From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 13:56:36 -0400 I think David's comment is on the money, and eloquently expressed to boot. I would add that assuming that people act out of self-interest does not mean that they are selfish. Joe Esposito On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:49 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > 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