From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 19:09:59 -0500 Chuck, I don't agree with Sandy's Napster analogy, but I don't think you characterize what Elsevier does properly. What an author creates is to published material what bauxite is to aluminum. I mean this not only in the sense that a publisher refines the raw material (they do, but not always consistently) but also in the more important sense that they create markets for their aluminum: airplane wings, cans for carbonated beverages, etc. The value of Elsevier lies in its management. And that management is the best in STM publishing. Indeed, it may be the best in all of publishing. (But keep your eye on Penguin Random House. Very interesting things going on there.) The evidence for this perspective is that other STM publishers--almost every other STM publisher--tries to do what Elsevier does, but with considerably less success. If publishers add so little to the enterprise, why then are some publishers so much more successful than others? There is a case to be made for dumb luck, but consistent dumb luck over 200 years or whatever the timeframe is is beyond my imagination. This is not to defend Elsevier's trading practices or to suggest that they don't have big challenges ahead. Nor should Elsevier's customers cease to find lower-priced (and higher-quality) alternatives, whether they are to be found in Gold OA or anywhere else. What I do want to suggest is that the reason Elsevier sits atop the mountain is that everyone consistently underestimates just how good they are. If that were better appreciated, Elsevier would indeed have a problem, as their challengers would be in a position to forge a successful strategy. Joe Esposito On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 6:25 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:11:04 +0000 > > Dear Sandy, > > Not very good analogies. I write it, I hand it to Elsevier, I put it > up, they take it down-that's not Napster or your other examples. The > people who create Elsevier's riches are their authors. If they > alienate them what do they have? > > Do you think I'm misreading the Chronicle piece? > > Chuck > > > ________________________________________ > > From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 16:25:33 -0600 > > So, Chuck, you're in favor of companies like Academia.edu (and > Napster, YouTube, Aimster, and Grokster before them) that build their > businesses by stealing IP from others? Would you condemn any > university presses that choose to issue take-down notices to > Academia.edu and other such companies in similar language? > > Sandy Thatcher