From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 22:44:31 +0100

As Anthony suspects, I was being a little mischievous.  But what
interests me is that a publisher should ask authors for their views on
the potential exploitation of their work for commercial gain, without
asking for their views on the actual exploitation that is already
taking place, managed by the publisher.  And Taylor & Francis say that
the results of the survey have influenced their licensing decisions -
so they have gone for a non-commecial license for open access papers
as authors don't like commercial exploitation while continuing to
retain the right to commercially exploit papers from authors who sign
over copyright.  This looks like authors are being listened to
slightly selectively.

(As an aside, it is one of the many oddities of the journal publishing
market that reprint sales are viewed (almost always) as exclusively
publisher revenues and not author revenues.)

David



On 2 Apr 2013, at 00:10, LIBLICENSE 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


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