From: leo waaijers <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 09:58:03 +0200 Sue, In the Netherlands we just settled exactly the model you describe. Our new hybrid licenses are simply a continuation of the classical big deals with the proviso that published articles are circulated on the internet with a CC-by licence. It concerns national multi-year licences between the university association and heritage publishers. Readers and authors do not pay for content access or creation. Libraries and publishers have no hassle with authorised users or passwords. Springer succeeded in negotiating a one-off price increase of 6% as a compensation for the potential loss of company subscriptions. From there they resume their annual price indexing. The same deals are in the making with Sage, Wiley and Oxford University Press. Only Elsevier is stubborn so far. I don't see how this model prevents corruption and mediocracy better than one of the current models. Also, you say publishers can not run away with profits to the same extent they do currently. Well, actually they do. Or even better as a higher revenue is combined with a simpler distribution process. If this becomes the new open access world, publishing will be way more expensive than the big deals ever were. Not only comes the transition of the big deals into hybrid licences with a price increase, next to that academia has to pay the real OA publishers (PLoS, etc.) as well. Academia is simply no party for the ogre publishers. The only way out is to make them eat each other, i.e. create a market situation and make them compete. Open Access has the potential to do so, contrary to the subscription world where publishers were copyright monopolists. Let's use the opportunity. Leo Waaijers. Op 4-10-2015 om 22:18 schreef LIBLICENSE: From: Sue Gardner <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 14:40:29 +0000 Ari, Thank you very much for your comments. I agree that the whole system needs to be reconsidered. The current system invites corruption and mediocrity and does not serve readers nor authors. The only entity that invariably does well in the current system is publishers. In lieu of rehashing my detailed thoughts on this the list, the synopsis is: readers and authors should not pay for content creation or access, funders (public and private) should pay publishers directly, and institutions and aggregators should be not-for-profit middlemen/providers. In this scenario, readers and authors pay indirectly in a distributed fashion by paying taxes and supporting businesses that pay the for-profit publishers. Publishers in this scenario are accountable directly to funders, and can not run away with profits to the same extent as they do currently. It's a closed loop. Libre vs. gratis is an entirely separate issue, and is just as salient, but does not advance the economic discussion directly. Sue Gardner Sue Ann Gardner, MLS Scholarly Communications Librarian Discovery and Resource Management University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-4100 USA [log in to unmask]