From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:01:29 +0000 Is this what the kids these days call whataboutery? “Yeah, you’re talking about Elsevier, but what about Verizon?" David On 6 Nov 2018, at 22:11, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 20:53:34 -0500 Doesn't "monopoly" mean "one"? The complaint specifically states that other companies behave as Elsevier does and should be held to account. How can you have a monopoly of 3-6 players? I'm all for breaking up big companies, but can't we begin with something really big? My nominee is Verizon, but I have an open mind about AT&T, United Airlines (yeah!), and Google. Your nominee here: _________. Meanwhile, one of the authors of the complaint (Brembs) apparently supports Sci-Hub: https://twitter.com/brembs/status/1059367717403267077 When we march for a cause, we should look to either side to see who is marching with us. Joe Esposito On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 8:23 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > From: "Smith, Kevin L" <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 19:19:49 +0000 > > I am not an anti-trust expert by any means, but I think the answer to > this, and to the same question posed by Rick, is straightforward. The > limited monopoly held by individual authors is not a problem — it is an > “innocent” monopoly, just like my exclusive rights over by house — because > it does not convey market dominance. The monopolist problem the complaint > outlines is quite different, where a large conglomeration of monopolies > over content are exercised in order to dominate a market and to exclude > competition. The line that is allegedly crossed has to be define within the > terms of a particular market, of course, which is precisely what > competition authorities are charged to do. > > Kevin > > > On Nov 4, 2018, at 12:47 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > From: Kent Anderson <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 06:42:35 -0700 > > Can someone explain to me what a “monopoly over articles” means compared > to the cultural expectations prohibiting duplicate publication and > plagiarism? Isn’t every article locked down by these expectations and > norms, moreso than by copyright? > > Also, not all publishers require copyright transfer, so if this were an > issue for an author group, authors could shop for publishers who don’t. The > market would respond, and to some extent has responded. Isn’t copyright > transfer a market condition susceptible to market pressures? > > But the first question is the one I’m most curious about. What would > “non-monopolized” articles look like? Any different? > > -- > > *Kent Anderson * > CEO, RedLink and RedLink Network > 57 East Main Street, Suite 211 > Westborough, MA 01581 > https://www.redlink.com > *Phone: *508-366-5653 > *Cell:* 774-288-9464 > *Email:* [log in to unmask] > *ORCID:* 0000-0002-5458-6735 > > On November 1, 2018 at 8:56:50 PM, LIBLICENSE ([log in to unmask]) > wrote: > > From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 17:30:33 -0700 > > Rick, there were two points that struck me as particularly well-made: > > 1. They describe well and persuasively the de facto monopoly that > publishers hold over articles whose rights have been signed over to > them and make the point that this condition makes it effectively > impossible to create a fair market in such information. (What is > unclear is what remedies there might be at law in the EU for such a > condition. I assume there must be relevant parallels.) > > 2. They also make the point that Elsevier and others are engaging in > vertical integration with anti-competitive results thus: "Vertical > integration of services creates a ‘virtual lock in’ environment for > Elsevier’s customers and users, ensuring that its digital services > crowd out and exclude those of its competitors from the market. This > applies particularly to a range of downstream competitive services > within scholarly publishing and communication, and now represents the > ongoing concentration of scholarly infrastructures by Elsevier and a > small number of ‘competitors’." > > I will just add that I well understand there will likely be response > on these points from Elsevier in the process that now opens. My point > in the original posting was just to say that the document struck me as > thoughtful, well-argued, and unrhetorical. I may have been influenced > by a recent viewing of a relevant film that struck me, apart from > contributions by Anderson and Watkinson, as deficient on all those > points. > > Jim O'Donnell > ASU > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 4:45 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> > > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 22:45:08 +0000 > > > > Jim, what do you think are the strongest arguments that Tennant and > Brembs make in their complaint? > > > > --- > > 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] > > > > > > From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]> > > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:18:48 -0700 > > > > Here is a good source for the formal complaint filed on 26 October > regarding RELX and the wider scholarly publishing market to the EU > competition authority. Full text (22pp) PDF available -- > https://zenodo.org/record/1472045#.W9iP5hNKjOR (My thanks to Gary > Price's invaluable infoDOCKET for the link.) > > > > The complaint is partisan, no question, but represents to my eye a > serious and coherent attempt to make the case for why big journal > publishing can be interpreted as importantly marked by anti-competitive > practices. The complaint is short, but not negligible, on practical > remedies (pp. 20-21). In an environment where rhetoric and posturing often > prevail in discussions of the topic, this one was refreshing. I hope that > the respondents to this complaint can answer publicly with equal coherence > and intelligence. > > > > Jim O'Donnell > > Arizona State University > >