> what's the alternative? Not my field, but let's say the societal goal is to continue to transition the journal publishing industry from a business model of c

> what's the alternative? Not my field, but let's say the societal goal is to continue to transition the journal publishing industry from a business model of customer lock-in, rent seeking, and restrictive access, to a model that's competitive, fee for service, and open-access. As this is a transition from a very profitable high-margin model, to a commodity low-margin model, the industry will be more opponent than cooperative partner in this process. Two policies which seem to me as having been notably helpful, are mandatory open-access tied to government funding of research, and the continued existence of sci-hub. Which suggests spreading the former, and avoiding actions which endanger the near-term existence of the latter. Endorsement doesn't seem needed... merely deferred enforcement. Sci-hub both remedies the societal harm of restrictive access, and reduces industry incentive to slow the transition. Perhaps something vaguely resembling this deal might be where we end up long term, but for now, it seems more like society is in an actively abusive relationship, giving up some of its limited leverage, for an untrustworthy commitment to do less harm, to some, for a time. > generic medicine Nod. Perhaps that makes for an interesting analogy. Imagine pharma had years ago offered India a deal: we'll give you lower-cost access to many medicines for a time, if you shut down your generic medicine industry.