Oh dear, I find myself agreeing with most of this. I can't screw up any (what I would call) sympathy, though, for either the CLA or NKS/NLH. My sympathy is for us poor <expletive>s stuck in the middle of all this.

As Tom implies, we don't have evidence that CLA was asking for an exhorbitant amount. Having failed to get a national agreement, they are concentrating on Trusts. Unfortunately in a letter to NHS Trust CEOs the CLA says that "it is *not* safe to say that copying one article from a journal as a rule of thumb is "fair dealing". CLA's position is that this type of copying is certainly not fair dealing and is prepared to contest this assertion in court if necessary." This is pretty nasty, but consistent.

Tom makes the case for the NLH being forced by present financial circumstances to make cuts, and deciding to pull out on the licence with the CLA. Given that a short time ago it was assumed the licence would go through, this is a possibility (but not a certainty). But the result of having Trusts negotiating licences would presumably be more expensive than one central agreement, and makes a nonsense of the NLH belief in value for money and centralisation.

Presumably when they were negotiating with CLA,  NKS/NLH had in mind what would happen if the negotiations failed. Once the negotiations looked like failing, they should have given us advance guidance. As it is, the whole situation for us remains a mess.

I don't see individual Trusts having money to spend on licences, and what happens then? Presumably there will be pressure to cut down on photocopying and therefore on print sources. There will be more concentration on electronic resources, which is what NKS/NLH wants. If I were them, I might consider the failure of the copyright negotiations fortuitous.

Gordon.




Gordon Smith
The Sally Howell Library
Epsom General Hospital
Dorking Road
Epsom, Surrey, KT18 7EG
Tel. 01372-735688, Fax 01372-735687
NULJ=HOWE, HLN=EP

The Master said, "Look at the means a man employs,
observe the basis on which he acts,
and discover where it is that he feels at ease.
Where can he hide?  Where can he hide?"
- Analects of Confucius 2.10 (Slingerland)


>>> "Bishop, Tom" <[log in to unmask]> 30/05/2006 17:22:41 >>>
 
Hi all,

I know it isn't my place, but...

I don't see that there's necessarily anything disingenuous in the CLA website stating that "the NHS in England has decided not to renew its central licence with the CLA". If we stick with the Iraq tack, it was disturbing that actions were taken based on assumptions (the existence of WMD) unsubstantiated by evidence. Unless everyone here knows something that I don't, we don't know the facts of why it wasn't possible for the NHS and the CLA to come to an agreement. The statement on the NLH site simply says that "The NHS has not been able to meet the financial expectations of CLA." There seems to have been an assumption that this equates to the CLA (on behalf of their stakeholders) asking for an exorbitant amount - which may be the case. Having said this, though, the financial pressure within the NHS is clear, and the NLH statement cites this; if you're in a situation where you're asked to cut £x (or probably £x million...), it may well be 'easier' to do so by making that saving in a single area rather than trying to shave lesser amounts from a range of spending areas. Is it not also possible that the CLA asked for what may been deemed a reasonable amount in 'normal circumstances', but that financial pressures dictated that a saving had to be made somewhere and the licence was it, regardless?

The CLA can be their own worst enemy, of course. I would agree that the statement on the CLA site that "without permission, any staff who photocopy, scan and e-mail extracts from magazines, books and journals are likely to be breaking copyright law" is an overstatement, given the provisions for fair dealing and library privilege, as well as any permissions granted at a title or publisher level, and probably just makes the situation more confrontational. (It's also confusing that while they mention a licence for individual trusts, the FAQs and the support material still all relate to the central licence...)

Although I can't comment on value for money, it seems to me that if you look at it purely on grounds of functionality, the CLA licence, which CLA people had a large part in negotiating at the outset, has been a great deal for the NHS if you compare it with what's allowed in an unlicensed environment. It seems harsh to paint the CLA as money-grabbing villains in such a none-more-black shade, when there may be a lot of grey around.

Tom, ready to duck.

Tom Bishop
Information Services Manager
The Royal College of Surgeons of England Library
35-43 Lincoln's Inn Fields
London WC2A 3PE
 
020 7869 6530 
[log in to unmask] 



-----Original Message-----
From: UK medical/ health care library community / information workers [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Derick Yates
Sent: 26 May 2006 16:46
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: !RE: Copyright - CLA position

I find their website strangely at odds with itself. On the one hand there's all that woolly claptrap about them being a non profit making organisation, there to protect the rights of authors etc and then threats to send round their storm troopers... "You will comply..." (ooh I heard that in a Dalek voice then) ;-) Still I suppose that's the way it is when you have a bunch of lawyers trying to protect the vulgar profitability of a few multi-media conglomerates.

And that sentence about the NHS deciding "not to renew its license". I think the last time I saw anything that disingenuous it was all about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. 

Derick Yates
Training & Systems Librarian
BHSN Library Management System Administrator Trust Library and Information Service Birmingham Women's Health Care NHS Trust Metchley Park Lane Edgbaston BIRMINGHAM
B15 2TG
Tel: 0121 472 1377 extension 8746
Direct Dial Tel: 0121 627 5846
Fax: 0121 623 6922

-----Original Message-----
From: UK medical/ health care library community / information workers [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Woodley Zena (RQ8) Mid Essex Hospital
Sent: 26 May 2006 16:27
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: Copyright - CLA position

Well, I guess we can look forward to the arrival of the 'heavy letters'.
I wonder who in CLA lurks on this list? The number of times I had to cope with this in Aslib!  And in Cilip!

Is anyone reopening negotiations on our behalf? It would be nice to be told.....

Yours, looking forward to not even thinking about wretched copyright for an entire weekend....
Zena Woodley B.A.(Joint Hons), MCLIP
Library Resources Manager
The Warner Library
Broomfield Hospital
Chelmsford CM1 7ET
T: 01245-514310
e : [log in to unmask] 



-----Original Message-----
From: UK medical/ health care library community / information workers [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alan Fricker
Sent: 26 May 2006 15:42
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: [LIS-MEDICAL] Copyright - CLA position


Hello all,

Sorry to mention this but...

www.cla.co.uk now states:

The NHS in England has decided not to renew its central licence with CLA. This means that, without permission, any staff who photocopy, scan and e-mail extracts from magazines, books and journals are likely to be breaking copyright law.

Because we recognise copying is important in enabling staff to share information, deliver training and to keep patients informed, CLA is offering a new licensing solution that allows copying to continue without risk of legal action. Click here for more information
(http://www.cla.co.uk/licensing/gov/gov_nhs.html)

This then offers Trusts the chance to buy a licence.  

I suspect that this might alarm library users / senior managers we raise this with.  It certainly seems at odds with the discussion and guidance to date.

Elsewhere the CLA site seems to be largely unchanged. 

Cheers

Alan


Alan Fricker
Knowledge & Library Service Manager
Newham University Hospital NHS Trust
Glen Road, Plaistow
E13 8SL
www.newlib.demon.co.uk 
Tel: 020 7363 8016

This e-mail is confidential and privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient please accept our apologies; please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on its contents:  to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
Please inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it.
Thank you for your co-operation.

DISCLAIMER:
This e-mail and any attachments hereto contains proprietary information, some or all of which may be confidential or legally privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s) only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail and you are not the intended recipient(s), please notify the author by replying to this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print, or rely on this e-mail or any attachments, as this may be unlawful.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.