From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 08:26:04 -0400

Ari,

I don't see how your comment is in any way apposite mine. That's your
prerogative, but it's odd in view of the fact that you used my name in
your salutation. For the record, I don't believe I have ever made any
remarks about whether or not authors and reviewers should be paid
(though some are, despite what you say).

Joe Esposito


On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 1:30 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 20:27:32 -0700
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> Whatever you mean here, the basic truth is that if publishers would
> have shared their earnings with authors, the picture would have looked
> now quite differently!
>
> Then everyone would speak about outright theft.
>
> The publishers made themselves hated by everyone and now no one cares
> about their feelings.
>
> Why do Russian publishers pay their authors? Why the Western publishers don't?
>
> Anyone on the list can give a history account of this difference?
>
> Ari Belenkiy
>
> Vancouver BC
> Canada
>
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:55 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 09:40:40 -0400
> >
> > If content were all open, we would not recognize the world we live and
> > work in. Is that bad? Not necessarily: different is not inherently bad
> > or good. What troubles me about conversations about "flipping" the
> > economic model for published scholarship is that it assumes that the
> > basic units of content will remain unchanged. But the history of media
> > tells a very different story, that media of all kinds changes when the
> > business ecosystem changes. The business model, in other words, is not
> > something that is wrapped around a piece of content but is a property
> > of that content. This is McLuhan 101. Shouldn't we go back to reading
> > him?
> >
> > Joe Esposito