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]