Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 00:54:59 -0400
What's confusing to me here is the authors' demand that Cengage ask their
permission to include their textbooks in the subscription model. My
understanding is that textbooks are created as "works made for hire," which
means that the publisher owns the copyright, not the author(s). So on what
grounds are the authors demanding that Cengage seek their permission? It's
unfortunate that the article Jim linked to does not stipulate or cite what
term(s) of the contract are under dispute. Cengage obviously believes that its
contract does give it authority to include the textbooks in this service. I'd
be surprised if Cengage's lawyers did not write the contract in such a way as
to make this subscription service possible to implement in the way it has. But
I guess we'll have to wait and see how a court looks at the dispute.
Sandy Thatcher
On Mon, May 21, 2018 11:48 PM LIBLICENSE <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>From: "Jim O'Donnell" <
[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 20:02:10 -0700
>
>Joe, that's helpful clarification (inclusive access one thing, aggregation
>another).
>
>I said and say that libraries will be pressed to take a role in mitigating
>the perceived problem with the price of textbooks. But I will also say
>that complaints that goods and services in these sectors are too costly
>often seem to me to mask other problems. After all, they (price of health
>care, drugs, journals, college tuition, college textbooks) wouldn't be so
>pricey were it not for the fact that plenty of people are paying the
>price. Our first-order concern is usually that someone whom we think
>should have access to the good or service can't afford them.
>
>But other things are going on. To take just this sector, the role and
>function of the classic textbook has evolved and it's not clear that the
>expensive textbook propagates because of an intelligent view of their
>pedagogical effectiveness. Show me a bigger, shinier, better illustrated,
>more comprehensive book than the one I've been using and I, the average
>faculty member, am not unwilling to think that perhaps I *should* make it
>available to my students -- and that's where your point about the assigner
>isn't the payer is important. The best work I know to attack the price
>problem is really attacking the pedagogy problem: what do students really
>need in order to succeed? Something they will actually use and benefit
>from is more helpful than 800 lavishly illustrated pages.
>
>My point here is just to say that prices and the ensuing economic
>adjustments are an interesting set of phenomena. But they shouldn't blind
>us to what are actually harder problems to solve.
>
>Jim O'Donnell
>ASU
>
>On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 7:50 AM, LIBLICENSE <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> From: JJE Esposito <
[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 11:18:41 -0400
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>> I think you are conflating two issues: inclusive access and textbook
>> aggregations.
>>
>> Inclusive access (I dislike the term) is just as you say. Students pay for
>> texts when they sign up for courses. They get lower prices (on digital
>> texts), while publishers get a near-guarantee that every student will buy a
>> copy of the book. Publishers can make more money with this model than they
>> can from the traditional model, where students independently choose whether
>> or not to purchase a book. I wrote about this here:
>>
>>
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/03/27/reduce-cost-c
>> ollege-textbooks/
>>
>> What Cengage is doing is trying out the "Netflix for books" model and
>> marrying it to inclusive access. In "Netflix for books" you pay one price
>> for a large collection. You may use one book or dozens, but the price is
>> the same. Cengage is attempting to get their aggregation to be accepted in
>> an institution's inclusive access program.
>>
>> The gripe the authors have with Cengage is that they claim Cengage never
>> negotiated with them on the royalties for books that are included in
>> aggregations. How would that royalty be determined? For the sale of a
>> single copy of a book, an author might receive 10% of the publisher's net
>> receipts. But for an aggregation? How is usage of the aggregation to be
>> allocated to all the authors? Can Cengage include an author's work in such
>> an aggregation without the author's express permission?
>>
>> The not surprising fact is that publishers could make more from inclusive
>> access than they do with legacy models, but authors may make less. Time
>> will tell.
>>
>> I do believe that libraries will increasingly lead institutional
>> negotiations for inclusive access. I am involved with such a project now,
>> and I don't believe it will be my last.
>>
>> Joe Esposito
>>
>> --
>> Joseph J. Esposito
>>
[log in to unmask]
>> @josephjesposito
>> +Joseph Esposito
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 11:14 PM, LIBLICENSE <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> From: "Jim O'Donnell" <
[log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 20:06:44 -0700
>>>
>>> The price of textbooks and the consequent burden on students is a hot
>>> topic in higher education, leading both to initiatives to expand the usage
>>> of Open Educational Resources (OERs – roughly open-access textbooks) and
to
>>> experiments in different pricing models by which publishers offer
>>> e-textbooks. One commonly discussed model is a ‘subscription’ or
‘site
>>> license’ to attain ‘inclusive access’ by charging a single price to an
>>> institution for access to all the students in a given course. This
>>> usually leads to lower cost-per-student and (and this is what academics
>>> like) much broader access to textbooks by students where now many choose
>>> not to buy textbooks they find too expensive.
>>>
>>> So now a publisher is facing blowback from textbook authors:
>>>
>>>
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2018/05/16/textboo
>>> k-authors-sue-cengage-over-
subscription-model#.Wvx3HR7yzeA.twitter
>>>
>>> Without knowing anywhere near enough facts of the case, I think it’s
>>> permitted to wonder whether a lower price guaranteed for a larger number of
>>> students might not in some cases bring equal revenue to publishers and
>>> authors over a current situation where non-purchase, reliance on
>>> second-hand texts, and the like already brings less than the notional
>>> maximum revenue that would come from 100% of students paying retail price.
>>>
>>> My view is that libraries will be increasingly pressed to engage in this
>>> space, whatever models emerge as preferable.
>>>
>>> Jim O’Donnell
>>>
>>> Arizona State University