X-Mailer: InterCon Dispatcher/SMTP for QuickMail
X-Priority: 4
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.medlib-l
Date:         Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:16:02 -0500
From:         Mark Funk <Mark_Funk@QMCUMC.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU>
Subject:      FWD>AMA Directory
X-To:         MedicalLibraries Discussio <MEDLIB-L@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu>

Here is Cornell's position on the Directory of Physicians. This is a message
our director sent to AAHSLD, which I thought would be of interest to MEDLIB-L.


Mark
Mark_Funk@QMCUMC.MAIL.CORNELL.EDU

--------------------------------------
Date: 8/13/92 11:51 AM
From: Bob Braude
To:  AAHSLD
From:  Bob_Braude@QMCUMC.Mail.Cornell.Edu

I, like many of you, have been concerned with the AMA licensing agreement and
the implications on access if one signed it.  I have been following the e-mail
discussion and yesterday talked with two individuals at AMA.  The AMA position
was that they did not want to interfere with normal library use and my
response was that whatever they intended, I thought that the license was too
restrictive to allow a library to use it.  However, I did ask our legal
counsel to review the agreement and, lo and behold, her position was that
there was no problem in signing the agreement.  Here is the key point in the
argument which I missed upon first reading the agreement:
   The key sentence in the agreement which seemed restrictive to me is:
Licensee may not copy, make derivative works, release, sell or lease any DOP
information or otherwise authorize use of or use DOP information
       (in any database or to create a database or to compile any mailing list
or directory.)
   I have put the parentheses around the key phrase in this sentence which our
attorney said was the operative phrase.  Once one reads this sentence this way,
 of course our normal use of the DOP would not be in violation of the
agreement.  We do not copy, release, etc. information from the DOP for the
purpose of creating databases, mailing lists, etc. What AMA has done, is write
an agreement which prevents the licensee from making a database or mailing
list out of the information in the DOP.  My error was in reading that sentence
as though each of those verbs were independent, i.e. may not copy, rather than
reading them as modifiers or qualifiers of the final verb phrase----...in any
database or to create a database, etc.
  I am comfortable with this interpretation and I am not going to worry about
the possible event of someone taking the DOP to a selfservice copier and
spending 8 hours copying every page.  The last restrictions about restricting
the DOP to reference use only and not circulate, etc. are not restrictive and
within our normal use of this type of publication anyway.  Having  a
permanently non-circulating item in the collection is no hardship.
  Based on this legal interpretation and our own normal practice, I now have
no problem signing this agreement and suggest that the problem was more in
interpreting legal sentences than in actual substance.  At least that was my
problem  At this point I truly do believe that AMA was trying to protect a
proprietary interest in licensing a mailing list rather than in restricting
library use of their product.  I have come full circle on this issue having
started out after a cursory reading thinking it was O.K. to sign it.  Then on
detailed reading (or misreading) thought that it was so restrictive as to
prohibit normal use and therefore signing the agreement.  And finally, after
seeking additional opinion, in this case legal, I am back to feeling
comfortable with signing it and will do so.  I hope that this information is
of some value to the rest of you.  I gave detailed information on the basis of
our attorney's opinion so you would both know and have something specific to
discuss with your legal counsel if you intend to do so. Thanks for your
patience.
  Bob
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU