Re: Publishers and the doctrine of Good Works

[Peter Banks <pbanks@bankspub.com>]

I simply disagree with you.  Your perspective dates from 
Rockefeller's era, prior to the era of breakneck technological 
innovation and product development.

Even if any of us had the knowledge to know what the preferred 
forms of communication would be in 5 years (or 1, or 3 months!), 
it would not be in our interest to restrain them--if for no other 
reason than pure greedy, capitalistic self-interest. Others are 
doing the work of exploration and business experimentation, at no 
cost to us, the fruits of which are then available to exploit.

Peter Banks


On 7/19/06 8:26 PM, "Joseph Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com> wrote:

> Peter, I am sure you are accurately describing your own view, 
> but I must say I do not believe your remarks are representative 
> of publishers.  Or if they are, people have been lying to me. 
> OF COURSE, publishers are trying to restrain the growth of 
> other journals.  That is their job, to outfox the competition. 
> To put this another way, if they were not doing this, they 
> would be fired.  You can't have it both ways; you can't send 
> Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay to jail (or worse) on one hand for 
> abusing shareholders and then turn around and say that the 
> management of a company should embrace a free, open, and 
> diverse market, which is not in the interest of their 
> shareholders.  As John D. Rockefeller noted, companies wish to 
> avoid "ruinous competition." It is simply not true that "we all 
> want more access to information."  An economic enterprise has 
> narrow aims; if it changes the world for the better, it is 
> because it profits from it.  I love capitalism, but let's not 
> get sentimental about it. It is what it is:  a vibrant, 
> creative force that has a limited view of the world.  To get a 
> complete view we need a pluralistic environment.
> 
> And, yes, I agree that the less formal kinds of OA can not give
> us the equivalent of the New England Journal of Medicine, nor
> have I ever even hinted that I felt otherwise.  OA is mostly a
> distraction.
> 
> Joe Esposito