On Monday, February 19, 2001 4:58 PM, Philip Hunter
[SMTP:[log in to unmask]] wrote:
on behalf of
> Iris Rubbert
> Research Associate
> Deparent of Information Science
> Loughborougt University
> Loughborough
> Leics
> LE11 3TU
>
> Phone +44 (0) 1509 228053
> Fax +44 (0) 1509 223053
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> PELICAN website:
> http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/dis/Research/pelican/indexpage.html
asking for support for the PELICAN project in the form of people wishing to
share their views and experience of the exchange of materials in digitised
form.
I would like to voice my strong support both for the project (of which I am
an advisory board member) and the request for assistance.
In my erstwhile employment at the Copyright Licensing Agency I developed
the Higher Education Licensing Scheme for Digitisation, and the pricing
model was the most difficult part - in the end we adopted the schemes
suggested in a paper by Mark Bide, Anne Ramsden and Charles Oppenheim on
pricing models which had emerged from the PA-JISC consultation process.
Immediately, the core of the problem is that in the digital environment it
does not make sense to count copies, which is what we have been counting as
the basis of most pricing models since Caxton's day.
It's become clear that the two pricing models we adopted for the current
CLA digitisation licensing scheme probably aren't ideal (although they
might be the least bad), so CLA has supported PELICAN since the project was
first mooted. Although the primary focus of PELICAN is digitisations (that
is, material scanned from a paper original), I suspect that the answer (if
there is one) may well be equally applicable to material first published in
digital form.
Since 1st February I am no longer an employee of CLA, although they remain
a client, since I am now
Edward Barrow
new media copyright consultant
http://www.copyweb.co.uk/
***Important: see http://www.copyweb.co.uk/email.htm for legal
disclaimers***
|