From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:11:24 -0700

You mischaracterize the "current scenario," but in any event, why
would you think those are the only options?

See http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jep/3336451.0010.103?rgn=main;view=fulltext.

Joe Esposito

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 7:01 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 05:11:35 +0000
>
> So what is the current scenario?  Major research university gives away
> it intellectual property, to publishers, has to buy it back at very
> high cost, then cuts faculty for lack of funding.  What is ridiculous
> is that anyone could seriously maintain that OA is not a more sensible
> option.
>
> Kevin L. Smith, J.D.
> Director of Scholarly Communication
> Duke University
> Perkins Library
> Durham, NC 27708
>
>
> On Jun 22, 2012, at 9:04 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:31:12 -0700
> >
> > It's really troubling to see all these discussions taking place as
> > though the only thing that matters is short-term cost and revenue
> > projections.  Does everyone really think the world does not change
> > from time to time?  It is simply not in a research university's
> > interest to support OA, green, gold, or any other flavor.  Most
> > research is produced at a small number of institutions; OA is in the
> > interest of organizations (most colleges and universities, the
> > corporate sector, and government and NGOs) that don't produce the
> > research.  There is a total absence of strategic thinking here.
> >
> > So what's the scenario?  Major research university X gives away its
> > intellectual property and then cuts faculty for lack of funding.
> > Ridiculous.
> >
> > Joe Esposito