Just playing the devil's advocate here, I'm not saying that this is the only
way to interpret "systematic" in this particular case...but the activity of
ILL is indeed systematic in that it happens quite regularly at many
libraries.  In fact, I think one could assume that at large institutions,
the volume of ILL activity is quite high and calling it anything but
systematic, would be difficult.

Having said all that...my own interpretation is that, in this case, the term
"systematic" applies to the title or resource in question, and not the
activity of ILL.  Now I suppose if you're lending articles from this
resource or title on a daily basis, that could probably be considered
systematic by someone.

In cases like this, I think it's best to ask the vendor/publisher to amend
the language so that it makes more sense, is not as open to interpretation,
and is explicit regarding what can and can't be done.  Having an ILL clause
that outlines permissions is nothing out of the ordinary any longer, nor are
E-Reserves, Course Packs, and the like.  The more we ask for this to be
included, the better off everyone involved in the transaction will be.

--
Chad Hutchens
Electronic Resources Librarian
University of Wyoming Libraries
Dept 3334, 1000 E University Ave.
Laramie, WY 82071-20000
Ph: (307) 766-5560

> From: "Borchert, Carol Ann" <borchert@LIB.USF.EDU>
> Reply-To: "SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum"
> <SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU>
> Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:18:17 -0400
> To: "SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum" <SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [SERIALST] confusion over License language
>
> I was thinking that as well.  ILL is not, by any means, "the systematic
> making of print or electronic copies."
>
> Carol Ann
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum
> [mailto:SERIALST@list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Kristen Fredericksen
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:10 AM
> To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
> Subject: Re: [SERIALST] confusion over License language
>
> I was taught that "systematic" means "regular." So systematic copying
> would be like sending another library articles from every single issue.
> Obviously, ILL would be more sporadic. I think the second phrase allows
> for temporary creation of a file for ILL. For instance, you print out
> the article, then scan it into Ariel, and send it to another library. It
>
> seems that e-reserves are prohibited.
>
> That's just my $.02. Does anyone disagree with my interpretation?
>
> Thanks,
> Kristen
>
>
>
> Jenny Lockwood wrote:
>> Greetings,
>> I find many of our licenses have the following standard phrases:
>> 1."the systematic making of print or electronic copies of Online
>> Content for transmission to non-subscribers or non-subscribing
>> institutions (such as inter-library loans) is prohibited."
>> 2. "Downloading portions of Online Content for the purpose of creating
>
>> pre-loaded, systematic and persistent local copies (not including
>> transient, dynamic caches of individually requested material) for
>> redistribution is prohibited."
>>
>> 1.Does anyone have a clear insight into whether ILL or Electronic
>> Reserves are allowed under these restrictions?  If one is to interpret
>
>> that ILL is prohibited--why is the qualifier, systematic, included?
>> This phrase is included in licenses that reference fair use and those
>> that don't.
>> 2. Would Electronic Reserves be allowed or do you think the second
>> statement does not address this type of cache.
>> Thanks in advance for any enlightenment offered...
>>
>> Jenny
>>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Kristen Fredericksen
> Head of Information Processing
> Serials/Fast Track Processing
> Mullen Library 012
> The Catholic University of America
> Washington, DC 20064-0001
> Phone: 202-319-5073
> Fax: 202-319-4181
> -----------------------------------------------------