RE: Supreme Court Ruling--Copyright--New York Times v. Tasini

[John Webb <jwebb@wsu.edu>]

I meant "were."  You'll note the verb in the second clause is past tense
as is, I hope, the sense of the sentence.  Sloppy composition on my part.
However, I think the publishers are now more than ever engaged in
strategies to reengineer their offerings to make them, still, "must
purchases."

At 06:39 PM 6/27/01 EDT, you wrote:
>Don't kid yourself that libraries are a captive market ... declining
>budgets plus increased awareness of such things as "good excuses" may
>force libraries to cancel what had been previously regarded as 'must have'
>information. Look at what the music libraries have done with regard to
>Shawann's online catalog and how science libraries dealt with Nature.
>These may be only small ripples, but of necessity, these ripples may grow.
>For example, it would be much easier to get a print subscription to a
>journal or newspaper (such as NY Times or Time) -- with all its attendant
>problems -- rather than to face a most costly and possibly incomplete
>electronic version.
>
>I don't think that anyone in the library world begrudges publishers making
>a fair profit -- after all, it's to a library's advantage to be able to
>get information in a convenient cost-effective manner. When, however, the
>'owners' of that information begin to create a price crisis of their own
>accord, then other sources spring up to fill in the possible gap in
>cost-effective information. The SPARC initiative comes to mind, for
>example.
>
>You will see from the news release from Tasini that freelance authors also
>may be forced to explore other venues for the distribution of their
>information.
>
>Capitalism, which works best with a monopoly-share of the market, may not
>work for the retention and distribution of information. The jury -- the
>real jury, i.e., libraries -- is still out regarding the results of the
>Supreme Court decision.
>
>Peter Picerno
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu]On Behalf Of John Webb
>Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2001 7:29 PM
>To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>Subject: Re: Supreme Court Ruling--Copyright--New York Times v. Tasini
>
>
>Hmm, I try not to have knee-jerk reactions, but when I feel one coming on, I
>try to run outside the hospital zone and scream, anonymously.  I may have
>missed this one, who knows.  And I'm a capitalist through and through: I
>love to wheel and deal.  Two of my best boyhood friends eventually owned big
>used-car businesses.
>
>I think I was using "excuse" colloquially.  Even an informed buyer rarely
>knows all of the costs that enter into a seller's price.  The science serial
>price increase crisis taught us all about the impacts of currency exchange
>rates, the cost of paper, and increased page counts.  When normal inflation
>dropped out of the running as a factor, the good capitalists among us also
>understood management's understandable desire to maximize shareholder equity
>in a booming market and the ability of growing and secure cash flows to
>secure the building of conglomerates.  But I think that only a truly
>dedicated non-cynic would overlook the publishers' "opportunity costs":
>libraries are a captive market, and the publishers had a whole menu of real
>costs from which to draw to explain--or excuse--otherwise exhorbinant price
>increases.
>
>As you note, publishers and aggregators will incur increased costs to cover
>their past transgressions.  We have no idea how any vendor will spread the
>costs.  But if I were a vendor, I'd be tempted to raise prices as much as
>the market would bear.  If that happened to exceed the costs, then Tasini
>would be a wonderful excuse.  If not, then it's just a good excuse.
>
>John Webb
>Assistant Director for Collections and Systems
>Washington State University Libraries
>Pullman, WA 99164-5610
>jwebb@wsu.edu
>509-335-9133    FAX 509-335-6721