I think, it's a marketing trick. They use libraries to get free
advertising for their product (in a protected, limited-use environment)
and to attract even more personal subscriptions from people on the
campus in that way. Libraries will be blamed by their users when online
access is finally shut off at the end of February 2001 after people have
got used to it long enough. If libraries really pay for a site license
Nature can be happy because they earn big money without any risk to
loose personal subscriptions as the site license does not replace these
(under present restrictive license conditions most content of general
interest becomes available only after three months online while personal
subscribers get access to everything as soon as it is published). If
libraries don't give in, certainly there will be pressures to finance at
least *personal subscriptions* by faculty members out of university
funds. We already face that pressure.

Regards,
Bernd-Christoph Kaemper, Stuttgart University Library

Shirley Kirby-Turner wrote:
>
> We at Sussex are in the same position - we simply can't justify spending so much on one title,
> however valuable a resource, when there are so many other competing claims on our limited
> funds.  We also share the objection to having the cost calculated according to our total
> student/faculty population, the majority of whom are unlikely ever to read Nature.
>
> Are Nature, Science et al. trying to compensate themselves for a possible drop in personal
> subscriptions if the online version is too freely available via the library?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Shirley Kirby-Turner,              Tel: 01273 606755 x 3409
> Periodicals Librarian              Fax: 01273 678441
> University of Sussex Library,      e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Falmer, Brighton,
> United Kingdom, BN1 9QL.
>
> -- Begin original message --
>
> > From:         Lesley Crawshaw <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date:         Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:21:20 -0000
> > Subject:      Nature License for 2001 and Beyond - Can Your Institution Afford
> >               It?
> > To:           [log in to unmask]
> > Reply-To:     "An informal open list,              set up under the auspices of the United
> > Kingdom Seri"              <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I recently sent this email to lis-scitech, but thought that it might also be
> > appropriate for members of lis-e-journals to discuss.
> >
> > We recently made a decision not to go for Nature online at least for a year,
> > this is primarily because we feel the price that they have quoted is
> > unrealistic for our institution and cannot be justified when compared to the
> > costs of other resources. This decision was reached after my discussion with
> > the senior management of the Faculty of Natural Sciences here at the
> > University of Hertfordshire. I have to say that we all regret the fact that
> > we will not have access to the online version of Nature - we feel that it is
> > a key resource, but we feel that Nature has got us over a barrel! I have
> > made my feelings known to Nature and they did offer to knock £500 off the
> > price since we also have a subscription to their two online Encyclopedias -
> > ELS and the EAA. However this was not enough of a reduction for us to
> > proceed for 2001. My faculty felt that it might be useful if I could sound
> > out other institutions to see whether anyone else was in the same position
> > as us i.e. we want institutional access, but the price is set too high and
> > the formula they are using is too crude. They felt that a collective
> > approach might be the best way to get movement from Nature on this issue.
> > However, at the moment I don't know what other institutions have done about
> > this, so this is the purpose of this email.
> >
> > I enclose copy of the most relevant part of my original e-mail to Nature
> > raising my concerns.
> >
> > "I have to say that I believe that the cost for institutional access to
> > Nature is rather higher than I would have expected. Whilst I accept that
> > Nature is a key journal, I don't accept that it should be based on the
> > numbers of staff, students, researchers in all subject disciplines. Although
> > the total number of staff/students/researchers at my institution is >20,000
> > the number of staff/students/researchers in the Faculty most interested in
> > Nature is only 1,512. In other words the science base i.e. biosciences,
> > environmental sciences, physics and astronomy at my institution is only 7%
> > of the total population of my institution. I do of course accept that there
> > may be other interest from other faculties in my institution, but I believe
> > that it will be minimal.
> >
> > Are you able to make any amendments to this price to take account of the
> > above facts."
> >
> >
> > Are others of you in the same position as us - or are we alone on this
> > issue? If others feel the same is there anything that together we can do to
> > get a more reasonable pricing for institutions?
> >
> > Cheers
> > Lesley
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Lesley Crawshaw, Faculty Information Consultant, LIS,
> > University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, AL10 9AB UK
> >                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> > phone:  01707 284662      fax: 01707 284666
> > web: http://www.herts.ac.uk/lis/subjects/natsci/ejournals/
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
>
> -- End original message --