From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 21:36:07 -0400 Of course, I have not seen the Cengage contracts, but I would be surprised if they called for "works for hire." These are author-driven books, not an assemblage overseen by the publisher (as in reference works). But without seeing the contracts, we cannot know. As for lawyers not anticipating a new usage, that's a common phenomenon. I can think of dozens of examples. Whoever thought that textbooks would be sold for fixed-price subscriptions for an entire aggregation ten years ago? No one talked about "Netflix for books" until we had Netflix. Joe Esposito On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:55 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > From: SANFORD G THATCHER <[log in to unmask]> > 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 >