Re: Publishers' view/reply to Joe Esposito

["Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@worldnet.att.net>]

I have no quarrel with anything Mr. Funk says other than to point out that
it is in no way responsive to my posting.  That, of course, is Mr. Funk's
prerogative.

I happen to make a living advising publishers on how to thrive in a world
without copyright.  Sauron indeed.

Joe Esposito

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Funk" <mefunk@mail.med.cornell.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 3:46 PM
Subject: Publishers' view/reply to Joe Esposito

> Joe says there is a consensus among publishers regarding the "naivete" of
> Open Access advocates about the costs of publication.  According to his
> argument, production costs are indeed trivial. (This comment is in
> contrast to the many protestations of publishers, but I and other Open
> Access advocates will gladly accept this statement as true.) It is
> evidently the marketing of journals that make them cost so much. (Damn!
> Look at this incredible brochure for Brain Research!  That must have cost
> a fortune!)
>
> Here is where the publishers are naive about Open Access. They do not
> realize that Open Access *advocates* are currently doing, and will in the
> future continue to do much of the marketing for Open Access journals. This
> is a cause for many of us, not just another business model. How many
> researchers and librarians have you seen doing marketing for journals from
> for-profit publishers? Not too many. How many will you see doing marketing
> for Open Access journals? Quite a lot, and this is just the beginning. Do
> the publishers think this is insignificant? Sauron also thought a few
> hobbits were insignificant...
>
> Reporting from the Shire,
>
> -- 
> Mark Funk
> mefunk@mail.med.cornell.edu