Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:57:01 -0400 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
8bit |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="windows-1252" |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hugh,
As you and I both know there are many types of insurance products, many of
which may be held by vendors.
What you were proposing a few posts ago was that vendors insure media
contents against loss. Your rationale behind vendors carrying this
insurance was for it to be punitive, that is to punish them for the loss
so that they would be more careful in future.
Or did I misread your post?
If as you say there are enforced laws that would result in actions against
vendors who lose tapes, what additional effect would passing on the cost
of an expensive insurance policy have?
So that we are clear about what we are talking about here, I asked around
and one vendor was quoted $25,000 for a $10,000,000 policy on a small
number of tapes.
As for the technologies employed by vaults to track tapes, these do not
change all that much in reality. Most interest in these technologies comes
from vendors who already have the best products.
Any interest from lesser vendors in these new technologies usually
disappears when they discover that spending $100K on an RFID solution is
no fix for the fact that their staff earn minimum wage and their vault is
constructed of drywall, boiler insulation and chicken wire.
Gerard
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|
|
|