4 ms·

> You have to realize publishers are in the reputation business. Everyone realizes this. The problem is that you're abusing your position in this reputation s

by panic 8y ago

> You have to realize publishers are in the reputation business. Everyone realizes this. The problem is that you're abusing your position in this reputation system for profit. Do you think $40 is a fair price to read a paper from 1987? https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/109434208700100406 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/109434208700100...

dougmccune 8y ago
Nope. I'd be in favor of shorter copyright terms in general. The truth about $40 prices are that they aren't intended really to be the fair price of a good. They're there simply to allow the subscription business model to work. So no, I don't like the fact that we charge $40 for a 31 year-old paper. And I'm a huge proponent of shifting to a non-subscription business model. And the publishers are shifting, albeit slowly and only because they're being forced to. But they are shifting, at least in STM fields, and I'd guess that this $40 byproduct of the subscription model will indeed die out when the subscription model shifts to the open access author pays model (which, of course, we can also debate for a long time).
- reacweb 8y ago
  When I was young, I have bought the standard C++ in pdf because it was less than $10. I think it was the maximum I was agreeing to pay for it. Sometimes I find a reference to research articles I would like to read. I have no access to university to get them freely. If article were accessible at a decent price (less than $2), I think I would buy a lot more of them. IMHO, academic publishing would still be profitable if prices were low.
  - dougmccune 8y ago
    I assume the price is probably too high, but for $50/month you can essentially get access to a Netflix for articles, called DeepDyve[1]. It's certainly not complete in that they don't have agreements with every publisher on the planet, but there's a lot of content on there. [1] https://www.deepdyve.com/ https://www.deepdyve.com/
- dmitriid 8y ago
  The price of $40 has nothing to do with copyright.
  - dougmccune 8y ago
    Right, sorry for the confusion. I was responding to two separate items in the question. One was the price, the other was the age of the article. I thought the question was clearly asking about both. Question 1: is $40 fair? Question 2: is that price (or potentially any price) fair for an article over 30 years old? My opinion is that $40 is not a fair price for a single article, and yet it's required to make the subscription business model work. And my second opinion is that the duration of copyright should be shorter. Obviously these opinions are in conflict with the business with which I'm involved, and are certainly not shared by most others within the industry.
    - dmitriid 8y ago
      > My opinion is that $40 is not a fair price for a single article, and yet it's required to make the subscription business model work. It's not. Unless it's a way to drive people to buy subscription. That is: "pay $40 for a single article, or pay just $19.99 a month to access all of them". Which is also crappy. > Obviously these opinions are in conflict with the business with which I'm involved, and are certainly not shared by most others within the industry. This is true, unfortunately (same goes for media such as audio and video, sadly).
mirimir 8y ago
I'd say, instead, that they've taken over the reputation business, and are burning it down, converting legitimacy into money.
Vinnl 8y ago
> Everyone realizes this. They absolutely don't. Every time this subject comes up, there are plenty of people wondering how expensive it can be to host a PDF. It's not; the price they're asking is not for the service of hosting a PDF, but for granting you the privilege of using their brand. A publisher has a monopoly on its brands, which means that there's almost no downwards price pressure.
- michaelt 8y ago
  Every time this subject comes up, there are plenty of people wondering how expensive it can be to host a PDF. I always assumed that was a rhetorical technique, a sort of jargon-free shorthand for "Given that variable costs are so low but the prices so high, surely this company's managers are either sinfully greedy with their profit margin, or sinfully inept in their inability to control back office costs"
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    Right, but "inept in their ability control costs" is irrelevant: the price they ask is for the brand, not for the costs of producing anything.
- jamesrcole 8y ago
  There are two issues 1. why the system is as it is (and why it's hard to change) 2. what work are the publishers doing that is actually contributing value The hosting cost is a point regarding 2, and making that point is consistent with understanding 1.
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    I agree, but I will still argue that people making the PDF download point are often conflating points 1 and 2.

by panic 8y ago

dougmccune 8y ago

Nope. I'd be in favor of shorter copyright terms in general. The truth about $40 prices are that they aren't intended really to be the fair price of a good. They're there simply to allow the subscription business model to work. So no, I don't like the fact that we charge $40 for a 31 year-old paper. And I'm a huge proponent of shifting to a non-subscription business model. And the publishers are shifting, albeit slowly and only because they're being forced to. But they are shifting, at least in STM fields, and I'd guess that this $40 byproduct of the subscription model will indeed die out when the subscription model shifts to the open access author pays model (which, of course, we can also debate for a long time).

reacweb 8y ago
When I was young, I have bought the standard C++ in pdf because it was less than $10. I think it was the maximum I was agreeing to pay for it. Sometimes I find a reference to research articles I would like to read. I have no access to university to get them freely. If article were accessible at a decent price (less than $2), I think I would buy a lot more of them. IMHO, academic publishing would still be profitable if prices were low.
- dougmccune 8y ago
  I assume the price is probably too high, but for $50/month you can essentially get access to a Netflix for articles, called DeepDyve[1]. It's certainly not complete in that they don't have agreements with every publisher on the planet, but there's a lot of content on there. [1] https://www.deepdyve.com/ https://www.deepdyve.com/
dmitriid 8y ago
The price of $40 has nothing to do with copyright.
- dougmccune 8y ago
  Right, sorry for the confusion. I was responding to two separate items in the question. One was the price, the other was the age of the article. I thought the question was clearly asking about both. Question 1: is $40 fair? Question 2: is that price (or potentially any price) fair for an article over 30 years old? My opinion is that $40 is not a fair price for a single article, and yet it's required to make the subscription business model work. And my second opinion is that the duration of copyright should be shorter. Obviously these opinions are in conflict with the business with which I'm involved, and are certainly not shared by most others within the industry.
  - dmitriid 8y ago
    > My opinion is that $40 is not a fair price for a single article, and yet it's required to make the subscription business model work. It's not. Unless it's a way to drive people to buy subscription. That is: "pay $40 for a single article, or pay just $19.99 a month to access all of them". Which is also crappy. > Obviously these opinions are in conflict with the business with which I'm involved, and are certainly not shared by most others within the industry. This is true, unfortunately (same goes for media such as audio and video, sadly).

mirimir 8y ago

I'd say, instead, that they've taken over the reputation business, and are burning it down, converting legitimacy into money.

Vinnl 8y ago

> Everyone realizes this. They absolutely don't. Every time this subject comes up, there are plenty of people wondering how expensive it can be to host a PDF. It's not; the price they're asking is not for the service of hosting a PDF, but for granting you the privilege of using their brand. A publisher has a monopoly on its brands, which means that there's almost no downwards price pressure.

michaelt 8y ago
Every time this subject comes up, there are plenty of people wondering how expensive it can be to host a PDF. I always assumed that was a rhetorical technique, a sort of jargon-free shorthand for "Given that variable costs are so low but the prices so high, surely this company's managers are either sinfully greedy with their profit margin, or sinfully inept in their inability to control back office costs"
- Vinnl 8y ago
  Right, but "inept in their ability control costs" is irrelevant: the price they ask is for the brand, not for the costs of producing anything.
jamesrcole 8y ago
There are two issues 1. why the system is as it is (and why it's hard to change) 2. what work are the publishers doing that is actually contributing value The hosting cost is a point regarding 2, and making that point is consistent with understanding 1.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  I agree, but I will still argue that people making the PDF download point are often conflating points 1 and 2.