From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 19:52:10 +0000

>Phil doesn't go far enough.  NDAs lower prices and increase
>flexibility.  It's also the right thing to do.  In the absence of
>them, every publisher sees the terms of every other publisher, which
>leads to rigid standardization.

Joe, couldn't the absence of NDAs lead equally easily to competitive
pressure that will benefit the customer? If a publisher says to me "You're
getting an unusually great deal on this package, but you can't tell anyone
you're getting it," then I have no way of knowing whether I'm actually
getting a better deal, or a worse deal, or an average deal. But if I can
check with my colleagues at similar institutions and find out what kind of
deal they're getting, then I have a real basis on which to judge. Without
that ability, I have to simply take the seller's word for it. That may
give the seller more flexibility, but I'm not sure it's a kind of
flexibility that benefits anyone except the seller.

Of course, these questions are complicated by the absence of meaningful
competition in the realm of journal and book selling. Copyrighted content
is available from only one source--the copyright holder or licensed
agent--so it's not like price competition works the same way it does when
you buy a wrench or a gallon of milk. The same goes for competition in the
area of access terms; if my faculty are screaming for access to Biology
Journal X and have no interest in Biology Journal Y, then the fact that
Journal Y offers better access terms isn't going to affect my purchase
choice very much. So maybe NDAs are really a moot point.

Rick Anderson
Acting Dean, J. Willard Marriott Library
University of Utah
[log in to unmask]