From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 07:59:37 +0000


Sandy corrects a word choice:

>By the way, I think you mean "oligopoly," not "oligarchy." But I'm not
>sure, with the multiplicity of players involved in scholarly journal
>publishing, the market control of the largest publishers technically
>even constitutes an oligopoly.  There is even more market
>concentration in textbook publishing.

We have a roughly 3.2 million dollar journals list. On my desk at home
I have ranked the top 6 publishers that get about  half of our
subscription dollars. That list has changed little in the last 30
years by the subtraction of Pergamon, swallowed by Elsevier, and by
the absorption of Plenum mostly by Taylor and Francis (new to my top 6
list) and of course the mega joinning of Wiley-Blackwell (now at
number 2).  The new kid on the block in terms of market penetration
into the top six category is Sage. And although not on my list 30
years ago, but now firmly a number six just about tied with Sage is
IOP.  Moving up fast is Nature, still not in the top 6. I do not have
a "big deal" with Taylor and Franics, thank goodness.

Perhaps in a future post I need to provide some of the actual language
of attempted NDA's for general awareness of just how outrageous and in
some instances homogeneous some of these demands are?

One brief example: intwo of the contracts we negotiated last year
among the big 6, lawyers from different countries (US and a European
company) representing two very different "cultures" of publishing came
up with almost identical NDA language demanding we consult them before
responding to any inquiries by goverment authorities.  Must be in the
DNA of lawyers internationally to demand their customers ignore
legitimate subpoenas to provide them first response rights?

University presses in the journals areas are so small as to be minor
players. Their scale is so much different.

And textbook publishers, I agree are about as voracious as any
commercial journal publisher. They just have a bigger and a bit more
captive market (though both journals and textbooks are dependent on
faculty decisions and demands). Coincidence. Perhaps the monopoly
granted by copyright has something about that creates these
situations?

Perhaps as Sandy seems to imply, suggesting libraries are free agents
in selecting who they will purchase what from  is about as true as
suggesting students are free agents in textbook selection?



 Chuck Hamaker

________________________________________
From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum [[log in to unmask]] on
behalf of LIBLICENSE [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 8:49 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Future of the subscription model

From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 22:33:18 -0600

Well, Chuck, if these NDAs are so outrageous, the Big Deals so
one-sided, why do libraries keep giving in, after making loud
protests? It's one thing to complain, but if those who complain then
don't act, the greedy capitalists keep winning, right?

By the way, I think you mean "oligopoly," not "oligarchy." But I'm not
sure, with the multiplicity of players involved in scholarly journal
publishing, the market control of the largest publishers technically
even constitutes an oligopoly.  There is even more market
concentration in textbook publishing.

As I've said before, universities have no one but themselves to blame
for letting STM journal publishing be captured by commercial
publishers. Universities had their own healthy and well-functioning
publishing infrastructure to use if they had so chosen, but for
whatever reason allowed STM publishing to migrate outside to the
commercial sector.

If you think the domination of this sector is harmful, how come we
don't hear complaints about Amazon, which is as predatory a commercial
actor as there is anywhere, playing dirty time and again to increase
its market share and profits? And how come libraries have facilitated
the dominance of Google in mass digitization, which redounds to
Google's benefit and its shareholders as much as anyone else's? What's
that about casting stones if you live in glass houses?

Sandy Thatcher


> From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 04:17:20 +0000
>
> Sandy Thatcher said:
>
>>  I'm not sure why making money for your stockholders--which is
>>  what commercial companies are supposed to do--should be
>>  called "avaricious" behavior.
>
>
> If the price of gas went up reliably 10-15 percent a year, what would
> you call that Sandy?  The price of medical care goes up around if I
> recall correctly 8-9% a year and its a national disaster. We are
> watching a train wreck in journal publishing, and Sandy thinks such
> behavior is just "making money for your stockholers"?  It's  classic
> behavior of an oligarchy. Monopolist level behavior. Complete disdain
> for your customers. And librarians have experience defining and
> calling attention tojust such behavior.  We THOUGHT we had an answer,
> the whole industry did, and some major publishers thought the battle
> was over; have stated that the big deal in essence saved the industry
> and libraries. That the industry had accepted and learned to live with
> a 5% cap. Now we find major particpants in the pricing scheme have
> gone on an orgy of acquisitions and pricing. Justifying their
> behaviors with a range of rationales. Again.
>
> One  publisher just this week, announced they had taken over 36
> titles, to be added to their "new" base in addition to their annual
> cap. (if the library had a subscription). This is publicly diseminated
> information,  I'm not breaching any NDA. So much for noting what your
> customers are experiencing right now. Now, in the midst of what many
> are calling a depression you use your primary customer contracts this
> way? Yeah, that's good karma for your stockholders. That'll increase
> stock holder value. Wait till I explain to the local administrative
> bodies what this means. Oh, it'll make sense, sure, just good ole
> capitalists increasing stocholder value.
>
> Publishers need called out, again, and we need to do that, publisher
> by publisher working around the NDAs. And yes, I believe we will see
> more libaries having to opt out of various schemes.
>
> I have a candidate publisher for posting details-diferent than the one
> mentioned above, but then there are so many to choose from-- name,
> public pricing scheme,  most receent "offer",  CPU, etc. and I plan on
> doing that later this week either here or with Against the Grain.
> Depends on how much time I can take from my day job. I hope others can
> do the same. If you have an outrageous offer or requirement on the
> table, lets hear about it. There are ways to publicize, and these
> publishers don't want publicity. Else why the NDA's they've tried to
> introduce all over the place. They are afraid of the light of
> sunshine. We need a strong disenfectant.
>
> Capitalism with controls Sandy.
>
> That's the lesson of the Banksters, and publicity is the control for
> avaricious behavior in publishing. Anyone remember Gordon and Breach?
>
> Trying to control information about avaricious behavior with NDA's  is
> our own version of banksters. (some of those NDA's attempt to impose
> some of their conditions in perpetuity no less!) LOL
>
> Chuck Hamaker