From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 21:08:08 +0000 For the avoidance of doubt, I have never, never said that cooperation between libraries and publishers (or any other partners) was either impossible or undesirable. I know there are many, many great examples, some of which I have been involved with (on both sides of the publisher/library fence). As I recall, this discussion started as a difference of opinion between: (a) those who believe that all of the stakeholders in the scholarly communications process have essentially the same drivers and goals and that any apparent conflict is just a result of the stakeholders not sufficiently understanding each other; and (b) those who believe that while there is some overlap in drivers and goals, there are cases where the drivers and goals not only diverge, but are in conflict. Obviously, I am in the (b) camp. That doesn’t mean that I believe that librarians, publishers and others can’t work together for the betterment of scholarship. But it does mean that I think that we need to be realistic and go into our conversations with our eyes open and a realisation that we may want very different things from the conversations. Richard makes the (b) camp case very well when he says 'we have to accept the fact that we have, and will always have, very different aims and motivations.’ My point about ‘vision’ contains a question for members of the (a) camp: what would be different if us ‘partisans’ in the library community were a little less beastly to the publishers? Would big deal prices be lower? Would green OA embargoes be shorter? Would publishers stop lobbying against copyright reform to allow greater text ad data mining? Would sharing policies be more liberal? What would be different to what we see today? David On 23 Jul 2015, at 05:11, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Richard Brown <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:59:17 -0400 David, I second Karin's comments and Scott's good post. And I would add that there are numerous examples of engagement and collaboration between libraries and scholarly publishers, certainly university presses, some of which Michael Zeoli of YBP mentioned in a recent post. These do not represent a fully-formed vision of the kind of "blissful cooperation" you suggest because everyone involved recognizes that genuine cooperation is hard work and full of compromises and trade-offs--and ongoing conversation, as challenging and frustrating as that may be. We'll never reach nirvana. We're not talking about bliss. And we have to accept the fact that we have, and will always have, very different aims and motivations. But progress requires hope, not cynicism. BTW, the Association of American University Presses issued a report on library-press collaborations in 2013, and here is the link: http://tinyurl.com/olxvuj4 Richard Richard Brown, PhD Director Georgetown University Press Washington, DC 20007 [log in to unmask] www.press.georgetown.edu