From: Sean Andrews <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 20:26:33 -0600

> From: Richard Gottlieb <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 14:37:20 -0500
>
> What am I missing here?
>
> If the library purchases a printed copy of Catcher In The Rye, and an
> instructor would like to have his class all read it, you are saying
> that the library, either can make the full text available
> electronically (without purchasing a multi-user e-book), or
> print/Xerox/duplicate forty copies for a course pack?

I don't think purchasing a single book, once, compares in cost (or
legal and material similarity) to puchasing an institutional
subscription to a database.  The point of making the annual cost so
high for institutions is that they are assumed to be providing access
to all their members.  If faculty are members of the premiere club
(they are allowed to look at unlimited articles, so far as I can tell)
what makes the laws of the material world suddenly applicable (or the
difference in fees suddenly justifiable)?

> Without benefit to the publisher or the author (or author's estate)?

The the relevant metaphor would be if all other authors or publishers
or author's estates let you do it (i.e. buy one copy of Salinger and
copy it freely for educational purposes) and this particular author or
publisher was demanding that they pay for each one.  Thus...

> And it is somehow wrong or greedy for HBR to require permission and
> perhaps compensation?

Well, yeah.  That's the point.  I think the main point here is, as
Chris LeBeau said above, "They are out of synch with the rest of the
publishing world and creating a barrier to learning."  Whether you
believe the pedagogical claim (that making students pay $7 for every
article they read isn't a barrier to learning) the observation that
they are out of sync is the most relevant one.  They are wrong by the
standards of the publishing world and greedy relative to what it
normally requires.

We can, of course, argue about whether Elvsevier is just as bad for
charging the fees they do, but their set up at least works for
students and faculty alike and is otherwise in line with common
expectations and practices among the library community.

And while it would be nice to think every business is completely free
to change the rules and do whatever it wants, ultimately there is a
customer on the other end. Honoring community standards (such as those
being invoked above) and satisfying customers may seem juvenile from
the cutthroat perspective of high finance, but at one point it was a
hallmark of the business community.  I realize that's kinda old
fashioned, but it's Friday night and I'm nostalgic.

Sean