LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: Taylor & Francis survey reveals that commercial re-use of their work
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:53:30 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (52 lines) 
From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:49:47 -0400

"Open access truly does open another world."--Yes, and closes the
window to others.

Joe Esposito


On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:07 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:29:40 +0200
>
>
> This is rather beside the point, Anthony, I'm afraid. No publisher is
> expected to willingly give up a source of income. That's why it is so
> surprising some publishers seem to be in favour of CC-BY-NC and even
> lobby their authors. Selling reprints, or even print versions in the
> case of hybrid journals, is in breach of the NC clause.
>
> However, there is a very simple solution: the CC-BY licence. That one
> does allow the sales of reprints and print versions. And so preserves
> that source of income for the publisher. Of course, anybody would be
> able to do that; not just the original publisher of the material.
> That's open access. On the other hand, even with CC-BY-NC, the pharma
> industry has full access to the articles anyway and may give away the
> urls to those articles to anybody they like.
>
> Open access truly does open another world.
>
> Jan Velterop
>
> On 2 Apr 2013, at 01:10, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > 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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2