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