From: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:10:53 +0000
Rick,
As I’m sure you’re aware, Open Editions and OECD have each developed
freemium open access models that provide frictionless, check-out-free,
access to the full text of our content to non-subscribers.
Non-subscribers don’t need to register, they can simply turn up and
read their fill - there are no embargoes and the read-only versions
are facsimiles of the versions of record. In OECD’s case,
non-subscriber (and subscribers) can share and embed our read-only
files on social platforms and websites. Subscribers get access to
premium versions of the content, basically, downloadable, actionable
files, plus off-line support. Happily, both Open Editions and OECD are
finding that our freemium business models are generating sufficient
revenues to foot our bills, pay staff and fund investments - as well
as serving a growing readership on a legal and legitimate basis.
I would argue that our model, if adopted by other scholarly
publishers, would make SciHub largely redundant. Besides being legal
and legitimate, I believe freemium is the fastest route to making all
science freely accessible to all in a financially sustainable manner.
Toby Green
OECD
> On 16 Feb 2018, at 03:17, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 01:24:52 +0000
>
> Adam, I hope I won’t be accused of shouting simply for responding.
>
> You make valid points about the difficulty of negotiating legitimate
> (i.e. legal) access to toll-access content. Sci-Hub’s relative ease of
> use is often invoked when people want to change the subject from other
> salient aspects of Elbakyan’s enterprise, such as her dishonesty, her
> proud ignorance of fundamental points of law, her disregard for the
> rights of others (those whose rights get in the way of her own goals),
> her strange inconsistency when it comes to giving everyone access,
> etc.
>
> But with regard to the ease-and-simplicity question: one of the things
> I’ve been wondering is to what degree it’s possible to make legitimate
> access as easy as stolen access. Granted that publishers (and, we
> ought to admit, libraries) generally do a mediocre job at best when it
> comes to providing friction-free access to content—even for those who
> have legal access to it—to what degree does that represent a failing
> on our part, and to what degree does it suggest that doing things
> legally and ethically will simply often be more trouble than doing
> them illegally and unethically? No matter how easy you make the
> check-out process in a store, it will probably never be as simple as
> simply walking into the store, picking up what you want, and walking
> out with it. (Though Amazon seems to be making some headway in that
> direction right now.) None of that is to say that we shouldn’t do
> much, much better when it comes to our interfaces and authentication
> processes. It’s just to say that I’m not sure how reducible the
> friction is in reality. Surely it can be reduced; but by how much (and
> still remain legitimate or legal)?
>
> One answer to that question might be “The whole concept of ‘illegal
> and unethical access’ is what we need to abandon. All scholarship
> should be freely available to all without any kind of restriction.” To
> which I would say “When you’ve figured out a legal and sustainable way
> of providing free and universal access to all scholarship, the costs
> of which don’t threaten to outweigh the benefits, I’ll be very
> interested to hear about it. You’ll be the first one to figure it
> out.”
>
> ---
> Rick Anderson
> Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
> Marriott Library, University of Utah
> Desk: (801) 587-9989
> Cell: (801) 721-1687
> [log in to unmask]
>
> On 2/15/18, 5:25 PM, "LibLicense-L Discussion Forum on behalf of
> LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: adam hodgkin <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:56:49 +0100
>
> I am sure that I will be shouted at for being an apologist for
> Sci-Hub, and probably much worse. But please note, before you shout,
> that I do not approve of Sci-Hub's mode of operation or the
> justifications that Elabkyan offers.
>
> But. But ... It seems to me that Sci-Hub has one great advantage which
> puts all the main scholarly/scientific article platforms in a bad
> place. It has a simple user interface, a straightforward database, and
> (an arguably over-simple) re-use policy which is hugely attractive to
> users. So it is very hard to see how the mainstream subscription
> platforms, quirkily designed, and by ownership divided, can answer
> that. The simplicity arises because almost everything (I exaggerate,
> but a great deal of the most relevant stuff) is accessible and
> searchable in one place. And the re-use restrictions are almost
> completely liberal -- because the restrictions are almost
> non-existent.
>
> If the web had evolved in such a way that different bundles of the web
> were only searchable from different domains: if Indian content, that
> is content from Indian domains, had to be searched by an Indian search
> engine, European content by a European search engine, Chinese by a
> Chinese search engine and American content by Alta Vista or Inktomi,
> etc, imagine with what relief all users would land upon a newly
> invented Google that allowed us to search and then navigate to all web
> content from all continents and domains from one place.
>
> This point may not direct us towards a next step for scientific and
> scholarly publishing, but it may underline the fact that the
> traditional vehicles for publishing, deploying, searching and
> archiving scholarly content are not operating at web-scale. For all
> its defects disengenuity and deficiencies, Sci-Hub is.
>
> If the traditional publishers cannot find a solution to this problem
> perhaps Gates Foundation, CZI and Alphabet will?
>
> Adam Hodgkin
>
> www.exacteditions.com
> and my book Following Searle on Twitter
> http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/F/bo25370730.html
|
