Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
What language on privacy could or should be
in e-journal licenses
NISO Patron Privacy Project Virtual Meeting
May 22, 2015...
The Data
• 216 licenses received via open records request
by Berstrom et al (2009)
• Repetition within data set, and empha...
Two Categories
1. Enforcement of authorized uses
– Authorized use
– Monitoring
– Notification of unauthorized use
– Cooper...
Policing Authorized Use
Total
(N=42) Total %
Defines authorized user 38 90.5%
Suspends authorized user access based
on vio...
Problematic provisions
• Reserve for the licensor the right to monitor access “to detect misuse
of [publisher’s] content.”...
Examples of attractive provisions
• “Licensee does not have the ability to monitor or to
control actual uses by authorized...
Data Collection
Total
(N=42)
Total %
Non-IP data collected by publisher 28 66.7
Reasons for data collection listed 9 21.4
...
Data to 3rd Parties
Total
(N=42) Total %
Contains terms regarding whether
publisher shares data with 3rd parties
14 33.3%
...
Concerns
• Silence regarding data sharing with third
parties results uncertainty in:
• Whether or not publishers will shar...
Suggestions for provisions
• COUNTER-compliance
• The deletion [of collected data] will occur
“when [such data are] no lon...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

NISO Patron Privacy VM#3-Alan Rubel; Mei Zhang: what language on privacy could or should be in e-journal licenses

1,436 views

Published on

May 22, 2015
NISO Patron Privacy in Digital Library and Information Systems
http://www.niso.org/topics/tl/patron_privacy/

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

NISO Patron Privacy VM#3-Alan Rubel; Mei Zhang: what language on privacy could or should be in e-journal licenses

  1. 1. What language on privacy could or should be in e-journal licenses NISO Patron Privacy Project Virtual Meeting May 22, 2015 Alan Rubel, J.D., Ph.D. Assistant Professor School of Library and Information Studies Program in Legal Studes University of Wisconsin, Madison 1 Mei Zhang, Ph.D. student School of Library and Information Studies University of Wisconsin, Madison
  2. 2. The Data • 216 licenses received via open records request by Berstrom et al (2009) • Repetition within data set, and emphasis on later licenses • Sampled 42 licenses from 10 publishers governing access in 2007-09 • 30 commercial licenses (7 publishers) • 12 non-commercial licenses (3 publishers)
  3. 3. Two Categories 1. Enforcement of authorized uses – Authorized use – Monitoring – Notification of unauthorized use – Cooperation with investigations 2. Data collection / sharing – Data collected – Shared with third parties – Sent back to libraries
  4. 4. Policing Authorized Use Total (N=42) Total % Defines authorized user 38 90.5% Suspends authorized user access based on violation of license 4 9.5% Suspends based on IP address 7 16.7% Licensee provides publisher with IP addresses 32 76.2% Licensee notifies publisher of unauthorized use 34 81.0% Licensee monitors for unauthorized use 16 38.1% Licensee takes disciplinary action when aware of unauthorized use 18 42.9%
  5. 5. Problematic provisions • Reserve for the licensor the right to monitor access “to detect misuse of [publisher’s] content.” • Licensee shall maintain and share records of authorized users and their access details • “Full and up-to-date records of all Authorized Users and their access details…shall be provided to [the publisher] upon request” • Licensee shall “cooperate” or “cooperate fully” with publisher’s investigation of copyright infringement and unauthorized use. • Licensee shall use all reasonable endeavors to monitor compliance, and report any unauthorized use or breach. • Licensee will take disciplinary action or even terminate the access when it becomes award of unauthorized use.
  6. 6. Examples of attractive provisions • “Licensee does not have the ability to monitor or to control actual uses by authorized users of the information from the licensed materials or to notify authorized users of all the restrictions on the use of information in this Agreement.” • Not construed as “unauthorized use” per CFFA. • Opportunity to correct before enforcement/ disciplinary action. See Lipinski p. 451. • “Cooperation” will not include cooperation for the purposes of disclosing, suing, or prosecuting users. 6
  7. 7. Data Collection Total (N=42) Total % Non-IP data collected by publisher 28 66.7 Reasons for data collection listed 9 21.4 Deletion of data specified 33.3 2.4
  8. 8. Data to 3rd Parties Total (N=42) Total % Contains terms regarding whether publisher shares data with 3rd parties 14 33.3% Will provide data to 3rd parties 9 21.4% Specifies type 3rd party 4 9.5% Will NOT be provide some data to 3rd party 13 31.0% Will require 3rd party to comply with license’s confidentiality provisions 1 2.4%
  9. 9. Concerns • Silence regarding data sharing with third parties results uncertainty in: • Whether or not publishers will share data with third parties; • What types of data publishers will/will not share with third parties; 9
  10. 10. Suggestions for provisions • COUNTER-compliance • The deletion [of collected data] will occur “when [such data are] no longer needed” • Publisher may not share with third parties either raw usage data or data that can identify individual users. • Specify the reasons that non-IP address information is collected. 10

×