RE: Journal/Publisher 2010 price freeze info on MLA website

[Sandy Thatcher <sgt3@psu.edu>]

Joe, you need to be specific about IP: it is only copyrights that 
universities are seeking to liberalize. No university I can think 
of is liberalizing either patent or trademark protection. It is 
indicative of the difference among IP rights that university IP 
offices are highly focused on patents and seldom pay much 
attention to copyrights; they staff their offices accordingly. 
(Trademarks are often handled separately through another 
licensing agency, particularly for branding of sports gear.)

Sandy Thatcher

Sanford G. Thatcher
Executive Editor for Social Sciences and Humanities
Penn State University Press
8201 Edgewater Drive
Frisco, TX  75034-5514
e-mail: sgt3@psu.edu
Phone: (214) 705-9010
http://www.psupress.org


>It is not every day that Fred Friend, David Prosser and I are in 
>agreement.
>
>>From that common ground, however, we would likely move in very
>different directions.  I would propose that in a world where the 
>economy tends to have people and institutions act in their own 
>self-interest, universities would themselves act in their own 
>interests.  This would mean, for example, that universities 
>would recognize that they create more intellectual property than 
>anyone--much, much more than all the commercial entities.  As 
>creators, they would seek to protect and exploit IP, but instead 
>they are tending toward liberalizing IP rights.  This is like 
>having Exxon embrace the science of global warming or the NRA 
>adopt the precepts of Gandhi.
>
>I articulated this idea in "The Wisdom of Oz:  The Role of the 
>University Press in Scholarly Communications" a few years ago: 
>http://bit.ly/2bdeQY.
>
>Joe Esposito
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of David Prosser
>Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:11 PM
>To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>Subject: RE: Journal/Publisher 2010 price freeze info on MLA website
>
>Joe articulates my fear in the current price round.  A number of
>small and society publishers have responded positively to ICOLC's
>call for price restraint, but it is not at all clear to me that
>we have market mechanisms that will reward those showing
>restraint.  My concern is that this could result in reduced
>revenues for those publishers that have shown themselves most
>responsive to the problems of library budgets.
>
>David Prosser
>Director, SPARC Europe
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph Esposito
>Sent: 04 August 2009 00:07
>To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>Subject: RE: Journal/Publisher 2010 price freeze info on MLA website
>
>I believe the point Nawin is making is that freezing or lowering
>prices is not in a publisher's interest unless the product is of
>marginal value, in which case a high price may indeed result in a
>cancellation.  The obvious point to be made here is that this is
>an editorial game (the best products win)and other aspects of a
>publisher's trading practices (low pricing, good customer
>service, flexible usage terms, nice people)are rarely rewarded
>(except, to repeat, for marginal publications).  In fact, it may
>be in the interests of a publisher of the higher quality
>publications to raise prices even in desperate economic times, as
>such a publisher is protected by the armor of outstanding
>editorial content and can stand by and watch as the weaker
>editorial products get cancelled, despite the generous trading
>practices of those unfortunate publishers. If I have
>misunderstood Nawin's question (which I took to be rhetorical),
>please correct me.
>
>I don't like the implications of this reasoning any more than
>anyone else; it's a lot like cheering on the Second Law of
>Thermodynammics; so I beg you not to shoot the messenger.  But
>this is the way the economy works, and matters are not improved
>by encouraging "good behavior" only to punish the most noble in
>the end.
>
>Joe Esposito
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Rais, Shirley (LLU)
>Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 6:08 PM
>To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>Subject: RE: Journal/Publisher 2010 price freeze info on MLA website
>
>Nawin:
>
>I would still base cuts primarily on usage and value to our
>collection & mission, but if I had to make choices between
>marginal titles, those without price increases would get an edge
>towards retention.  The price freezes will help me save titles
>overall, not just the titles with frozen prices.  By marginal I
>mean titles with usage on the low end of the spectrum that
>support smaller programs on campus.  The price freezes may
>actually help me add some titles!
>
>Shirley Rais, MLS  -  Chair, Serials & Electronic Resources Dept.
>Library Liaison to the School of Public Health LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY |
>University Libraries Loma Linda, California 92350 srais@llu.edu
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu On Behalf Of Nawin Gupta
>Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:58 PM
>To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
>Subject: RE: Journal/Publisher 2010 price freeze info on MLA website
>
>It is gratifying to see that a number of publishers are foregoing
>price increases for the upcoming year.  Anecdotal evidence to
>date is that many of the libraries, if not most, are expecting
>budget cuts of around 10% or more. Sadly, despite the noble
>gestures of some, chances are that librarians would still need to
>cut some subscriptions.
>
>If I may ask a question of librarians on this list:
>
>Would a journal that did not increase its subscription price
>likely to be spared in your decision to cut?  Or, are the
>decisions likely to be based primarily on a journal's usage and
>its importance to the library "customers" and collection?
>
>Nawin Gupta
>www.nawingupta.com