From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:11:24 -0700 You mischaracterize the "current scenario," but in any event, why would you think those are the only options? See http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jep/3336451.0010.103?rgn=main;view=fulltext. Joe Esposito On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 7:01 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > 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 > > > On Jun 22, 2012, at 9:04 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> > > Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:31:12 -0700 > > > > It's really troubling to see all these discussions taking place as > > though the only thing that matters is short-term cost and revenue > > projections. Does everyone really think the world does not change > > from time to time? It is simply not in a research university's > > interest to support OA, green, gold, or any other flavor. Most > > research is produced at a small number of institutions; OA is in the > > interest of organizations (most colleges and universities, the > > corporate sector, and government and NGOs) that don't produce the > > research. There is a total absence of strategic thinking here. > > > > So what's the scenario? Major research university X gives away its > > intellectual property and then cuts faculty for lack of funding. > > Ridiculous. > > > > Joe Esposito