From: <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 09:10:53 +0000 Rick, As I’m sure you’re aware, Open Editions and OECD have each developed freemium open access models that provide frictionless, check-out-free, access to the full text of our content to non-subscribers. Non-subscribers don’t need to register, they can simply turn up and read their fill - there are no embargoes and the read-only versions are facsimiles of the versions of record. In OECD’s case, non-subscriber (and subscribers) can share and embed our read-only files on social platforms and websites. Subscribers get access to premium versions of the content, basically, downloadable, actionable files, plus off-line support. Happily, both Open Editions and OECD are finding that our freemium business models are generating sufficient revenues to foot our bills, pay staff and fund investments - as well as serving a growing readership on a legal and legitimate basis. I would argue that our model, if adopted by other scholarly publishers, would make SciHub largely redundant. Besides being legal and legitimate, I believe freemium is the fastest route to making all science freely accessible to all in a financially sustainable manner. Toby Green OECD > On 16 Feb 2018, at 03:17, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 01:24:52 +0000 > > Adam, I hope I won’t be accused of shouting simply for responding. > > You make valid points about the difficulty of negotiating legitimate > (i.e. legal) access to toll-access content. Sci-Hub’s relative ease of > use is often invoked when people want to change the subject from other > salient aspects of Elbakyan’s enterprise, such as her dishonesty, her > proud ignorance of fundamental points of law, her disregard for the > rights of others (those whose rights get in the way of her own goals), > her strange inconsistency when it comes to giving everyone access, > etc. > > But with regard to the ease-and-simplicity question: one of the things > I’ve been wondering is to what degree it’s possible to make legitimate > access as easy as stolen access. Granted that publishers (and, we > ought to admit, libraries) generally do a mediocre job at best when it > comes to providing friction-free access to content—even for those who > have legal access to it—to what degree does that represent a failing > on our part, and to what degree does it suggest that doing things > legally and ethically will simply often be more trouble than doing > them illegally and unethically? No matter how easy you make the > check-out process in a store, it will probably never be as simple as > simply walking into the store, picking up what you want, and walking > out with it. (Though Amazon seems to be making some headway in that > direction right now.) None of that is to say that we shouldn’t do > much, much better when it comes to our interfaces and authentication > processes. It’s just to say that I’m not sure how reducible the > friction is in reality. Surely it can be reduced; but by how much (and > still remain legitimate or legal)? > > One answer to that question might be “The whole concept of ‘illegal > and unethical access’ is what we need to abandon. All scholarship > should be freely available to all without any kind of restriction.” To > which I would say “When you’ve figured out a legal and sustainable way > of providing free and universal access to all scholarship, the costs > of which don’t threaten to outweigh the benefits, I’ll be very > interested to hear about it. You’ll be the first one to figure it > out.” > > --- > Rick Anderson > Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication > Marriott Library, University of Utah > Desk: (801) 587-9989 > Cell: (801) 721-1687 > [log in to unmask] > > On 2/15/18, 5:25 PM, "LibLicense-L Discussion Forum on behalf of > LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: adam hodgkin <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:56:49 +0100 > > I am sure that I will be shouted at for being an apologist for > Sci-Hub, and probably much worse. But please note, before you shout, > that I do not approve of Sci-Hub's mode of operation or the > justifications that Elabkyan offers. > > But. But ... It seems to me that Sci-Hub has one great advantage which > puts all the main scholarly/scientific article platforms in a bad > place. It has a simple user interface, a straightforward database, and > (an arguably over-simple) re-use policy which is hugely attractive to > users. So it is very hard to see how the mainstream subscription > platforms, quirkily designed, and by ownership divided, can answer > that. The simplicity arises because almost everything (I exaggerate, > but a great deal of the most relevant stuff) is accessible and > searchable in one place. And the re-use restrictions are almost > completely liberal -- because the restrictions are almost > non-existent. > > If the web had evolved in such a way that different bundles of the web > were only searchable from different domains: if Indian content, that > is content from Indian domains, had to be searched by an Indian search > engine, European content by a European search engine, Chinese by a > Chinese search engine and American content by Alta Vista or Inktomi, > etc, imagine with what relief all users would land upon a newly > invented Google that allowed us to search and then navigate to all web > content from all continents and domains from one place. > > This point may not direct us towards a next step for scientific and > scholarly publishing, but it may underline the fact that the > traditional vehicles for publishing, deploying, searching and > archiving scholarly content are not operating at web-scale. For all > its defects disengenuity and deficiencies, Sci-Hub is. > > If the traditional publishers cannot find a solution to this problem > perhaps Gates Foundation, CZI and Alphabet will? > > Adam Hodgkin > > www.exacteditions.com > and my book Following Searle on Twitter > http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/F/bo25370730.html