From: Wilhelmina Randtke <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 01:08:29 -0500

Sandy,

"The immediate postwar years" was 60 years ago.  It's not as if Kevin
had a say in that.  I doubt even you've been around long enough to
have hurt feelings over it.  That was a long time ago.  No one with
enough clout to have been involved then is still involved in decision
making.  No one's doing penance because all the people involved are
out of the picture.  It's irrellevant.

What exists now is a backwards system where universities subsidize
research, then in copyrights give it away, then buy it back over and
over again.  Keeping it that way doesn't do good for universities.

-Wilhelmina

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:28 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 22:43:45 -0500
>
> It would also have been a more sensible option if universities had
> supported their own publishing infrastructure more in the first place
> and not allowed commercial publishers to establish such a dominant
> position in STM journal publishing. In the immediate postwar years
> that was still a live option. Administrative myopia helped create the
> conditions that Kevin deplores.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
>
> > 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