From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:56:36 -0400

I think David's comment is on the money, and eloquently expressed to
boot.  I would add that assuming that people act out of self-interest
does not mean that they are selfish.

Joe Esposito

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:49 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 21:08:08 +0000
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, I have never, never said that cooperation
> between libraries and publishers (or any other partners) was either
> impossible or undesirable.  I know there are many, many great
> examples, some of which I have been involved with (on both sides of
> the publisher/library fence).
>
> As I recall, this discussion started as a difference of opinion
> between: (a) those who believe that all of the stakeholders in the
> scholarly communications process have essentially the same drivers and
> goals and that any apparent conflict is just a result of the
> stakeholders not sufficiently understanding each other; and (b) those
> who believe that while there is some overlap in drivers and goals,
> there are cases where the drivers and goals not only diverge, but are
> in conflict.
>
> Obviously, I am in the (b) camp.  That doesn’t mean that I believe
> that librarians, publishers and others can’t work together for the
> betterment of scholarship.  But it does mean that I think that we need
> to be realistic and go into our conversations with our eyes open and a
> realisation that we may want very different things from the
> conversations.  Richard makes the (b) camp case very well when he says
> 'we have to accept the fact that we have, and will always have, very
> different aims and motivations.’
>
> My point about ‘vision’ contains a question for members of the (a)
> camp: what would be different if us ‘partisans’ in the library
> community were a little less beastly to the publishers?  Would big
> deal prices be lower? Would green OA embargoes be shorter? Would
> publishers stop lobbying against copyright reform to allow greater
> text ad data mining? Would sharing policies be more liberal?  What
> would be different to what we see today?
>
> David
>
>
> On 23 Jul 2015, at 05:11, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Richard Brown <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:59:17 -0400
>
> David,
>
> I second Karin's comments and Scott's good post. And I would add that
> there are numerous examples of engagement and collaboration between
> libraries and scholarly publishers, certainly university presses, some
> of which Michael Zeoli of YBP mentioned in a recent post. These do not
> represent a fully-formed vision of the kind of "blissful cooperation"
> you suggest because everyone involved recognizes that genuine
> cooperation is hard work and full of compromises and trade-offs--and
> ongoing conversation, as challenging and frustrating as that may be.
> We'll never reach nirvana. We're not talking about bliss. And we have
> to accept the fact that we have, and will always have, very different
> aims and motivations. But progress requires hope, not cynicism. BTW,
> the Association of American University Presses issued a report on
> library-press collaborations in 2013, and here is the link:
> http://tinyurl.com/olxvuj4
>
> Richard
>
> Richard Brown, PhD
> Director
> Georgetown University Press
> Washington, DC 20007
> [log in to unmask]
> www.press.georgetown.edu