress on their institutional networks.

Risks

While it may be possible to articulate highly restrictive language in network agreements, it may not be possible (in addition to being expensive and time consuming) for buyers and sellers to monitor and police them. Broadly permissive language may not be effective either, since open-ended policies may create an atmosphere in which misuse is common and restrictive interpretation is vague.

Our research concluded that both buyers and sellers of networked information have come to accept each others' "best efforts" as the only viable working relationship.

---

	Developed & Maintained by: webmgr@cni.org	© 2008 Coalition for Networked Information ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Any comments, or feedback?		Last Update:   Wednesday, 03 July, 2002 - 04:22 PM - EDT