I can't speak for other publishers, Joe, but I can say that,
at
least for Penn State, the revenue stream Project Muse
produces is
quite sufficient to keep our journals afloat. Maybe we have
lower
overhead than some of our peers.... 
>Sandy,
>
>We agree on your comments about the implications of the
author's
>addendum, but I don't think this is the worst of Project
Muse's
>problems.
>
>Muse is an artifact of a transitional era, a period when
income
>was primarily derived from hardcopy subscriptions;
anything that
>came from electronics was additive. When the electronic
revenue
>stream is the primary one, or when it is the sole one,
as
>increasingly is the case, then Muse is not likely to
provide
>enough income to its constituent journals to keep them
all
>afloat. The problem is simply that Muse doesn't cost
enough;
>thus the sums it sends back to its publishers are
inadequate to
>pay the bills. We have already seen some defections
from Muse
>on this account, and we can expect to see more. Muse's
problems
>are despite the fact that Muse has been an outstanding
service
>for the library community. This does not mean that Muse
is
>helpless or that innovative management can't develop a
new
>strategy (yes, there are such strategies), but that even
without
>having to wrestle with the author's addendum, Muse has a
>difficult road ahead.
>
>For anyone who wishes to challenge this point of view,
please
>see Susan Skomal's post to this list a while back
concerning
>BioOne ("For titles with very large and stable
traditional
>subscription sales, however, BioOne may not be an
appropriate
>choice":
>http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListA
rchives/0702/msg00068.html).
>Skomal's post addressed a slightly different problem,
but the
>general issue is the same. I am not suggesting that
Skomal
>endorses my point of view.
>
>Joe Esposito
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <sgt3 psu.edu>
>To: <liblicense-llists.yale.edu>
>Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 8:00 PM
>Subject: Re: Science Commons, SPARC Announce New Tools
for Scholarly
>Publishing
>
>>First I will beg the indulgence of the moderator of
this list
>>and its readers to accept a flurry of postings from
me. I have
>>dutifully downloaded the postings for the past six
weeks but
>>had such a busy schedule that I have had to postpone
to this
>>weekend responding to any. So here I begin....
>>
>>I have a simple question to ask those who stand
behind and
>>support this initiative (and others similar to it,
like the one
>>proposed by the CIC provosts): how does it help
universities
>>that pay for their presses to publish journals to
create a lot
>>of extra work for their staffs explaining to authors
why they
>>cannot accept all of the proposed clauses in the
addendum? This
>>is a real cost, which will add to the burden of
already
>>understaffed university presses (like mine).
>>
>>A university press (like mine) that relies for a
very
>>substantial part of its journal income from
participation in
>>Project Muse simply cannot afford to sign an
agreement that
>>would have the effect of undermining Project Muse. A
clause
>>that allows authors, or others, to post on the open
Internet
>>the final peer-reviewed and copyedited version of
their
>>articles, with or without a six-month delay, is very
likely to
>>lead eventually to the demise of Muse-which, may I
remind you
>>all, was established with the support of a Mellon
grant jointly
>>to the press and library at Johns Hopkins and was
developed
>>from the beginning to be a library-friendly,
reasonably priced
>>resource.
>>
>>If Muse disappears, then so too do all of the ten
journals that
>>we currently publish and have enrolled in Muse,
including such
>>long-established leading journals in their fields as
Philosophy
>>& Rhetoric, The Chaucer Review, and Comparative
Literature
>>Studies and such newer journals as Book History (the
official
>>journal of the Society for the History of
Authorship, Reading,
>>and Publishing). It has long since passed the time
when their
>>print subscriptions alone could sustain the cost of
publishing
>>them.
>>
>>I am also curious as to the legality of this further
strategy
>>proposed by SPARC and adopted by the University of
Wisconsin
>>Faculty Senate on May 7 when it approved the CIC
initiative:
>>
>>The Library Committee amended the original CIC
addendum
>>distributed by the CIC provosts to include
subsection 4 that
>>was derived from ARL's Scholarly Publishing and
Academic
>>Resources Coalition (SPARC). ARL/SPARC has been an
>>international leader in the discussion of author
rights and
>>scholarly communications. This sub-section is a
default clause
>>that states that in the event that the publisher
publishes the
>>article in the journal without signing a copy of the
addendum,
>>the publisher will be deemed to have assented to the
terms of
>>the addendum.
>>
>>Not being a lawyer, I'm no expert on the validity of
such
>>"default" clauses, but I would bet that
they are unenforceable.
>>A license is a license, and if the publisher does
not agree to
>>terms explicitly in writing, no "default"
is going to compel
>>the publisher to do anything it doesn't want to do.
Other
>>opinions, please?
>>
>>As for the general approach of Creative Commons
(copied in this
>>Science Commons version) to provide a means for
authors to
>>license any uses that are "noncommercial,"
I would appreciate
>>knowing what "noncommercial" means. If it
is meant to be the
>>equivalent of "educational," then it is as
vacuous and
>>unhelpful as the view that "fair use"
sanctions any
>>"educational" use-which, as we all know
from a variety of
>>Supreme Court cases, is not the view of the highest
court in
>>the land. For the vast majority of the specialized
scholarly
>>writing that is the subject of journal licensing
agreements,
>>there is NO market outside of higher education-which
is, by the
>>way, the reason that university presses were
established in the
>>first place. Is "noncommercial" then
supposed to be a synonym
>>for "nonprofit"? But university presses
are nonprofit entities.
>>Thus, are we permitted by Creative Commons licenses
to
>>republish any articles or book chapters whose
authors have
>>signed such a license? It would be nice to know so
that we
>>don't have to bother paying them any permission
fees. The same,
>>of course, would hold for "nonprofit"
society publishers. Our
>>missions are, of course, to serve scholarship, so we
would be
>>happy to accept this interpretation of
"noncommercial." I'm not
>>sure its creators intended for it to be interpreted
in that
>>way. On the other hand, I really haven't a clue
about how they
>>did intend it to be construed, since it is
inherently a
>>slippery concept. And the whole edifice of CC
licensing is
>>built upon this shaky commercial/noncommercial
distinction, is
>>it not?
>>
>>As in much else that is going on now, every step
forward in one
>>arena seems to entail a step backward in another. If
>>universities were thinking systematically about this
issue
>>instead of narrowly focusing on the STM journal
problem, they
>>would realize that proposals like these are at least
partly
>>self-defeating.
>>
>>Sandy Thatcher
>>Penn State Press
|
