tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4990922102626688253.post7394328784704399405..comments2023-04-15T11:42:35.385-04:00Comments on Go To Hellman: Open Access eBooks, Part 1Erichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14172740163003223132noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4990922102626688253.post-61340809075752890512011-05-09T05:33:49.394-04:002011-05-09T05:33:49.394-04:00Kindle is not "clunk-free" by any means....Kindle is not "clunk-free" by any means. Sure, the purchase process is easy, but the reading platform is limited.<br /><br />For the iPhone, Stanza is still my ereader of choice, the Kindle reader is starved: While Amazon bought Stanza, they have merged few of its features and affordances into the Kindle reader.<br /><br />DRM is not just about ease of use today; it's also about ease of keeping one's reading material in the future. That is another point where Kindle utterly fails in my view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4990922102626688253.post-23548299324333376842011-05-03T11:16:15.290-04:002011-05-03T11:16:15.290-04:00OK, Chris, that makes much more sense. Thanks for...OK, Chris, that makes much more sense. Thanks for clarifying.Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4990922102626688253.post-41263489010254089302011-05-03T10:51:37.630-04:002011-05-03T10:51:37.630-04:00Mike Taylor,
You asked whether I agreed that conc...Mike Taylor,<br /><br />You asked whether I agreed that concerns over DRM denying people ownership of eBooks they purchase are legitimate. I do agree. <br /><br />I need to clarify that I was talking specifically about librarians wanting no-DRM. In my opinion, since DRM protects the value of library collections, librarians should be asking for better DRM, not no DRM. One problem librarians have with DRM is the clunkiness of Overdrive's checkout process. By comparison, Amazon's one-click purchase is clunk-free. <br /><br />Chris RippelChris Rippelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01440673954889597501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4990922102626688253.post-7102309424552448422011-05-02T07:07:38.338-04:002011-05-02T07:07:38.338-04:00veblen wrote: "There always have been and alw...veblen wrote: "There always have been and always will be costs involved in protecting your property, and I don't understand why so many people seem to believe that digital networks will lead to some kind of Utopian world in which all of these costs will go away."<br /><br />The FUNDAMENTAL difference between a physical book (journal, article, sound recording, whatever) and an electronic one is that you can make infinite perfect copies of the latter at zero cost. Users would like to do that; publishers who have invested years and millions into physical-media business models would like to prevent them. No solution is going to satisfy both.<br /><br />The existence of back-channels such as The Pirate Bay makes me think that in the end, users are going to win this war. It's so much easier to make and distribute 100 new copies than to stamp out 100 existing copies. I know this is not a popular message among publishers, but I suspect a lot of the argument against it doesn't amount to much more than LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU.<br /><br />How can publishers remain in business when infinite perfect copies are free to make and distribute? When the question is couched in these terms, I think the answer is pretty obvious: by charging for actual services, such as copy-editing, review, formatting, design and publicity, rather than by holding increasingly useless "rights".<br /><br />And this of course is exactly what open-access publishers like PLoS do: they charge authors to cover their costs in providing those services -- services which authors are prepared to pay for as they do provide genuine value to the author.<br /><br />That works in academia, because academic authors don't expect to get paid. They live off grants, and writing papers (and paying to have them published) is a core part of what they do.<br /><br />But it doesn't translate into the rest of the writing world, where the author expects to get paid. What is the solution? I don't know. But ignoring the problem, or pretending we can make it go away, isn't going to help.Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4990922102626688253.post-73515518736383025052011-05-02T04:36:16.235-04:002011-05-02T04:36:16.235-04:00In response to Veblen's comment,
"For ex...In response to Veblen's comment,<br /><br />"For example, consider the costs that a public library imposes on both itself and its patrons to protect its physical collection ... Wouldn't it be so much cheaper and easier for everyone to get rid of this whole technological infrastructure of monitoring library collections?"<br /><br />Part of the concern with regular libraries is exactly that: they are _physical collections_. If I take out a book from a library, it's unavailable to other visitors until I return it.<br /><br />By contrast if I download an e-Book, I take a copy -- it's not taken away.<br /><br />The concerns for protection are therefore very different.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4990922102626688253.post-73424493475444724512011-05-01T13:38:23.775-04:002011-05-01T13:38:23.775-04:00I also want to say something about the comment tha...I also want to say something about the comment that:<br /><br />"DRM imposes costs on both reader and publisher ... it is clearly a benefit to both reader and publisher if these costs can be eliminated."<br /><br />Of course, this is true, but we also pay a lot to protect our property rights in the physical world.<br /><br />For example, consider the costs that a public library imposes on both itself and its patrons to protect its physical collection. Users usually have to create accounts with information that will allow the library to track them down if they fail to return books. Thus, libraries have to manage databases of patron accounts. They have to install expensive RFID or tattle tape on their books and install systems to monitor them, ect., ect. ...<br /><br />All of this "imposes costs on both reader" and libraries. Wouldn't it be so much cheaper and easier for everyone to get rid of this whole technological infrastructure of monitoring library collections? Instead of using staff and technology to make sure that patrons follow the rules, libraries could just put up signs on their doors and little notes in the books explaining their policies. Maybe, something like this: "Each library user is allowed to keep up to 10 library books for up to three weeks. Please return this book to the shelf after your time is up."<br /><br />OK -- I am going on too long here, but the point is that most people would consider it Utopian and impractical to get rid of technological rights management for physical books. There always have been and always will be costs involved in protecting your property, and I don't understand why so many people seem to believe that digital networks will lead to some kind of Utopian world in which all of these costs will go away.veblenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07110999818610555204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4990922102626688253.post-46204657180179249042011-05-01T13:06:21.484-04:002011-05-01T13:06:21.484-04:00This is a good overview and has some interesting s...This is a good overview and has some interesting speculations about why there has been less interest in Open Access ebooks. <br /><br />One thing that you seem to overlook is that Open Access still has not been as successful for academic ejournals as many people had hoped. It definitely has not solved the "serials crisis." Although it is true that most university students and scholars have access to more academic journal content than they used to have due to epublishing, many academic libraries still are spending a large and growing percentage of their collections budget on ejournals.<br /><br />What suffers, as a result, it their ability to buy scholarly monographs. It is kind of a vicious circle for scholarly books. 1) Academic libraries have less to spend on scholarly books b/c a growing percentage of their budget goes to serials 2) Academic publishers reduce their print runs b/c fewer libraries are buying their books, which reduces economies of scale and increases the cost of individual titles 3) Academic libraries buy even fewer titles because the costs go up.<br /><br />It would be interesting for you to speculate on how Open Access ebooks might be able to break this cycleveblenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07110999818610555204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4990922102626688253.post-50806396123197664862011-04-30T12:25:53.836-04:002011-04-30T12:25:53.836-04:00Jean-Claude Guédon also had difficulty posting his...Jean-Claude Guédon also had difficulty posting his comment (with an excellent point):<br /><br />Indeed, Gold publishing refers to OA journals, but OA journals are not all based on the so-called author-pay model. In fact, a majority among them are simply subsidized from A to Z. Most successful and visible is SciELO, initially launched from Brazil and now covering many countries in Latin America, Southern Europe and South Africa.<br />(<a href="http://ww.scielo.org" rel="nofollow">http://ww.scielo.org</a>) <br /><br />This conflation of gold publishing with author-pay business models is a<br />common error that must not be propagated further.<br /><br />Check DOAJ for a list of OA journals. (<a href="http://www.doaj.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.doaj.org</a>)Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14172740163003223132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4990922102626688253.post-22711475853112615162011-04-30T11:39:54.739-04:002011-04-30T11:39:54.739-04:00Chris- wait till Part 4, I'll address the libr...Chris- wait till Part 4, I'll address the library angle.<br /><br />Chris and Mike- DRM imposes costs on both reader and publisher. The reader pays in convenience, the publisher pays for infrastructure. While there is a divergence of opinion on how big the costs are, especially on the reader side, it is clearly a benefit to both reader and publisher if these costs can be eliminated.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14172740163003223132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4990922102626688253.post-9177397596724140872011-04-29T17:43:48.935-04:002011-04-29T17:43:48.935-04:00Chris,
Dismissing anti-DRM sentiment as "sil...Chris,<br /><br />Dismissing anti-DRM sentiment as "silly" is not a persuasive argument. For many of us, there is a strong sense that any e-book we "buy" that is DRM'd is not really ours in the sense that a physical paperback is -- that it could evaporate at any moment at the whim of the publisher or merchant, or that it may become unreadable when our current device expires.<br /><br />These are real and legitimate concerns, aren't they?Mike Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039663158335543317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4990922102626688253.post-315045646751490392011-04-29T13:10:19.452-04:002011-04-29T13:10:19.452-04:00I hope you are not buying the silly anti-DRM senti...I hope you are not buying the silly anti-DRM sentiment I see in some of my library colleagues. <br /><br />I did two surveys of eReader owners on MobileRead Forums. In the first survey (n=90), I asked eReader owners to click the two most common types of documents they load onto their devices. 37% clicked free public domain eBooks. 16% clicked eBook versions of new print bestsellers. In the second survey (n=75), I asked eReader owners to click the three types of documents they want to borrow from libraries. 1% clicked free public domain titles. 59% clicked eBook versions of new print bestsellers. <br /><br />Libraries' value to the community is in providing stuff that is not available elsewhere or is not available for free or cheap elsewhere. DRM protects the value of library eBook collections because people have to come to libraries to get them for free.Chris Rippelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11126395441559621519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4990922102626688253.post-32487579662695678712011-04-29T11:21:10.077-04:002011-04-29T11:21:10.077-04:00The $10,000 and up estimate comes from feedback I ...The $10,000 and up estimate comes from feedback I got in response to <a href="http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/2010/08/library-monopsony-for-monographic-ebook.html" rel="nofollow">this article</a>. I'd love to get better citations.<br /><br />The crossover remark was pointed at the fact that revenue from crossover books can provide significant subsidy for the rest of a press's list. Even in the medical field, I don't know of any situations where a crossover article provides a similar subsidy. The closest thing I can think of is the case of reprints purchased by a company whose products are mentioned in an article and distributed as promotional material; the dynamics and ethics are very different.<br /><br />On capitalization, I defer to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Access_movement" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a>. Go edit there!Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14172740163003223132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4990922102626688253.post-73646955068282726392011-04-29T11:02:59.769-04:002011-04-29T11:02:59.769-04:00Comment from Jodi Schneider, who had trouble with ...Comment from Jodi Schneider, who had trouble with the comment form:<br /><br />Thanks for sharing this draft, Eric, and soliciting comments!<br /><br />Here's my feedback:<br /><br />* I'm surprised that you're capitalizing "Open Access", and that<br />"movement" is in quotes.<br /><br />* I'd add another subheading before "The success of Open Access<br />journals and articles has for the most part not yet been duplicated in<br />the word of books." and possibly also at "Nonetheless, there have been<br />a few notable attempts to publish Open Access e-books."<br /><br />* The wording here is awkward: "range from $10,000 for a book that’s<br />mostly text to much more for a book with figures, photos, equations<br />and cover art." A citation would be really helpful for others trying<br />to follow up on the economic angle.<br /><br />* To give context, add dates for ArXiv (when it was founded, how long<br />it took to get wide adoption in physics). Also, in your formatting,<br />add a return before the following paragraph.<br /><br />* " In contrast, journal articles almost never cross over into<br />non-professional markets." -- I don't think this is true for<br />health-related articles. There, open access is becoming ubiquitous.<br />Maybe a mention of NIH's role in promoting open access would be<br />pertinent.<br /><br />* Some sense of the scope/market penetration of open access (e.g. what<br />percentage of overall journals are in DOAJ? what percentage of "good"<br />journals?) might be pertinent.<br /><br />I'm looking forward to seeing the next instalment of your article;<br />thanks again for sharing this, and for soliciting feedback!Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14172740163003223132noreply@blogger.com