Re: Information Access Alliance Urges DOJ & FTC to Explore Remedies for Journal Bundling: Comments Available on Web

["Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btopenworld.com>]

There are a lot of assertions here. Until an Open Access advocate 
(believer) can explain to me how a system of author (or proxy) 
payment can be made efficient or fair and not prevent some 
authors from publishing, I remain to be convinced.  And, as we 
see from their behaviour (never mind surveys) this is the view of 
most of the academic community

Anthony

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Goodman" <dgoodman@Princeton.EDU>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: Information Access Alliance Urges DOJ & FTC to Explore Remedies
for Journal Bundling: Comments Available on Web

> I am sure Anthony meant to praise me, but I only support the 
> continuation of those elements that will prove to have 
> cost-effective functionality, and it will be up to them to 
> demonstrate it.
>
> I reject altogether the continuation of the present system of 
> access, which is a system of subscription based access. I do 
> not see how it can possibly be made either efficient or fair, 
> or how it can provide the needed access to all users. No amount 
> of extra funding of libraries will change this, nor any 
> adjustments of big deals. It was necessary for technical 
> reasons to compromise it in the print days, but it is not 
> necessary now.
>
> Big deals were originally instituted to increase consistency of 
> revenue for the publishers in exchange for offering libraries 
> access to more subscription titles. Both reasons are now 
> obsolete. There is now no reason to have subscription titles at 
> all, and no reason to reward publishers for providing them. 
> Library money could be more usefully spent in subsidizing open 
> access publishing, but the effect of long-term contracts is to 
> reduce the amount of money available for this.
>
> For now, the use for any funding that may be available is to 
> develop OA--the most critical immediate goal for the scientific 
> information system. The money spent for efficiently managing 
> access would be better spent in eliminating the need to manage 
> access.
>
> It is time we stopped figuring out how to prop up the old 
> subscription-based system, or how to optimize it. It is not 
> worth optimizing. It will be easier as well as more 
> satisfactory to replace it, and we acquired the knowledge to do 
> so.  The next step is to find temporary funding for the 
> transition, and here the question of continuing big deals is 
> indeed relevant. They provided stability for the highest priced 
> publishers while they existed. They will make large amounts of 
> temporary funding for other things when they end. The place to 
> get the money is where the money is.
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
> dgoodman@princeton.edu
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Anthony Watkinson <anthony.watkinson@btopenworld.com>
> Date: Sunday, February 11, 2007 4:35 pm
> Subject: Re: Information Access Alliance Urges DOJ & FTC to  Explore
> Remedies for Journal Bundling:
> Comments Available on Web
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>
> > My understanding from the postings of David Goodman is that he 
> > sees this problem and argues for a cut down version of the 
> > current system - which is honest and productive but is 
> > probably (a guess) not wished for by many other scholars.
> >
> > Anthony Watkinson
> > Centre for Publishing
> > University College London