From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 18:16:47 -0500

It just turns out that the research pot already includes the money
from libraries. because libraries, in paying for subscriptions and
licenses, are footing the bill of a small, but crucial, part of
research.

What libraries should ask themselves is whether the money they spend
on subscriptions and licenses is allocated in an optimal way,
especially when you consider the profit level of some publishers.

That too will be my last word on this topic.

jpg

Le dimanche 25 février 2018 à 12:03 -0500, LIBLICENSE a écrit :
From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 04:08:11 +0000

> >
As for the zero-sum game adumbrated above, it assumes that money
> > can/opt/Samsung/mfp/bin/netdiscovery --all --scanner
> > come from
> > strictly defined "research" budgets only, and no other
> > source.


No, that’s not what it assumes at all. It assumes only that you can’t
spend the same dollar twice. It is certainly possible to take money
away from some other budget and add add them to the research pot. But
whether that pot contains one dollar or a million dollars, spending
that money is still, like it or not, a zero-sum game: unless you’re
replenishing the budget from a literally infinite source of money,
every dollar you spend on one thing results in there being a dollar
less to spend on something else. You can try to obscure that most
fundamental of economic facts with fanciful word games, but you won’t
be able to change the reality.

I’m not going to tax the patience of our fellow subscribers with this
any further; feel free to have the last word if you’d like.

---

Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
[log in to unmask]