From: "Friend, Fred" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 14:25:10 +0000

Dear Anthony,

Who is losing out by this "complete removal of a source of income"?
The taxpayer is not losing out because the pharma companies pay taxes,
taxes which pay for the toll-free access to publicly-funded research
outputs. The pharma companies are not freeloading upon the economies
of the countries in which they are based (or if they are it is not
because of the availability of free journals). The benefit that the
pharma companies receive from open access contribute to economic
growth in the same way as the benefit that any commercial company
receives from OA contributes to economic growth. Publicly-funded
research does not lose out because research institutions would not
have received any income from the money paid for journals by the
pharma companies. So are the publishers of the journals previously
purchased by the pharma companies the only stakeholders losing out? If
so, forgive me if I do not shed any tears over their loss.

Fred Friend
Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL

________________________________________

From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 21:58:02 +0100

From what I know of David's career in publishing, I do not imagine he
has ever had to make a decision to give up a source of income which
for some publishers ( probably not T&F ) is important for some
journals, and it is a long time since I might have been involved.

I wonder what he would do? Perhaps he could tell us - hypothetically
of course. What to me is interesting is the lack of discussion about
the complete removal of a source of income to the the scholarly
communication process from big pharma (users rather than contributors
of papers) under an OA scenario. Freeloading or free riding used to be
much discussed.

Anthony

Sent from my iPad

On 31 Mar 2013, at 19:12, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 13:51:49 +0000
>
> Having discovered that the majority of authors do not approve of the
> commercial reuse of their work will Taylor & Francis now suspend the
> selling of reprints to third-parties?
>
> David