LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:19:34 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (67 lines)
From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:04:42 -0700

Well, Sandy - if you were answering my comment, you misfired.

You replaced my word "distribution" by your "publishing".

A University is a king on its own territory and has no facilities to
distribute outside. It has to deal with distributors. It will cost
cheaper but not that much.

I remember that before I was printing a book I was offered by a
distributor to give up my rights for 10% of expected revenue, but when
I printed it on my own I was offered just a bit more - 20%.

Ari Belenkiy

Richmond BC

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 7:02 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:17:56 -0500
>
> Really? All the university presses in England count for nothing? What
> an extraordinary claim!
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
> > From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 23:04:01 -0700
> >
> > But David, Finch made it clear that Universities lack the means for
> > distribution of its faculty's works.
> >
> > This is the vocation of publishers who reap the dividends.
> >
> > That's why the authors of the books receive only 10% of revenue - the
> > rest goes to a publisher.
> >
> > Ari Belenkiy
> > Richmond BC
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 7:04 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >>  From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
> >>  Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:58:54 +0100
> >>
> >>  Joe
> >>
> >>  Research university X already gives away its intellectual property and
> >>  then spends much more than non-research universities in buying access
> >>  to the intellectual property of other research universities.  Where's
> >>  the strategic thinking there?
> >>
> >>  And of course, a lot of the research done isn't paid for by the
> >>  universities themselves - it's paid for by research funders such as
> >>  NIH in the US and the Research Councils in the UK.  For the NIH to
> >>  ensure that NIH-funded researcher in University N has access to
> >>  research outputs generated by NIH-funded researcher at University M
> >>  looks to me the epitome of strategic thinking.
> >
> >  >
> >  > David

ATOM RSS1 RSS2