From: Eric Elmore <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:07:19 +0000

I think a more accurate way of understanding this statement is that
it's in the back of the mind of every Publisher, rather than in the
minds of the Librarians.  Librarians are interested in getting the
most content and value for our dwindling budgets in an ethical manner.
Not an easy or simple task.  Publishers, on the other hand, are
concerned with extracting every penny, ruble, shekel, pence, yuan,
yen, and/or ounce of blood they can from anyone who wants to use the
content they "publish".

It's Capitalism 101.  Once you understand the frame of mind someone
who works for a publisher, of course they think libraries are
leveraging a free resource such as SciHub.  Because that's exactly
what they would do if they were in the libraries position.  When the
only objective is the endless acquisition of money silly little things
like whether or not a resource is legal or ethical no longer have
relevance.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Maziar, Lucy (EDU)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 18:49:26 +0000

It has certainly never been in the background on any negotiations with
vendors that I have been involved in.  My negotiations have always
about rising costs, static or reduced budgets, and the value of the
resource to my community along with license terms, customer service,
ease of use, etc.  Sci Hub and ResearchGate are never in my mind.  I
also would like to see the data that supports that statement that they
are in the background of every library negotiation with publishers.

Best,

Lucy

Lucia Maziar
Library Director
US Coast Guard Academy
Library (DL)
35 Mohegan Ave
New London CT  06320
860.444.8517
[log in to unmask]

________________________________

From: Danny Kingsley <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:35:24 +1000

Not the ones I have been involved with Joe.  Perhaps others on the
list might wish to indicate their situations?  Or is there evidence
that I have missed in the public domain somewhere?

The point I am making is:
1. The story is misleading because it is directly claiming
subscriptions are being cancelled because of ResearchGate when it does
not support that with anything substantial, it is all inferred 2.
These kinds fo claims are what publishers use to justify embargoes,
when:
3. ResearchGate ignores embargoes anyway

The only group that take any notice of embargoes are libraries (the
same libraries that are the ones that pay the subscriptions, mind
you), and they are not the threat anyway.

Embargoes are an expensive (in terms of time spent managing them)
furphy created to ’solve’ a problem that generates elsewhere, and
where there is no evidence to support the original claim regardless.

Danny

On 25 Jun 2019, at 09:31, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2019 23:09:46 -0400

This is a remarkable claim, Danny.  ResearchGate and Sci-Hub are in
the background of every library negotiation with publishers now.

Joe Esposito

[SNIP]